Historical analysis of Clean Hydrogen JU Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles, Buses and Refuelling Infrastructure Projects : evaluation of contribution towards the state of the art.
Date: 2024-03-07
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: EU Member State, adaptation to climate change, available energy resources, clean technology, climate change policy, electricity storage device, energy production, energy research, energy technology, fuel cell, hydrogen, reduction of gas emissions, renewable energy, report, research project, sustainable development

Historical Analysis of Clean Hydrogen JU 
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles, Buses and 
Refuelling Infrastructure Projects 

Evaluation of Contribution towards the State of the Art 

Bravo Diaz L., Boillot L 

2024

ISSN 1831-9424

EUR 31876 EN

This  document  is  a  publication  by  the  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC),  the  European  Commission’s  science  and  knowledge 
service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The contents of this 
publication do not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission 
nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. For 
information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the source is neither 
Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the referenced source. The designations employed and the 
presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European 
Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation 
 of its frontiers or boundaries. 

 Contact information  
 Name: Laura Bravo Diaz 
 Address: Westerduinweg 3, 1755 LE Petten, Netherlands 
 Email: Laura.BRAVO-DIAZ@ec.europa.eu 
 Tel.: +31 (0)224 565982 

 EU Science Hub 
 https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu 

JRC137101

EUR 31876 EN

PDF ISBN 978-92-68-13418-4    

ISSN 1831-9424  

doi:10.2760/892745   

KJ-NA-31-876-EN-N

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2024 

© European Union, 2024  

The reuse policy of the European Commission documents is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 
December  2011  on  the  reuse  of  Commission  documents  (OJ  L  330,  14.12.2011,  p.  39).  Unless  otherwise  noted,  the 
reuse  of  this  document  is  authorised  under  the  Creative  Commons  Attribution  4.0  International  (CC  BY  4.0)  licence 
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).  This  means  that  reuse  is  allowed  provided  appropriate  credit  is  given  and 
any changes are indicated.  

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned by the European Union permission must be 
sought directly from the copyright holders. 

How to cite this report: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Bravo Diaz, L. and Boillot, L., Historical Analysis of 
Clean Hydrogen JU Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles, Buses and Refuelling Infrastructure Projects, Publications Office of the 
European Union, Luxembourg, 2024, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/892745, JRC137101. 

 
 
 
 
Contents 

Abstract ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1 

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2 

1 

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3 

1.1  EU Policy Context and the Push for Hydrogen ...........................................................................................................................................3 

1.2  Recent Developments on the Role of Hydrogen in Climate Policies: Road Transport ..............................................3 

1.3  The Role of the Clean Hydrogen Joint Undertaking and its predecessors .........................................................................4 

1.4  Report Structure....................................................................................................................................................................................................................5 

2  Methodology .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6 

3  Analysis of Clean Hydrogen JU FCEV, FCEB and HRS projects ..................................................................................................................8 

3.1  Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles Projects .................................................................................................................................................................... 12 

3.1.1 

Historical overview of FCEVs projects preceding the Clean Hydrogen JU projects ................................ 12 

3.1.2  Overview of Clean Hydrogen JU FCEVs demonstration projects ........................................................................... 16 

3.1.3 

State of the Art ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 21 

3.1.3.1 

Technical development ................................................................................................................................................................. 21 

3.1.3.2  Manufacturing ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 

3.1.3.3  Deployment ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 26 

3.1.4 

Progress against the State of the Art ........................................................................................................................................... 28 

3.1.4.1 

Early FCEVs initiatives (2000-2010) ................................................................................................................................ 28 

3.1.4.2 

Clean Hydrogen JU projects (2011-2023) ................................................................................................................... 28 

Early Clean Hydrogen JU FCEV projects (2011-2014) ....................................................................................................... 28 

Recent Clean Hydrogen JU FCEV projects (2015-2023) ................................................................................................... 30 

3.1.5 

Key Performance Indicators and Targets ................................................................................................................................... 33 

3.1.6 

Performance evaluation of FCEV projects in Europe ....................................................................................................... 35 

3.1.6.1  Number of vehicles deployed in operation (units) ................................................................................................ 35 

3.1.6.2  Number of vehicles deployed, cumulative (units) ................................................................................................. 39 

3.1.6.3  Distance driven (km) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 39 

3.1.6.4  Distance driven, cumulative (km) ......................................................................................................................................... 40 

3.1.6.5 

Fuel Cell System Durability (h) ............................................................................................................................................... 41 

3.1.6.6 

Hydrogen consumption (kgH2/100km) ............................................................................................................................. 47 

3.1.6.7 

Availability (%) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 49 

3.1.6.8  Maintenance (EUR/km) .................................................................................................................................................................. 50 

3.1.6.9 

Fuel cell system cost (EUR/kW) .............................................................................................................................................. 51 

3.1.6.10  Areal power density (W/cm2) .................................................................................................................................................... 52 

i 

3.1.6.11  PGM loading (g/kW) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 53 

3.1.6.12  Cell Volumetric power (kW/l) .................................................................................................................................................... 54 

3.1.7 

Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 55 

3.2  Fuel Cell Electric Buses Projects .......................................................................................................................................................................... 56 

3.2.1 

Historical FCEBs Projects .......................................................................................................................................................................... 56 

3.2.2  Overview of Clean Hydrogen JU FCEBs demonstration projects ........................................................................... 59 

3.2.3 

State of the Art ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 64 

3.2.3.1 

Technical development ................................................................................................................................................................. 64 

3.2.3.2  Manufacturing ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 66 

3.2.3.3  Deployment ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 66 

3.2.4 

Progress against the State of the Art in Europe .................................................................................................................. 68 

3.2.4.1 

Early FCEBs initiatives (2000-2010) ................................................................................................................................ 68 

3.2.4.2 

Clean Hydrogen JU FCEB projects (2011-2023) .................................................................................................... 69 

Early Clean Hydrogen JU FCEB projects (2011-2019) ....................................................................................................... 69 

Recent Clean Hydrogen JU FCEB projects (2020-2023) ................................................................................................... 72 

3.2.5 

Key Performance Indicators and Targets ................................................................................................................................... 75 

3.2.6 

Performance evaluation of FCEB projects in Europe ....................................................................................................... 76 

3.2.6.1  Number of buses deployed in operation (units) ...................................................................................................... 76 

3.2.6.2  Number of buses deployed, cumulative (units) ....................................................................................................... 80 

3.2.6.3  Distance driven (km) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 80 

3.2.6.4  Distance driven, cumulative (km) ......................................................................................................................................... 81 

3.2.6.5 

Fuel Cell System Durability (h) ............................................................................................................................................... 82 

3.2.6.6 

Hydrogen consumption (kgH2/100km) ............................................................................................................................. 87 

3.2.6.7 

Availability (%) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 91 

3.2.6.8  Maintenance (EUR) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 92 

3.2.6.9 

Fuel cell system cost (EUR/kW) .............................................................................................................................................. 94 

3.2.6.10  Bus cost (thousand EUR) ............................................................................................................................................................. 95 

3.2.7 

Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 96 

4  Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................................................. 98 

4.1  Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 98 

4.2  Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 98 

References ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 100 

List of abbreviations and definitions .................................................................................................................................................................................. 103 

List of figures ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 105 

List of tables ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 108 

ii 

Abstract 

This technical report provides a comprehensive historical analysis of the Clean Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (JU) 
projects focused on Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs), Fuel Cell Electric Buses (FCEBs), and associated Hydrogen 
Refueling Stations (HRS) within the European Union. The FCEV, FCEB and HRS demonstration activities of Clean 
Hydrogen  JU  projects  aim  to  prove  that  hydrogen-powered  vehicles  and  HRS  are  capable  of  substituting 
conventional vehicles, offering climate benefits. Their ultimate goal is to accelerate the entrance of fuel cell 
technology in the European car and bus manufacturing industry by showcasing market readiness and creating 
competitive cost refuelling networks with positive business cases. Anchored in the EU's commitment to the Paris 
Agreement and the Glasgow Climate Pact, the report delves into the policy context, strategic initiatives, and 
recent developments that have shaped the EU's approach to hydrogen as a pivotal component of its energy 
transition, particularly within the transport sector. The report outlines the methodology used for the historical 
analysis, detailing the data sources, key performance indicators (KPIs), and performance assessment approach. 
The  achievements  of  these  demonstrations  over  the  years,  and  their  implications  for  the  wider  rollout  of 
hydrogen mobility across the EU, are discussed, tracking the relevant KPIs progress for each technology. The 
conclusions and recommendations highlight the pivotal role that the Clean Hydrogen JU and its predecessors 
played in advancing hydrogen mobility, while also addressing challenges and offering key recommendations to 
foster the growth of hydrogen mobility in Europe. The findings underscore the potential of hydrogen mobility in 
achieving  ambitious  decarbonization  targets  and  building  a  resilient,  efficient,  and  low-carbon  future  for 
European transport. 

1 

 
 
 
 
Acknowledgements  

The author would like to express sincere gratitude to the following entities and individuals for their valuable 
contributions to this technical report. The author would like to thank the Clean Hydrogen JU for providing the 
funding for the study of the State of the Art of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles, Fuel Cell Electric Buses, and Hydrogen 
Refueling Stations, which was contracted to PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) and served as the baseline, among 
other sources, for depicting the state of the art in this report. The author would like to acknowledge Eveline 
Weidner (JRC.C1) for her meticulous review, which greatly improved the overall content and accuracy of this 
report. Heartfelt thanks go to Beatriz Acosta Iborra (JRC.C1) for her thorough review and insightful comments, 
which  significantly  enriched  the  depth  and  quality  of  this  technical  report.  Special  thanks  are  extended  to 
Marcelina  Grabowska  and  Sotiris  Fragkiskos  (JRC  T.5)  for  their  invaluable  assistance  with  the  Tools  for 
Innovation  Monitoring  (TIM)  software,  which  was  instrumental  in  the  data  analysis  and  reporting  process. 
Appreciation  is  extended  to  Lisa  Ruf  (Element  Energy),  Jessica  Pickles  (Element  Energy),  Lena  Müller-Lohse 
(Elements Energy), Klaus Stolzenburg (Planet Energie), Simon Whitehouse (Sphera), Vincent Mattelaer (Toyota 
Motors Europe) and Jon Bjorn Skulason (Icelandic New Energy Ltd) for the discussions on aspects of this report 
that significantly enhanced its quality. 

Authors 

Laura Bravo Diaz 

Lionel Boillot 

2 

 
 
 
 
1 

Introduction  

The transition to a sustainable and low-carbon future is a prominent global challenge that has been embraced 
with determination by the European Union. Anchored in its commitment to the Paris Agreement and the Glasgow 
Climate Pact, the EU has undertaken a series of ambitious policy initiatives aimed at greenhouse gas emissions 
(GHG) reduction and the fostering of renewable energy sources. Key among these initiatives is the strategic 
focus on hydrogen as an integral part of the EU’s energy transition, particularly within the transport sector, 
which  includes  Fuel  Cell  Electric  Vehicles  (FCEVs),  Fuel  Cell  Electric  Buses  (FCEBs),  and  the  development  of 
Hydrogen Refuelling Stations (HRS). 

This report delves into the historical analysis of the Clean Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (JU) projects that have 
been pivotal in advancing these hydrogen-based transport solutions. It offers a comprehensive overview of the 
projects involving FCEVs, FCEBs and HRS, the State of the Art (SoA) of these technologies, the deployment and 
state of implementation of the FCEV and FCEB projects, and the critical role played by the Clean Hydrogen JU 
in fostering these technologies. 

1.1  EU Policy Context and the Push for Hydrogen 

The EU’s policy landscape sets the backdrop for this historical analysis. The European Union, as a signatory to 
the  Paris  Agreement  (COP21),  has  made  significant  strides  in  climate  action,  with  a  renewed  commitment 
highlighted in the Glasgow Climate Pact (COP26) and the recent agreements from COP28. The last ones focused 
on transitioning away from fossil energy by 2050, tripling the global renewable energy capacity and doubling 
the rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030.  

Legislative  frameworks,  such  as  the  2030  Climate  &  Energy  Framework  (European  Commission,  2021),  the 
Clean Energy for all Europeans package (European Commission, 2019), and the European Green Deal (European 
Commission, 2019), have laid the groundwork for a comprehensive approach to achieving ambitious greenhouse 
gas emissions (GHG) reduction targets. The emergence of the Fit for 55 package (European Commission, 2019), 
in particular the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation (European Union, 2023), and the Hydrogen and Gas 
Markets Decarbonisation package (European Commission, 2021) has further sharpened the focus on alternative 
fuels, including hydrogen. 

In response to geopolitical shifts and the imperative for energy security, the REPowerEU Plan presented by the 
European Commission in May 2022 amplifies these efforts, setting even loftier goals for renewable energy 
production  and  the  integration  of  hydrogen  into  the  energy  mix  (European  Commission,  2022).  The 
establishment of the NextGenerationEU (European Commission, 2022) and the European Hydrogen Strategy 
(European Commission, 2020) underscores the EU's commitment to fostering a robust hydrogen economy that 
will contribute to the decarbonisation of various sectors, including transportation. 

1.2  Recent  Developments  on  the  Role  of  Hydrogen  in  Climate  Policies:  Road 

Transport 

Hydrogen's potential as a versatile energy carrier and its role in the decarbonisation of the EU’s energy system 
cannot be overstated. From its current primary use in the chemical industry to its promise as a renewable energy 
source, hydrogen stands at the cusp of a transformative shift. The EU's strategies and action plans reflect a 
concerted  effort  to  scale  up  the  production  and  application  of  clean  hydrogen,  particularly  in  hard-to-
decarbonize sectors like heavy transport. The Fit-for-55 package and the REPowerEU Plan further delineate the 
role of hydrogen, setting specific targets for its production and use in the EU. 

The Fit-for-55 package contains a set of interconnected proposals designed to make the EU's climate, energy, 
land use, transport and taxation policies in line with the targets set by the European Green Deal. The following 
proposals relevant to hydrogen road transport applications passed through the trilogue legislative process and 
have been approved by the Council and the Parliament in 2023:  

3 

 
 
 
• 

• 

The Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR) provides specific deployment targets for 2025 
and 2030, replacing and completing the original Directive of 2014. While the previous Alternative Fuels 
Infrastructure  Directive  (AFID)  was  only  foreseeing  voluntary  Member  States  adoption  of  hydrogen 
solutions for mobility, the AFIR now sets minimal requirements for hydrogen refuelling stations serving 
both cars and trucks, which must be deployed from 2030 onwards in all urban nodes and every 200 
km along the TEN-T core network. The Regulation has been published in the EU’s official journal on the 
23rd September 2023 (European Union, 2023).  

The revision of the EU Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS) package has been approved in May 2023 
(European  Union,  2023):  Among  other  provisions,  the  revision  extends  the  ETS  to  buildings,  road 
transport and the maritime sectors. To ensure a fair transition, it introduces as well a Social Climate 
Fund to address the social impacts of the new system on vulnerable groups affected by energy or 
mobility poverty. The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) Regulation is part of this package 
(European Union, 2023). The CBAM aims at levelling the price of carbon between domestic products 
and imports and ensure that the EU's climate objectives are not undermined by production relocating 
to countries with less ambitious policies. The targets set on hydrogen supply of the REPowerEU plan 
imply  the  necessity  of  including  hydrogen  imports  into  the  CBAM.  Therefore,  among  the  products 
initially covered by CBAM are iron and steel, fertilisers, electricity and hydrogen. 

Through the financing of the REPowerEU Plan, it strengthens all previous hydrogen-related policies by increasing 
the  deployment  targets  by  means  of  its  Hydrogen  Accelerator  Pillar  (European  Commission,  2022).  Directly 
relevant  to  the  hydrogen  road  transport  applications  is  the  increasing  Clean  Hydrogen  Joint  Undertaking’s 
budget by 200 million EUR to double the number of Hydrogen Valleys from 23 to 46 by 2025. 

1.3  The Role of the Clean Hydrogen Joint Undertaking and its predecessors 

The ambitious plan for the gradual roll-out of clean hydrogen technologies needs to be supported by research 
and  innovation  actions  to  increase  their  technology  readiness  level,  reduce  their  costs  and  allow  their 
demonstration. The EU has been supporting research and innovation for hydrogen technologies for many years, 
starting  through  traditional  collaborative  projects  under  Framework  Programmes  (FP4,  FP5  and  FP6),  and 
subsequently since 2008 with the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Joint Undertakings (FCH JU and FCH 2 JU), under FP7 
and Horizon 2020 (H2020) respectively. 

The Clean Hydrogen JU is the continuation of FCH JU and took over all activities of its predecessors. In line with 
all policy developments described above, it is crucial that the Clean Hydrogen JU continues to support its existing 
projects  and  further  develop  technology  solutions  that  will  help  materialise  the  benefits  of  hydrogen 
technologies in support of the high-level EU policy agenda. It has the leading role in research activities related 
to hydrogen, collaborating closely with most of the end-use European partnerships on hydrogen applications in 
the relevant sectors. 

The European Commission Joint Research Centre's Directorate for Energy, Transport and Climate (JRC) supports 
the  Clean  Hydrogen  JU  on  hydrogen  research  and  technology  monitoring  and  assessment,  among  other 
activities.  As  a  part  of  the  knowledge  management  activities  of  the  Clean  Hydrogen  JU,  the  JRC  has  been 
commissioned to perform a series of historical analyses by topic area in order to assess the impact of funded 
projects and the progression of the FCH JU Multi-Annual Work Plan (MAWP) towards its objectives. 

These  reports  consider  the  performance  of  projects  against  the  overall  Programme  Targets  for  specific 
technologies, using Key Performance Indicators (KPI) for assessment. The purpose of such an exercise is to see 
whether and how the programme has enhanced the state of the art and to identify potential Research and 
Innovation gaps for the future. 

Reports assessing progress of two technologies have been published, and the Clean Hydrogen JU has requested 
that the next report of the series will focus on FCEVs, FCEBs and their associated refuelling infrastructure. This 
report will cover a historical analysis from 1998 to 2022 on the progress of the FCEV and FCEB technologies. 

4 

 
 
 
 
The report will highlight the crucial contributions of the Clean Hydrogen JU in supporting research, innovation, 
and the deployment of hydrogen technologies. The evolution of the JU from its inception under the FP7 program 
to  its  current  iteration  under  Horizon  Europe  will  be  detailed,  showcasing  its  pivotal  role  in  advancing  the 
technological readiness of hydrogen solutions and its alignment with high-level EU policy objectives. 

In summary, this report aims to provide a thorough historical analysis of the Clean Hydrogen JU projects on 
FCEVs,  FCEBs,  and  HRS,  set against  the  backdrop  of  the EU's  evolving  policy  landscape  and  its  pursuit  of  a 
sustainable and resilient energy future. 

1.4  Report Structure 

This report aims to provide an historical overview and an assessment of the Clean Hydrogen JU projects in the 
field of FCEVs, FCEBs, and associated refuelling infrastructure. The purpose of this historical review is to assess 
whether and how the Clean Hydrogen Joint Undertaking projects have contributed to the advancement of the 
state of the art.  

First, the methodology followed throughout the historical analysis is thoroughly described in Chapter 2. Chapter 
3 contains the whole analysis of the Clean Hydrogen JU projects. It starts with a brief funding overview of the 
Clean  Hydrogen  JU  projects  and  an  analysis  of  the  organisations  and  Member  States  (MS)  participating.  A 
comparison is drawn between the organisations and MS participating within the overall 35 projects reviewed 
(1998-2022) and the participation within the 17 Clean Hydrogen JU projects (2010-2022).  

The Chapter 3 is then splitted into two main sections, one dedicated to FCEV projects (Section 3.1) and one 
dedicated to FCEB projects (Section 3.2). Both sections followed the same structure. First, an historical overview 
of projects preceding the Clean Hydrogen JU projects is provided (Section 3.1.1 for FCEVs and Section 3.2.1 for 
FCEBs). Secondly, an overview of the Clean Hydrogen JU demonstration projects is detailed (Section 3.1.2 for 
FCEVs  and  Section  3.2.2  for  FCEBs).  Next,  the  State  of  the  Art  (SoA)  for  each  technology  is  outlined,  with 
particular attention given to technical development, manufacturing and deployment (Section 3.1.3 for FCEVs 
and Section 3.2.3 for FCEBs). Following this, the progress against the SoA in Europe is evaluated (Section 3.1.4 
for  FCEVs  and  Section  3.2.4  for  FCEBs).  The  following  section  focuses  on  presenting  the  Key  Performance 
Indicators  (KPIs)  and  targets  (Section  3.1.5  for  FCEVs  and  Section  3.2.5  for  FCEBs).  Then,  the  performance 
evaluation  of the  projects  in  Europe  is  discussed  (Section  3.1.6  for  FCEVs  and  Section  3.2.6  for  FCEBs) and 
summarised (Section 3.1.7 for FCEVs and Section 3.2.7 for FCEBs). 

Finally, conclusions and recommendations based on the analysis of the SoA and the performace of the Clean 
Hydrogen projects are provided in Chapter 4. Following Chapter 4, references, a list of abbreviations, a list of 
figures and a list of tables are provided.  

In the report the terms “Clean Hydrogen JU”, “Fuel Cell Hydrogen JU (FCH JU)” and “Fuel Cell Hydrogen 2 JU 
(FCH 2 JU)” will be used indiferently to refer to the Clean Hydrogen Joint Undertaking and its predecessors.  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
2  Methodology 

The  objective  of  this  historical  review  is  to  assess  whether  and  how  the  Clean  Hydrogen  Joint  Undertaking 
projects have contributed to the advancement of the state of the art in the field of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles 
(FCEVs), Fuel Cell Electric Buses (FCEBs), and related refuelling infrastructure (HRS). The primary focus was to 
use Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for both FCEVs and FCEBs to demonstrate how funded projects have 
performed against the State of the Art (SoA) and overall Programme Targets. To achieve this, several steps 
were taken. 

First, the evolution of the SoA for both FCEV and FCEB technologies was reviewed. This was accomplished by 
integrating various information sources, including a study commissioned to PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) by 
the Clean Hydrogen JU and the JRC. The aim of this study was to examine the technological advancements in 
hydrogen  mobility  for  FCEVs,  FCEBs,  and  HRS  worldwide  from  2008  to  2020.  Publicly  available  data  was 
collected from various sources, such as IHS Markit and energy agency publications, and in some cases, paid 
research publications previously accessible to the contractors. The data was then analysed and presented in the 
PWC study. The information from this study and other publicly available sources were reviewed and integrated 
in this report in its different sections to follow the evolution of the SoA of these technologies from the early 
2000s until today. KPIs and targets were drawn from the analysis of SoA to evaluate the performance of the 
Clean Hydrogen JU projects with their respective KPIs. The purpose of such an exercise is to see whether and 
how  the  programme  has  enhanced  the  SoA,  and  to  identify  potential  research  and  innovation  gaps  for  the 
future. 

As  the  next  step,  European  projects  involving  FCEV  and  FCEB  technologies  were  identified  through  CORDIS 
database. A total of 35 projects were reviewed in this report (including projects preceding the Clean Hydrogen 
JU). The online software TIM (Tools for Innovation Monitoring) developed by the JRC was used to provide an 
overview of the organisations and Member States participating in these projects.  

For each technology an overview of both, the pioneering projects mainly from Framework Programmes 4, 5 and 
6 (FP4, FP5 and FP6), and the Clean Hydrogen JU projects (FP7 and H2020) was provided. However, the core of 
this report centred on the analysis of the Clean Hydrogen JU projects. These projects belonged to the FCH JU 
Panel 1 category (Trials and Deployment of Fuel Cell Applications – Transport), now the Clean Hydrogen JU Pillar 
3 category (Transport). These are a total of 17 projects focusing on the large-scale demonstration of FCEVs 
and FCEBs in Europe. For these projects, the primary sources for the project KPIs was the final report (which is 
generally  submitted  within  3  months  of  the  end  of  the  project).  The  full  methodology  outlined  below  was 
performed for these projects in two sections, one for FCEV projects and another for FCEB projects.  

Templates were created for each technology (FCEV and FCEB). These contain a set of deployment parameters 
and a series of KPIs, based on the list of programme targets given in the Addendum to the Multi-annual Work 
Program  (MAWP)  from  2018  (Fuel  Cells  and  Hydrogen  2  Joint  Undertaking  (FCH  JU),  2018).  These  are 
supplemented by additional KPIs from the TRUST database (Technology Reporting Using Structured Templates), 
which was set up by the FCH 2 JU to collect quantitative data from FCH 2 JU projects, and is now part of the 
required reporting process for ongoing projects.  

Additional KPIs were included where the reported values were given in a different form to those identified in 
the MAWP. For example, for some projects durability was often not reported but hours of operation were so an 
analysis on the “hours of operation” parameter was included. Additional parameters were also included if they 
were repeatedly required in order to calculate the KPIs identified in the MAWP.  

In the final step, the KPI template was filled in for each project, using data obtained from the following sources, 
in order of priority: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Project Final Report (if available) 

The latest update of the TRUST database 

Intermediate Project Reports   

Other source documents 

6 

 
 
As mentioned, it was often necessary to re-calculate the KPI values in order to include them in a standard form 
or unit, and qualifying comments are provided within the template provided for each project. This comments 
section is also used to give details of the conditions under which particular KPIs were obtained in the instance 
that they differ from and are additional to those in the MAWP. 

For each KPI included in the template, the following fields were completed: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The parameter (KPI) 

The definition of the parameter in TRUST 

The definition of the parameter according to the MAWP 

Unit of the parameter 

Value achieved 

Comments (the conditions under which the particular performance was achieved and, if it had been 
calculated, then from which values) 

Source (report, page number) 

Dissemination level (Confidential or Public) of the report in which the KPI value was found.  

It should be noted that in many cases it was not possible to determine all the KPI values for a particular project. 
The reasons for this vary from project to project, but may either be due to the project not addressing all the 
KPIs listed in the templates (i.e. the performance parameter was not part of the project scope) or where the 
responsible has not reported the KPI value. It should further be mentioned that the MAWP programme targets 
were only published in the Addendum to the MAWP in 2018 whereas prior to this time projects were responding 
to other KPIs in Annual Work Programmes or had set their own project targets. Therefore, early FCH JU projects 
may not necessarily have been fully aligned with the current targets of the programme. 

The deployment parameters and KPI values obtained for the relevant projects were then plotted against the 
SoA and target values to identify trends and draw conclusions in this report. 

7 

 
 
 
 
3  Analysis of Clean Hydrogen JU FCEV, FCEB and HRS projects 

The  Clean  Hydrogen  JU  (previously  known  as  FCH  JU  and  FCH  2  JU)  has  been  funding  projects  on  the 
demonstration of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs), Fuel Cell Electric Buses (FCEBs), and Hydrogen Refuelling 
Stations (HRS) since 2010. In Figure 1, the cumulative level of EU funding from the Clean Hydrogen JU towards 
FCEV, FCEB and the associated HRS demonstration projects is shown. The demonstration projects are those 
aiming at large-scale FCEV, FCEB and corresponding HRS deployment and performance monitoring. The value 
given in the plot is the cumulative EU funding value against the project start year. The EU funding value in the 
plot has been split into FCEV and FCEB categories (HRS deployment is contained within these two categories 
since they were funded as part of the projects on FCEV and FCEB). It can be seen that in the early years (2010-
2013) the most funding has been applied to FCEB projects whilst lower levels of funding have been directed at 
FCEV projects. However, from 2014 onwards the level of funding of FCEV has equiparated to that of FCEB. As 
of 2023, the cumulative EU funding value for FCEB was close to 126 million EUR while the cumulative funding 
dedicated to FCEV demonstration project was 116 million EUR, approximately.  

Figure 1. Cumulative level of Clean Hydrogen JU funding versus project start year for FCEV, FCEB and HRS technologies 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2023. 

The online software TIM (Technology Innovation Monitoring) developed by the JRC has been used to provide an 
overview of organisations that have taken part in the 35 projects reviewed in this report (including projects 
preceding  the Clean  Hydrogen  JU).  Figure 2  (a)  shows  the organisations  that are  involved  in all  35  projects 
relevant  to  FCEV,  FCEB  and  HRS  from  1998  until  2022  whilst  Figure  3  (a)  shows  only  those  organisations 
involved in the 17 Clean Hydrogen JU demonstration projects covering the period from 2010 until 2022, looking 
at large-scale FCEV, FCEB and HRS deployment and performance monitoring.  

In the plots, the size of the nodes (circles) is proportional to the number of projects a partner has been involved 
in whilst the thickness of the lines is proportional to the number of links (i.e. the number of projects partners 
have been involved in together). TIM uses a particular algorithm to cluster related items into a “Community”. 

8 

Each  community  has  a  different  colour.  1  Basically,  the  coloured  clusters  identified  by  TIM  are  formed  by 
partners that collaborate more frequently with each other because they share participation in the same projects. 

In  both  figures,  a  number  of  key  partners  that  are  common  to  a  number  of  projects  can  be  identified.  For 
example, vehicle manufacturers such as Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (BMW) and Honda are connected in a 
community/cluster with HRS developers such as ITM Power in Figure 2 (a) referring to overall projects. Another 
example is Mercedes-Benz group and Hyundai connected in a cluster with hydrogen supplier Air Products in 
Figure  3  (a)  referring  to  recent  projects.  This  shows  the  strong  link  between  vehicle  and  infrastructure 
deployment in the projects over the years. The top ten organisations in terms of project participation can also 
be observed in both figures and it is notable that most of the organisations involved in the early FCEV, FCEB 
and HRS initiatives are also involved in the most recent demonstration projects funded by the Clean Hydrogen 
JU (17 projects).  

The organisations that participated the most in projects covering the whole studied period (1998-2022) were 
Air  Liquide  SA  (gas  technologies  company,  hydrogen  supplier  and  HRS  manufacturer),  followed  by  Element 
Energy  LTD  (energy  consultancy  with  a  role  on  project  coordination)  and  Mercedes-Benz  group  (vehicle 
manufacturer). This shows the importance of the different types of organisation in the demonstration projects: 
1) hydrogen refuelling infrastructure developers, which are common for FCEV and FCEB deployment proyects, 
2) consultancy companies coordinating projects, also common for FCEV and FCEB deployment projects, and 3) 
vehicle manufacturers, FCEV or FCEB depending on the project.  

If we focus only in the recent projects (Figure 3 (a)), we can observe some similarities. The organisations with 
major participation in the FCEV, FCEB and associated HRS demonstration projects funded by the Clean Hydrogen 
JU (2010-2022) were again Element Energy LTD, followed by London Bus Services LTD (bus operator) and Air 
Liquide SA. The evolution of the participation of organisations and shifts observed over the years will be studied 
more thoroughly and separately for FCEV and FCEB in sections 3.1 and 3.2, respectively. 

In the plot shown in Figure 2 (b) and Figure 3 (b), the size of the circles represents the number of projects that 
contain at least one consortium member from that EU member state. The thickness of the links between the 
circles  shows  the  number  of  projects  in  common.2  This  plot  shows  that  the  countries  that  are  active  in  the 
greatest number of projects tend to be the larger European economies of Germany, the UK and France. Belgium, 
The  Netherlands,  Italy  and  Denmark  ranked  also  very  high  in  project  participation.  The  member  state  that 
participated in the most projects covering the period 1998-2022 was Germany, followed by the United Kingdom 
and Belgium (Figure 2 (b)).  

If we only consider the FCEV, FCEB and HRS demonstration projects funded by the Clean Hydrogen JU (2010-
2022),  the  United  Kingdom  was  the  state  that  participated  in  the  most  projects  followed  by  Germany  and 
Belgium (Figure 3 (b)). 

(1) 

(2) 

The size of the node represents the number of projects a partner is involved in, whilst the thickness of the links represents the number 
of projects in common between the linked partners. The coloured groupings are potential clusters identified by TIM’s algorithm. The 
table shows the top 10 participants from the plot. 
The size of the node represents the number of projects that has at least one participating organisation from that member state. The 
thickness of the links between the nodes is proportional to the number of projects those member states have in common. The United 
Kingdom does not appear in the graph as it is not a current EU member state. The table shows the top 10 countries represented, 
including the United Kingdom for comparison. 

9 

 
 
                                                       
 
Figure 2. TIM plots showing (a) the participants for all projects considered in this report (35 projects covering the period 
1998-2022) 34. (b) EU member state participation for all projects considered (35 projects covering the period 1998-
2022).5 

a) 

b) 

Source: JRC (TIM) based on data from CORDIS and Clean Hydrogen JU, 2022. 

3  

4  

5  

The size of the node represents the number of projects a partner is involved in, whilst the thickness of the links represents the number 
of projects in common between the linked partners. The coloured groupings are potential clusters identified by TIM’s algorithm. The 
table shows the top 10 participants from the plot. 
The organisation described as “European Commission” encompasses participation from the following sub-institutions found in CORDIS: 
“DG JRC”, “Hydrogen Fuel Cells and Electro-Mobility in European Regions”, and “Commission of the European Communities”. 
The size of the node represents the number of projects that has at least one participating organisation from that member state. The 
thickness of the links between the nodes is proportional to the number of projects those member states have in common. The United 
Kingdom does not appear in the graph as it is not a current EU member state. The table shows the top 10 countries represented, 
including the United Kingdom (an EU member state when the project was awarded) for comparison. 

10 

 
 
 
 
                                                       
 
 
Figure 3. TIM plots showing (a) the participants for Clean Hydrogen JU demonstration projects (17 projects in the 2010-
2022 period).67 (b) EU member state participation for Clean Hydrogen JU demonstration projects (17 projects in the 2010-
2022 period).8 

a) 

b) 

Source: JRC (TIM) based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2022. 

6  

7  

8  

The size of the node represents the number of projects a partner is involved in, whilst the thickness of the links represents the number 
of projects in common between the linked partners. The coloured groupings are potential clusters identified by TIM’s algorithm. The 
table shows the top 10 participants from the plot. 
The organisation described as “European Commission” encompasses participation from the following sub-institutions found in CORDIS: 
“DG JRC”, “Commission of the European Communities” and “Hydrogen Fuel Cells and Electro-Mobility in European Regions”. 
The size of the node represents the number of projects that has at least one participating organisation from that member state. The 
thickness of the links between the nodes is proportional to the number of projects those member states have in common. The United 
Kingdom does not appear in the graph as it is not a current EU member state. The table shows the top 10 countries represented, 
including the United Kingdom (an EU member state when the project was awarded) for comparison. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                       
 
3.1  Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles Projects 

3.1.1  Historical overview of FCEVs projects preceding the Clean Hydrogen JU projects 

The  following  table  contains  a  summary  of  all the  early  FCEV  relevant  projects  that  paved  the  way  for  the 
development of the FCEV technology (mainly in FP4, FP5 and FP6). These projects constituted the founding 
stone for the demonstration projects that were developed in later FPs (FP7 and H2020). These projects focused 
on the harmonization of regulations, licensing, approval, public acceptance and early demonstration of FCEVs. 
The table includes the project acronym, the corresponding FP, the duration (start/end year), the project metrics 
(number of FCEVs deployed, number of HRSs deployed, participant cities, project total costs and corresponding 
EU funding), and a short description of the original project objectives. 

Table 1. Summary of the historical FCEV projects (early FCEV initiatives, mainly from FP4, FP5 and FP6). 

Project  

FP 

Start/End  

Project in numbers 

Project Title and Summary of original Project Objectives 

EIHP 

FP4 

1998-2000 

EIHP2 

FP5 

2001-2004 

ACCEPTH2 

FP5 

2003-2005 

European Integrated Hydrogen Project. 

This project was the first internationally integrated activity for the 
harmonization of rules, regulations and safety requirements jointly 
involving  technology  companies,  vehicle  operators  and  licensing 
authorities  in  the  field  of  hydrogen  technologies.  It  provided  the 
basis  for  global  harmonization  initiatives  in  the  field  of  hydrogen 
technologies. It contributed to the dissemination and formation of 
acceptability in Europe, making use of already developed European 
prototype technology and of initially available approval experience, 
available from only very few operators, authorities and technology 
companies at the time.  

European Integrated Hydrogen Project 2. 

This project was the phase 2 of the previous EIHP project. Its goals 
were:  1)  Development  of  a  worldwide-harmonised  regulation  for 
hydrogen  fuelled  road  vehicles;  2)  Development of  procedures  for 
periodic vehicle inspections (roadworthiness); and 3) Development of 
a  worldwide  standard  or  regulation  and  of  periodic  inspection 
procedures for the relevant refuelling infrastructure, subsystems or 
components. 

Public Acceptance of Hydrogen Transport Technologies 

This  project  aims  to  achieve  a  better  understanding  of  the 
acceptance of hydrogen technologies to enable the introduction of 
hydrogen vehicles with a clear strategy towards public acceptance. 
The work compares public attitudes in London, Luxemburg, Munich, 
Perth and Oakland. 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

4.9 M€  

2.4 M€ (48%) 

n/a 

n/a 

London (UK) 

Luxemburg (LU) 

Munich (DE) 

0.4 M€  

0.4 M€ (100%) 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Project 

FP 

Start/End  

Project in numbers 

Project Title and Summary of original Project Objectives 

ZERO REGIO 

FP6 

2004-2009 

n/a 

n/a 

Rhein-Main (DE) 

Lombardia (IT) 

18.7 M€  

7.5 M€ (40%) 

HARMONHY 

FP6 

2005-2006 

n/a 

HYLIGHTS 

FP6 

2006-2008 

n/a 

n/a 

0.5 M€  

0.5 M€ (95%) 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

3.4 M€  

3.2 M€ (93%) 

Lombardia  &  Rhein-Main  towards  Zero  Emission:  Development  & 
Demonstration of Infrastructure Systems for Alternative Motor Fuels 
(Bio-fuels and Hydrogen) 

This  project  aims  to  use  hydrogen  as  an  alternative  motor  fuel, 
produced as primary or waste stream in a chemical plant or via on-
site  production  facilities.  The  specific  goals  of  this  project  are:  1) 
Development of infrastructure systems for alternative motor fuels 
(bio-fuels  &  hydrogen)  and  integrating  them  in  conventional 
refuelling  stations;  2)  Adaptation  and  demonstration  of  700  bar 
refuelling technology for hydrogen; 3) Demonstration of high blends 
of bio-fuels in fuel flexible vehicles; 4) Demonstration of alternative 
fuels  via.  automobile-fleet  field  tests  at  two  different  urban 
locations in the EU, Rhein-Main, Germany and Lombardia, Italy; and 
5) Showing  ways  and  prospects  for  faster  penetration  of  low-
emission alternative motor fuels in the market at short and medium 
term. 

Harmonisation  of  Standards  and  Regulations  for  a  Sustainable 
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology 

This  project  aims  to  make  an  assessment  of  the  activities  on 
hydrogen  and  fuel  cell  related  regulations  and  standards  on  a 
worldwide level. On this basis gaps will be identified and propositions 
to solve fragmentation will be made. The goal is to render European 
collaboration in the field as effective as possible and to increase its 
contribution  at  the  worldwide  level.  Additionally,  the  result  of  the 
discussions could also serve as basis for further projects to be set 
up as response to the last call series of FP6. 

A Coordination Action to Prepare European Hydrogen and Fuel Cell 
Demonstration Projects 

H2/FC 

demonstration 

focuses  on  performing  an  assessment  of 
This  project 
concluded/ongoing 
and 
recommendations for the preparation of HyCOM/Lighthouse Projects 
LP. Although HyLights's assessment focuses on transport, stationary 
and portable H2 applications will be considered if synergies become 
apparent. The project comprises 3 phases: 1) Methodology definition 
and  assessment;  2)  Gaps  analysis  and  development  of 
recommendations; and 3) Continuous monitoring. 

projects 

Deployment  of  Innovative  Low  Power  Fuel  Cell  Vehicle  Fleets  to 
Initiate an Early Market for Hydrogen as an Alternative Fuel in Europe 

This project has the objective to deploy fleets of innovative fuel cell 
vehicles in four regions in Europe (France, Germany, Spain and Italy) 
operating on Hydrogen as an alternative fuel. The fleets are based 
on similar modular technology platforms in a variety of applications 
with the main objective to achieve a large enough volume of vehicles 
(180) to justify an industrial approach to lower costs and overcome 
major cross-sectional barriers. 

HYCHAIN 
TRANS 

MINI-

FP6 

2006-2011 

158 FCEV 

n/a 

Grenoble (FR) 

Modena (IT) 

Soria (ES) 

Emscher Lippe (DE) 

37.6 M€  

17 M€ (45%) 

13 

Project  

FP 

Start/End  

Project in numbers 

Project Title and Summary of original Project Objectives 

NEXTHYLIGHTS 

FP7 

2010-2010 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

1.1 M€  

0.5 M€ (44%) 

Supporting  Action  to  Prepare  Large-Scale  Hydrogen  Vehicle 
Demonstration in Europe 

This project will directly contribute to the FCH JU activities regarding 
the  preparation  of  the  next  calls  on  hydrogen  large-scale  vehicle 
demonstration.  It  will  use  the  Multi  Annual  Implementation  Plan 
(MAIP) as the basis and will help to detail it taking the ambitions and 
opportunities  of  all  stakeholders  into  account.  The  concept  of  the 
project is to develop a strategy (Master Plan) on how to bridge the 
gap  between  today’s  demo  projects  and  the  start  of  market 
introduction  by  building  upon  existing  knowledge  from  various 
activities including: HFP & FCH JU (implementation plans), HyWays, 
R2H, HyLights (methods, instruments and databases), HyFleet:CUTE, 
ZERO REGIO, HYCHAIN and other demo projects.  

Source: JRC based on information from CORDIS, 2022. 

Figure 4 (a) shows the organisations participating at the early FCEV initiatives described in Table 1, covering 9 
projects in the period from 1998 until 2010, using the online software TIM. As mentioned before, the size of 
the nodes (circles) is proportional to the number of projects an organisation has been involved in whilst the 
thickness of the lines is proportional to the number of links (i.e. the number of projects partners have been 
involved in together). TIM uses a particular algorithm to cluster related items into a “Community” or “Cluster”. 
Each community has a different colour. Basically, the coloured clusters identified by TIM are formed by partners 
that collaborate more frequently with each other because they share participation in the same projects.  

It can be noticed in Figure 4 (a) that a number of specific partners are common to a number of projects forming 
coloured clusters. Some of these clusters have a vehicle manufacturer and a hydrogen supplier/HRS developer, 
for example vehicle manufacturer Mercedes Benz with gas company Linde PLC sharing a number of projects. 
This is also observed in another cluster which includes BMW (vehicle manufacturer) with Stuart Energy (now 
Canadian Hydrogenics, hydrogen supplier). This shows a strong collaboration between FCEV manufacturers and 
HRS  developers.  It  is  also  observed  another  type  of  cluster  formed  by  gas  companies/HRS  components 
manufacturers such as Shell PLC, BP PLC, Air products, etc.). This shows an effective collaboration among the 
hydrogen  supply  /  HRS  companies,  sharing  projects.  The  organisations  that  participated  in  the  most  FCEV 
projects covering the period 1998-2010 were Mercedes-Benz group (vehicle manufacturer), L-B Systemtechnik 
GmbH (energy consultancy) and the European Commission (research institution).9 

Figure 4 (b) shows that the countries that were active in the greatest number of FCEV projects during this period 
tend to be the larger European economies. The size of the circles represents the number of projects that contain 
at least one consortium member from that EU member state. The thickness of the links between the circles 
shows  the  number  of  projects  in  common.  The  member  state  that  participated  in  the  most  projects  was 
Germany, followed by The Netherlands and Italy. 

9 The organisation described as “European Commission” refers mainly to European Commission DG JRC. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                       
 
Figure 4. TIM plots showing (a) the participants for all 9 projects considered in Table 1 (early FCEV initiatives 1998-
2010).1011 (b) EU Member State participation for all 9 projects considered in Table 1 (early FCEV initiatives 1998-2010).12  

a) 

b) 

Source: JRC (TIM) based on data from CORDIS, 2022. 

(10)  The size of the node represents the number of projects a partner is involved in, whilst the thickness of the links represents the number 
of projects in common between the linked partners. The coloured groupings are potential clusters identified by TIM’s algorithm. The 
table shows the top 10 participants from the plot. 
The organisation described as “European Commission” encompasses participation from the following sub-institutions found in CORDIS: 
“DG JRC”, “Commission of the European Communities” and “Hydrogen Fuel Cells and Electro-Mobility in European Regions”. 

11  

(12)  The size of the node represents the number of projects that has at least one participating organisation from that member state. The 
thickness of the links between the nodes is proportional to the number of projects those member states have in common. The United 
Kingdom does not appear in the graph as it is not a current EU member state. The table shows the top 10 countries represented, 
including the United Kingdom (an EU member state when the project was awarded) for comparison. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                       
 
3.1.2  Overview of Clean Hydrogen JU FCEVs demonstration projects 

The following table contains a summary of all the relevant FCEVs demonstration projects that have provided 
input values used in this report (Table 2). These projects belong to the FCH JU Panel 1 category (Trials and 
Deployment of Fuel Cell Applications – Transport) and focus on the large-scale demonstration of the FCEV in 
Europe (deployment and performance monitoring). The table includes the project acronym, the corresponding 
FP, the duration (start/end year), the project metrics (number of FCEVs deployed, number of HRSs deployed, 
participant  cities,  project  total  costs  and  corresponding  EU  funding),  and  a  short  description  of  the  original 
project objectives. These projects belong now to the Clean Hydrogen JU Pillar 3 category (Transport). 

Table 2. Summary of all Clean Hydrogen JU FCEV demonstration projects analysed in this report (2010-2023). 

Project  

FP 

Start/End  

Project in numbers 

Project Title and Summary of original Project Objectives 

H2movesSCANDINAVIA 

FP7 

2010-2012 

19 FCEV 

H2moves.eu Scandinavia. 

1 HRS 

DK 

NO 

18.7 M€  

7.7 M€ (41%) 

First  EC  funded  European  Lighthouse  Project  (LHP)  for  FCEVs,  a 
cluster  of  European  demonstration  projects  on  hydrogen  for 
transport.  A  state-of-the-art  HRS  is  to  be  integrated  in  a 
conventional  refuelling  station  in  Oslo.  The  objective  is  to  provide 
hydrogen in a normal retail setting with a fully integrated purchase 
interface and in an urban environment. 10 Mercedes-Benz B-class 
F-CELL cars and 2 Alfa Romeo MiTo FCEVs from Centro Ricerche FIAT 
are to be provided for daily operation in Oslo, southern Norway and 
the Scandinavia region. Additionally, 5 city cars from H2 Logic driving 
within Oslo are to complete the fleet (BEV with FC range extender). 
2 FCEVs are to be employed at 5 European hydrogen demonstration 
tours and a safety study to identify certification gaps to accelerate 
full commercialisation of FCEVs and HRS is to be performed.  

HYTEC 

FP7 

2011-2015 

30 FCEV 

Hydrogen Transport in European Cities. 

Create  2  new  European  hydrogen  passenger  vehicle  deployment 
centres in London and Copenhagen. The objective is to implement 
stakeholder  inclusive  vehicle  demonstration  programmes  that 
specifically address the challenge of transitioning hydrogen vehicles 
from  running  exemplars  to  fully  certified  vehicles  utilised  by  end-
users. 25 new FCEVs in the hands of real customers (5 taxis and 19 
passenger  cars)  are  to  be  demonstrated.  Additionally,  FC  hybrid 
scooters are to be demonstrated as proof of concept in London and 
Ride  and  Drive  events.  New  HRS  are  to  support  these  FCEVs 
deployments  leading  to  2  new  city  based  networks  for  hydrogen 
refuelling:  1)  on-site  production  in  Copenhagen  and  2)  hydrogen 
delivery in London. A well to wheels life cycle analysis of the FCEVs 
and HRS is to be performed. 

4 HRS 

DK 

NO 

UK 

29.3 M€  

11.9 M€ (41%) 

SWARM 

FP7 

2012-2018 

34 FCEV 

3 HRS 

BE 

DE 

UK 

15.3 M€  

6.7 M€ (44%) 

16 

Demonstration  of  Small  4-Wheel  fuel  cell  passenger  vehicle 
Applications in Regional and Municipal transport   

Establish  a  demonstration  fleet  of  small  passenger  FCEVs  that 
builds  on  and  expands  existing  hydrogen  refuelling  infrastructure. 
Three European regions participate: the UK (the Midlands and Wales), 
Belgium  (the  Brussels  area  and  Wallonia),  and  North  Rhine 
Westphalia  Germany  (Cologne/Weser  Ems).  3  new  hydrogen 
refuelling  sites  are  to  be  added  to  develop  continuous  ‘hydrogen 
highways’ from Scotland via the Midlands to London, connecting to 
Brussels  and  on  to  Cologne  and  Hamburg/Scandinavia/Berlin.  34 
FCEVs are to be deployed by 3 organisations. These FCEVs are to be 
driven in a variety of real-life operating environments. An extensive 
data  monitoring  exercise  is  to  be  performed  throughout  the 
demonstration  phase  to  evaluate  the  FCEVs  reliability  and  make 
recommendations for the improvement of fully commercial vehicle 
designs.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Project  

FP 

Start/End  

Project in numbers 

Project Title and Summary of original Project Objectives 

HYFIVE 

FP7 

2014-2018 

145 FCEV 

Hydrogen for innovative vehicles 

Aims  to  deploy  185  FCEVs  from  5  global  automotive  companies 
(BMW,  Daimler,  Honda,  Hyundai  and  Toyota).  Refuelling  stations 
configured  in  viable  networks  will  be  developed  in  three  distinct 
clusters by deploying 6 new stations linked with 12 existing stations. 
The  project  will  tackle  the  final  technical  and  social  issues,  which 
could  prevent  the  commercial  roll-out  of  hydrogen  vehicle  and 
refuelling infrastructure across Europe.  

6 HRS 

AT 

DE 

DK 

IT 

SE 

UK 

39.1 M€  

18 M€ (46%) 

H2ME 

H2020 

2015-2020 

357 FCEV 

Hydrogen Mobility Europe 

Hydrogen  Mobility  Europe  (H2ME)  brings  together  4  national 
initiatives on hydrogen mobility (Germany, Scandinavia, France and 
the UK).  The  project will  expand  their developing  networks  of  HRS 
and  the  fleets  of  fuel  cell  vehicles  (FCEVs)  operating  on  Europe’s 
roads, to significantly expand the activities in each country and start 
the creation of a pan-European hydrogen fuelling station network. 
This  will  include  trialling  a  large  fleet  of  325  FCEVs  in  diverse 
applications across Europe and deploying 29 refuelling stations. 

27 HRS 

DE 

DK 

FR 

IS 

NO 

SE 

UK 

62.3 M€  

32 M€ (51%) 

H2ME 2 

H2020 

2016-2023 

560 FCEV 

Hydrogen Mobility Europe 2 

This  project  will  address  the  innovations  required  to  make  the 
European  hydrogen  mobility  sector  truly  ready  for  market.  The 
project will perform a large-scale market test of hydrogen refuelling 
infrastructure, passenger and commercial fuel cell electric vehicles 
operated in real-world customer applications and demonstrate the 
system benefits generated by using electrolytic hydrogen solutions 
in grid operations. H2ME 2 will deploy 1,230 new hydrogen fuelled 
vehicles trebling the existing fuel cell fleet in Europe. 

12 HRS 

CH 

DE 

DK 

FR 

IS 

NL 

NO 

SE 

UK 

108.4 M€  

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Project  

FP 

Start/End  

Project in numbers 

Project Title and Summary of original Project Objectives 

ZEFER 

H2020 

2017-2023 

180 FCEV 

Zero Emission Fleet vehicles For European Roll-out 

35 M€ (32%) 

ZEFER will demonstrate viable business cases for captive fleets of 
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles in operations which can realise value from 
hydrogen vehicles, for example by intensive use of vehicles and HRS, 
or  by  avoiding  pollution  charges  in  city  centres  with  applications 
where the refuelling characteristics of FCEVs suit the duty cycles of 
the vehicles. ZEFER aims to drive sales of FCEVs in these applications 
to  other  cities,  thereby  increasing  sales  volumes  of  FCEVs  and 
improving  the  business  case  for  HRS  serving  these  captive  fleets. 
ZEFER will deploy 180 FCEVs in Paris, Brussels and London (Brussels 
replaced  by  Copenhagen).  170  FCEVs  will  be  operated  as  taxi  or 
private hire vehicles, and the remaining 10 will be used by the police.  

3 HRS 

DK 

FR 

UK 

13.7 M€  

5 M€ (36%) 

Source: JRC based on information from the Clean Hydrogen JU, 2023. 

Figure 5 shows the timeline of the 7 FCEVs demonstration projects assessed in this report covering the period 
from 2010 until 2022. 

Figure 5. Timeline of all FCEV demonstration projects analysed in this report 

Source: Clean Hydrogen JU, 2023 

TIM visualisation was also employed to analyse the trends on organisations and countries participating on these 
9 projects. Figure 6 (a) shows organisations involved in the Clean Hydrogen JU FCEV demonstration projects. 
We can observe many clusters formed among the same type of companies, i.e. vehicle manufacturers (cluster 
formed  by  Mercedes-Benz  group  and  Honda),  energy  consultancies  (cluster  formed  by  Element  Energy  and 
Cenex), etc. However, other clusters usually include vehicle manufacturers, gas companies/HRS developers and 
transport companies (taxi operators). This is the case of the cluster formed by BMW (vehicle manufacturer), 
Linde PLC (gas company/hydrogen supplier), ITM Power (hydrogen supplier) and Societé du Taxi Electric Parisien 
(taxi operator’s society). The inclusion of taxi operators in the clusters that were traditionally formed by vehicle 
manufacturers and HRS developers is a positive shift showing the creation of business cases with FCEVs. Other 
organisations  complementing  the  different  clusters  are  fuel  cell  companies  and  research  institutions.  The 
organisations that participated in the most FCEV projects covering the period 2010-2022 were Element Energy 
LTD  (energy  consultancy),  Mercedes-Benz  group  (vehicle  manufacturer)  and  Hyundai  Motor  Europe  GmbH 
(vehicle manufacturer). 

Comparing the organisations participating in previous FCEVs projects from FP4 to FP6 (Figure 4 (a)) with the 
Clean  Hydrogen  JU  FCEV  demonstration  projects  (Figure  6  (a)),  it  is  observed  an  historical  shift  from  early 
projects composed of vehicle manufacturers, HRS developers, FC providers and scientific institutions to new 
projects mainly composed of FCEV manufacturers, HRS developers, FCEV operators/cities and consultants (data 
collection, coordination). This is showing the evolution from new technology developments to commercialisation 
and use of FCEVs for captive fleets. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6 (b) shows that the trend observed on participating countries from the FCEV early initiatives (see Figure 
4 (b)) continues with the Clean Hydrogen JU FCEV demonstration projects. The country that was active in the 
greatest  number  of FCEV  projects  is  again  Germany.  However,  differing  from  the early FCEV  initiatives  it  is 
Belgium and the United Kingdom that followed in project participation in the 2010-2022 period. 

Figure 6. TIM plots showing (a) the participants for the 9 Clean Hydrogen JU FCEV demonstration projects (2010-2022). 
13 (b) EU member state participation for the 9 Clean Hydrogen JU demonstration projects (2010-2022). 14 

a) 

b) 

Source: JRC (TIM) based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2022. 

It is worth mentioning that the Clean Hydrogen JU funded additional projects that further contributed to the 
demonstration  of  the  FCEV  technology.  These  projects  belong  to  FCH  JU  Panel  5  (Hydrogen  for  Sectoral 
Integration) and intend to develop hydrogen valleys in which the use of FCEVs is not the main objective, hence 

(13)  The size of the node represents the number of projects a partner is involved in, whilst the thickness of the links represents the number 
of projects in common between the linked partners. The coloured groupings are potential clusters identified by TIM’s algorithm. The 
table shows the top 5 participants from the plot. 

(14)  The size of the node represents the number of projects that has at least one participating organisation from that member state. The 
thickness of the links between the nodes is proportional to the number of projects those member states have in common. The United 
Kingdom does not appear in the graph as it is not a current EU member state. The table shows the top 10 countries represented, 
including the United Kingdom (an EU member state when the project was awarded) for comparison. 

19 

 
 
 
 
                                                       
 
these projects were not included in the analysis. A summary of the hydrogen for sectoral integration projects 
that include deployment of few FCEVs is contained in Table 3.  

Table 3. Summary of Clean Hydrogen projects on hydrogen sectorial integration with FCEVs deployment. 

Project  

FP 

Start/End  

Project in numbers 

Project Title and Summary of original Project Objectives 

BIG HIT 

H2020 

2016-2021 

5 FCEVs 

1 HRS 

Orkney Islands (UK) 

7.7 M€  

5 M€ (64%) 

HEAVENN 

H2020 

2020-2025 

4 FCEVs 

GREEN HYSLAND 

FP7 

2012-2025 

n/a 

Eemshaven (NL) 

Delfzijl (NL)  

Zuidwending (NL)  

Emmen (NL)  

Hoogeveen (NL)  

Groningen (NL)  

96.2 M€  

20 M€ (21%) 

10 FCEVs 

5 FCEBs 

1 HRS 

Mallorca island (ES) 

20.4 M€  

10 M€ (48.9%) 

Building Innovative Green Hydrogen systems in an Isolated Territory: 
a pilot for Europe. 

This project aims to create a replicable hydrogen territory in Orkney 
(Scotland)  by  implementing  a  fully  integrated  model  of  hydrogen 
production,  storage,  transportation  and  utilisation  for  heat,  power 
and mobility. The project will use the energy from two wind turbines 
and tidal turbines on the islands of Eday and Shapinsay, to produce 
50 t pa of hydrogen with a 1.5MW PEM electrolyser. This will be used 
to heat  two  local schools, and  transported by sea to  Kirkwall  in  5 
hydrogen  trailers,  where  it  will  be  used  to  fuel  a  75kW  fuel  cell 
(which will provide heat and power to the harbour buildings, a marina 
and 3 ferries when docked), and a refuelling station for a fleet of 10 
fuel cell vehicles.  

Hydrogen  Energy  Applications  for  Valley Environments  in Northern 
Netherlands. 

This is a sizeable demonstration project aimed at the development 
of  a  methodology  to  design  a  fully  integrated  and  functioning 
‘hydrogen  valley’.  By  bringing  together  the  central  elements  of 
hydrogen  production,  distribution,  storage  and  local-end  use,  the 
goal is to demonstrate how this hydrogen valley could (through the 
use  of  green  hydrogen  across  the  value  chain)  reduce  carbon 
emissions as well as potentially benefit businesses along its value 
chain. The hydrogen produced will be used as: 1) Storage medium to 
manage intermittent renewable inputs in the electricity grid; and 2) 
Energy vector for the decarbonisation across other energy sectors 
beyond electricity, namely industry, heat and transportation. 

Deployment of a H2 Ecosystem on the Island of Mallorca 

This project aims at deploying a fully-integrated and functioning H2 
ecosystem  in  the  island  of  Mallorca,  Spain.  The  project  brings 
together  all  core  elements  of  the  H2  value  chain  i.e.  production, 
distribution  infrastructure  and  end-use  of  green  hydrogen  across 
mobility, heat and power. The goal is the integration of 6 deployment 
sites  in  the  island  of  Mallorca,  including  7.5MW  of  electrolysis 
capacity  connected  to  local  PV  plants  and  6  FCH  end-user 
applications,  namely  buses  and  cars,  2  CHP  applications  at 
commercial buildings, electricity supply at the port and injection of 
H2 into the local gas grid. The intention is to facilitate full integration 
and operational interconnectivity of all these sites. 

Source: JRC based on information from the Clean Hydrogen JU, 2023. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.1.3  State of the Art  

3.1.3.1  Technical development 

The development of FCEV dates back to 1838 when fuel cells and their effects were discovered. Figure 7 shows 
the FCEV development timeline compared to the battery electric vehicles (BEV) timeline (Ajanovic and Haas, 
2019). It can be noticed that since the oil crises of the 1970s, FCEV development intensified. That crisis launched 
interest in hydrogen fuel cells in the absence of adequate batteries for electric vehicles.  

Figure 7. Major steps in the development of FCEVs compared to BEVs. 

Source: Ajanovic and Haas, 2019 

As seen in Figure 7, the global development and commercialisation of FCEV can be understood in four stages 
(Luo et al., 2021). The first stage covers the period before the year 2000 when major automobile manufacturers 
launched their own FCEV prototypes. The second stage comprises the decade 2000-2010. In this period the key 
technologies of FCEVs were developed, demonstrated, tested, and validated. Technical advances made during 
the  development  of  the  prototype/concept  cars  led  to  the  launch  of  newer  models  reaching  the  highest 
technological readiness level (TRL9). The third stage covers the period 2010-2015 where FCEVs were partially 
commercialised in specific areas of the world. The fourth and last stage continues from 2015 until today with 
the  main  FCEV  manufacturers  entering  a  production  phase.  Table  4  shows  the  models  that  entered  the 
production phase and were commercially available. By the end of 2021, the global hydrogen vehicle stock (FCEV, 
FCEB  and  trucks)  was  more  than  51.000,  up  from  about  33.000  in  2020,  representing  the  largest  annual 
deployment  of  hydrogen  vehicles  since  they  became  commercially  available  in  2014  (International  Energy 
Agency, 2023). This translates to a 42,000 FCEV stock by the end of 2021. 

21 

 
 
 
Table 4. FCEVs that entered production phase and were commercially available 

Honda 

FCX Clarity 

Clarity Fuel Cell 

Toyota 

Mirai I 

Mirai II 

Hyundai 

Mercedes Benz 

Hyundai ix35/Tucson Fuel Cell 

GLC F-Cell 

Nexo 

Source: PwC data aggregation from publicly available data from various manufacturers 

The technical specifications from the vehicles that entered the production phase can be observed in Table 5. 
The technical specifications of the vehicles (fuel cell power capability, storage capacity, range, and hydrogen 
consumption) have clearly improved globally over the last few years. This can be observed in detail in Figure 8. 
In terms of fuel cell power rating, the latest models (Hyundai Nexo and Toyota Mirai II) surpassed the initial 
power capability of the earlier models (Honda FCX Clarity, Hyundai ix35 and Toyota Mirai I). However, the highest 
FC power capability was the one installed in the Daimler (Mercedes-Benz) GLC model, now discontinued, with 
155 kW. Another significant trend is the rising power density in the powertrains of newer models. 

Looking  at  storage  capacities,  the  newest  models  (Hyundai  Nexo  and  Toyota  Mirai  II)  have  increased  their 
storage capacity by 12% in comparison to their predecessors (Hyundai ix35 and Toyota Mirai I, respectively). 
The largest storage capacity has been achieved by the Hyundai Nexo with 6.33 kg of hydrogen. This translates 
in  a  drive  range  increase  with  Hyundai  Nexo  and  Toyota  Mirai  II  leading  the  charts  with  666  and  650  km, 
respectively.  

Regarding  hydrogen  consumption,  the  newest  models  (Hyundai  Nexo  and  Toyota  Mirai  II)  have  managed  to 
decrease it significantly, compared to the earlier models (Honda FCX Clarity and Hyundai ix35). However, the 
lowest hydrogen consumption (so higher fuel efficiency) was achieved by the Toyota Mirai I and Honda Clarity 
Fuel Cell. It must be noted that these values of Toyota Mirai I and Honda Clarity Fuel Cell were measured under 
the New European Drive Cycle (NEDC) and the measurements in the newest models are done accordingly with 
the Worldwide Harmonized Light Vehicles Test Procedure (WLTP), influencing slightly the values.  

22 

 
 
 
 
Table 5. Specifications of FCEVs that were mass produced and were commercially available 

Model 

Honda FCX Clarity 

Hyundai ix35/Tucson Fuel 
Cell 

Toyota Mirai I 

Honda Clarity Fuel Cell 

Mercedes-Benz GLC F-Cell 

Hyundai Nexo 

Toyota Mirai II 

Year 

2008–2015 

2014–2018 

2015–2020 

2016–2021 

2018-2020 

2018-present 

2020-present 

Price 

Leasing only US$600 

60,181€ - 80,611€ 

Leasing - 625€ 

73,261€ (new) 

60,839€ 

Full service rental model in Germany 

60,703€ 

51,523€ - 63,900€ 

Fuel cell stack 

100 kW Honda Vertical Flow 
(V Flow) hydrogen fuel cell 
stack (Proton Exchange 
Membrane Fuel Cell) 

100 kW (136 ps) Hyundai cell 
stack 

FCA110 Toyota Fuel Cell System, 370 cells, 
113 kW output 

103 kW, 358 cells, 33 l volume, 52 kg 
weight 

Daimler subsidiary NuCellSys polymer electrolyte 
fuel cells, 155 kW stack 

95 kW 440 cells 

3.1 kW/l power density 

@ 0.6 V 60% system efficiency 

330 cells, 102 g cell weight, 128 
kW max. output, 5.4 kW/l volume 
power density, 5.4 kW/kg mass 
power density, 29 L volume / 32 
kg weight 

Volumetric Power 
Density 

n/a 

1.35 kW/L 

3.1 kW/L 

3.12 kW/L 

n/a 

3.1 kW/L 

5.4 kW/L 

Storage capacity 

4.1 kg at 345 Bar 

5,64 kg at 700 Bar 

122.4 L (front tank: 60.0L / rear tank: 62.4L) 
5kg 

700 bar, 5.46 kg hydrogen 

141 L overall capacity, 2 

tanks, 24 L and 117 L 

2 carbon fibre tanks (Daimler subsidiary NuCellSys) 

700 bar, 4,4 kg 

6.33 kg hydrogen 

156.6 L overall capacity, 

3 tanks, each 52.2 l 

Engine 

Fuel cell-powered 100 kW 
(130 hp) AC synchronous 
electric motor (permanent 
magnet) 

Electric engine rated at 100 kW 
(134 hp) 

4JM Permanent magnet synchronous motor 
113 kW, 154 bhp 

AC permanent magnet synchronous motor, 
130 kW power output, 300 Nm max. torque 

Electric motor, powered by fuel cell and 13.5kWh 
battery 155 kW; 208 hp 365 Nm 

Permanent magnet motor 120 kW 
power output 395 Nm. max. torque 

700 bar working pressure, 875 bar 
max. filling pressure, 5.6 kg fuel 
capacity 24 kg weight, 3 tanks 

Permanent magnet, synchronous 
134 kW max. power 300 Nm max. 
torque 

Range 

390 km NEDC 

594 km NEDC 

502 km NEDC 

589 km NEDC 

478 km 

666 km WLTP, 756 km NEDC 

650 km WLTP 

Consumption 

1,03 kg/100 km (NEDC) 

0,95kg/100km (NEDC) 

0.76kg/100km (NEDC) 

0.76 kg/100 km (NEDC) 

1kg/100 km (0.34kg/100km in Hybrid mode) 

095 kg/100 km (WLTP) 

0.89 kg/100 km combined (WLTP) 

Battery type 

Lithium-Ion Battery 

24 kW Lithium-Ion Battery 

Sealed nickel-metal hydride (NI-MH), 34 
battery cell modules 

Lithium-Ion Battery 

lithium-Ion Battery 

Lithium-Ion Battery 

Lithium-Ion Battery 

Battery capacity 

Hydrogen storage 
max pressure 

n/a 

350 bar 

Type III 

0.95 kWh 

700 bar 

Type IV 

1.6 kWh 

700 bar 

Type IV 

1.7 kWh 

n/a 

13.5 kWh 

700 bar 

Type IV 

1.56 kWh 

700 bar 

Type IV 

1.2 kWh 

n/a 

Source: PwC, Study on State of the Art of FCEV, FCB and HRS 

23 

 
 
Figure 8. Evolution of fuel cell power (kW), storage capacity (kg), range (km) and hydrogen consumption (kg/100) 

a) 

b) 

c) 

d) 

Source: PwC, Study on State of the Art of FCEV, FCB and HRS 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Looking at fuel cell range extender vehicles (FC REEVs), there has been significant developments in Europe. 
These vehicles, also known as fuel cell plug-in hybrid vehicles, use a battery as the primary source of power. 
The battery can be charged from the grid, like a typical electric vehicle, and provides power for most driving. 
The hydrogen fuel cell is used as a range extender to provide additional driving range. When the charge of the 
battery gets low, the fuel cell kicks in to generate electricity and recharge the battery, allowing the vehicle to 
drive further than it could on battery power alone. Symbio (joint venture formed by Faurecia and Michelin) has 
produced hydrogen fuel cell systems which were integrated in the Renault Kangoo ZE converting the original 
car in a range extender (dual energy) vehicle. Renault-Symbio has already deployed more than 700 fuel cell 
range extender vans in Europe, while participating in Clean Hydrogen JU projects such as H2ME, H2ME 2 and 
BIG  HIT.  The  technical  specifications  from  the  Renault  Kangoo  ZE  Hydrogen  can  be  observed  in  Table  6. 
Additionally, some smaller manufacturers have developed two-wheel and four-wheel fuel cell range extender 
vehicles such as the Riversimple car deployed in the project SWARM.  

Table 6. Specifications of fuel cell range extender vehicles commercially available in Europe 

Model 

Year 

Price 

Kangoo ZE Hydrogen 

2019 

48,300€ 

Fuel cell stack 

Symbio “StackPack” 5kW 

Volumetric Power Density 

n/a 

Storage capacity 

Engine 

Range 

Consumption 

Battery type 

Hydrogen storage max pressure 

Model 350 Bar: 74 L at 350 Bar 

Model 700 Bar: 74 L at 700 Bar 

Electric motor rated at 44 kW (60 hp) 

370 km (WLTP) 

0,9 kg/100km 

33 kWh Lithium-Ion Battery  

Model 350 Bar: 350 Bar Type IV 

Model 700 Bar: 700 Bar Type IV 

Source: (Renault Press, 2019) 

3.1.3.2  Manufacturing 

From the analysis performed by PWC on FCEV manufacturing and sales data from 2008 to 2020 based on the 
IHS Markit, it can be concluded that the Republic of Korea and Japan are the two largest manufacturers of 
commercial FCEV vehicles. The Asian region has surpassed the European market, and the currently available 
models  (Toyota  Mirai  II,  Hyundai  Nexo)  are  dominating  the  global  market  taking  up  89.52%  of  all  FCEV 
production (commercially available). The vehicles that were initially produced by European manufacturers (i.e. 
GLC F-Cell by Daimler/Mercedes-Benz) seemed to have stopped production due to high manufacturing costs. 
However,  European  manufacturers  continue  developing  FCEV  concept  cars  and  prototypes  (i.e.  BMW  iX5 
Hydrogen).  Looking  at  fuel  cell  engine  manufacturing,  Japanese  and  Korean  manufacturers  are  the  leading 

25 

 
 
 
players again, with China taking the second position with less than 4% of the production and installation of the 
above mentioned two countries. 

3.1.3.3  Deployment 

According to recent data, the worldwide fleet of FCEV (passenger cars) has surpassed 57,000 units by the end 
of 2022, see Figure 9 (Can and Rex, 2023) (International Energy Agency, 2023). The Republic of Korea is leading 
the deployment of FCEV with 51% of the worldwide fleet (29,337 FCEVs), followed by the United States (26%; 
14,979 FCEVs), Japan (13%; 7619 FCEVs), and Germany (4%; 2201 FCEVs).  

Figure 9. Waterfall diagram showing the breakdown of FCEV (passenger cars) worldwide 

Source: (Can and Rex, 2023) 

Figure 10 shows that the Asian region is leading the deployment of FCEV with 65% of the fleet, followed by 
North America (26%) and Europe (9%). Within the regions, the Republic of Korea takes the lead in Asia (79%) 
followed by Japan (20%) and China (1%). US has the majority of the fleet in North America (98%), followed by 
Canada (2%). Germany tops the charts in Europe (44.3%), followed by France (11.8%) and The Netherlands 
(11.6%). 

26 

Figure 10. Shares of FCEV (passenger cars) over continents, detailing the contributions within Asia, America and Europe. 

Source: (Can and Rex, 2023) 

There have been numerous developments on the fuel cell vehicles sector worldwide in recent years. Regarding 
passenger vehicles, Jaguar Land Rover disclosed the trial of a passenger fuel cell vehicle prototype in June 
2021  (Jaguar  Land  Rover,  2021).  This  venture  was  partially  sponsored  by  the  UK  government.  Riversimple 
revealed a hydrogen fuel cell car prototype in February 2022 (Riversimple, 2022), followed by Changan's launch 
of a fuel cell variant of their large sedan model in July 2022 (Energy News, 2022). This marked the first-ever 
mass-produced  hydrogen  fuel  cell  car  in  China.  BMW  set  a  goal  to  manufacture  a  small  series  of  the  iX5 
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle by late 2022, having successfully completed winter weather tests (BMW, 2022). The 
BMW  iX5  Hydrogen  pilot  fleet  was  finally  launched  early  2023  (BMW, 2023). Aditionally,  Great  Wall  Motors 
launched  a  high-end  brand  specialising  in  hydrogen  fuel  cell  passenger  cars  end  of  2022  (Fuel  Cell  Works, 
2022). Renault has also disclosed plans for an electric concept car featuring a hydrogen fuel cell range extender, 
set to be revealed in 2024 (Renault, 2023). 

Regarding vans, Hyundai is expanding its selection of fuel cell vehicle models and has declared intentions to 
release a fuel cell multi-functional vehicle (TopElectricSUV, 2023). In Japan, joint development of light-duty 
commercial trucks is planned by Hino Motors, Isuzu, Toyota and Commercial Japan Partnership Technologies 
Corporation (Hino, 2022). Meanwhile, in Europe, several Stellantis brands, including Citroën, Peugeot and Opel, 
have started introducing hydrogen light commercial vehicles, which have been available since 2023 (Stellantis, 
2023). 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
3.1.4  Progress against the State of the Art 

3.1.4.1  Early FCEVs initiatives (2000-2010) 

The  early  projects  under  Framework  Programme  4,  5  and  6  (FP4,  FP5  and  FP6)  made  significant  strides  in 
harmonizing  regulations,  streamlining  licensing  processes,  and  fostering  public  acceptance.  These  initiatives 
were part of a larger European Union strategy aimed at promoting sustainable and clean energy technologies. 

Each of these projects played a crucial role in shaping the future of FCEVs, see Table 1. For instance, the EIHP 
and its successor EIHP2 project worked on the harmonization of codes and standards for hydrogen refuelling 
infrastructure.  The  ACCEPTH2  project  focused  on  public  acceptance  and  awareness  of  hydrogen-based 
technologies. ZERO REGIO was a demonstration project showcasing the use of hydrogen in transport and energy 
systems. 

Meanwhile, HARMONHY and HYLIGHTS aimed at drafting regulations for hydrogen vehicles and infrastructure, 
while  the  HYCHAIN  MINI-TRANS  project  worked  on  deploying  fleets  of  small  hydrogen  vehicles  for  urban 
transport. NEXTHYLIGHTS, on the other hand, aimed to prepare for the next generation of hydrogen light-duty 
vehicles. 

These  early  projects  under  FP4,  FP5,  and  FP6  established  a  solid  foundation  for  the  Clean  Hydrogen  JU 
demonstration projects under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7).  

Building upon the regulatory, licensing, and public acceptance groundwork laid by the earlier programmes, the 
projects under FP7 were designed to demonstrate the real-world viability and benefits of FCEVs and hydrogen 
technologies. This included a focus on the performance, durability, and efficiency of these technologies, as well 
as their potential for integration into existing transport and energy systems. 

Collectively, the efforts of these projects across FP4, FP5, FP6, and FP7 have been instrumental in propelling 
the development and acceptance of FCEVs and clean hydrogen technologies, paving the way towards a more 
sustainable and clean energy future. 

3.1.4.2  Clean Hydrogen JU projects (2011-2023) 

The focus of the Clean Hydrogen JU in the FCEV area has been the demonstration, progress and validation of 
the FCEV technology and its refuelling infrastructure. The aim was accelerating the market penetration of fuel 
cell  technology  for  vehicles  deployed  in  Europe,  demonstrating  market  readiness  as  well  as  developing  the 
necessary infrastructure (refuelling networks) at a competitive cost. The projects funded by the Clean Hydrogen 
JU from 2010 onwards have also allowed the collection of a significant amount of FCEVs performance data 
which facilitated the assessment of MAWP KPIs (Multi-Annual Work Plan of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint 
Undertaking).  

Early Clean Hydrogen JU FCEV projects (2011-2014) 

Early Clean Hydrogen JU FCEV projects under FP7 (H2MOVES SCANDINAVIA, HYTEC, SWARM and HYFIVE) mainly 
focused on the deployment of the state-of-the art HRS and FCEV fleets at different European sites, validating 
and monitoring the progress of the FCEV technology.  

28 

 
 
 
 
H2MOVES SCANDINAVIA project was the first Clean Hydrogen JU project showcasing the reliability and market 
preparedness of FCEVs, testing them under harsh climate conditions (Oslo and Copenhagen sites). H2MOVES 
SCANDINAVIA  had  also  a  pioneering  role  in  developing  links  and  collaborations  between  different  industry 
stakeholders.  

HYTEC project continued the H2MOVES SCANDINAVIA efforts by expanding the existing European network of 
hydrogen demonstration sites in Denmark and the United Kingdom. The overall achievement of this project was 
to  successfully  implement  a  demonstration  programme  that  specifically  addressed  the  challenge  of 
transitioning hydrogen vehicles from prototypes to fully commercial vehicles, used by a range of drivers in real-
world conditions. Another major achievement of the project was the construction of a network of HRS in the 
two main deployment centres of Copenhagen and London.  

The SWARM project expanded on the European FCEV demonstration activities. The project aimed to establish 
demonstration  FCEV  fleets  (90  vehicles)  supporting  and  expanding  the  existing  hydrogen  refuelling 
infrastructure  across  three  clusters:  British  Midlands,  Brussels  and  Wallonia,  and  the  Weser-Ems  region  in 
northwest Germany. While the ambitious objectives of the project were not fully achieved during the active 
project period (only 34 FCEV were deployed), the contribution from SWARM to the development of the European 
hydrogen mobility sector was significant. The lessons learnt in SWARM were applied to the successor Clean 
Hydrogen JU FCEV projects (HYFIVE, H2ME, H2ME2 and ZEFER).  

HYFIVE continued the FCEV demonstration activities in Bolzano, Copenhagen, Innsbruck, London, Munich and 
Stuttgart. It aimed to deploy a large FCEV fleet (initially 185 vehicles but revised in 2016 to 110) and six new 
HRS integrated within the existing European HRS infrastructure. Finally, a total of 145 FCEVs were deployed by 
the  end  of  the  project.  The major  achievements  of  this project  were: 1)  the  fact  that  the  vehicles  deployed 
demonstrated and exceeded the technical performance; 2) the development of best practises in systems to 
support FCEVs (i.e. commercial ready support service on maintenance, servicing, spare parts acquisition, etc.); 
3) task  forces  development  to  understand  the  progress  on  solutions  to  technical  issues  in  HRS;  4)  the
assessment of the challenges of using electrolysers at HRS with dynamic operation; and 5) the understanding
of  the  impact  of  developing  a  refuelling  infrastructure  operated  by  different  suppliers  and  the  buying
characteristics  of  early  FCEV  adopters.  Additionally,  the  experience  gained  across  the  member  states,  the
different FCEV manufacturers and the HRS operators participating in the project resulted in the development of
recommendations on best practises for hydrogen regulations, codes and standards.

Figure 11 shows the deployment of FCEVs in Europe from the early Clean Hydrogen JU FCEV projects during 
the 2011-2014 period, including data from the H2MOVES SCANDINAVIA, HYTEC, SWARM and HYFIVE projects. 
The total FCEV fleet deployed in Europe during this period amounted to 200. 

29 

Figure 11. FCEVs in operation in Europe from 2011 to 2014. Projects: H2MOVES SCANDINAVIA, HYTEC, SWARM and 
HYFIVE 

Source: Clean Hydrogen JU, 2023 

Recent Clean Hydrogen JU FCEV projects (2015-2023) 

Recent Clean Hydrogen JU FCEV projects (H2020) focused on accelerating the market penetration of FCEVs 
deployed in Europe, demonstrating market readiness and identifying business cases as well as developing the 
necessary refuelling infrastructure at a competitive cost.  

H2ME and H2ME2 both aimed at the expansion of the deployment of FCEVs and refuelling infrastructure across 
Europe; however, H2ME focused on car OEMs whilst H2ME2 focused on end-users. Additionally, H2ME2 placed 
emphasis  on  grid  balancing  activities  using  on-site  electrolysers.  The  H2ME  initiative  (H2ME  and  H2ME2 
projects) is the largest European deployment to date for hydrogen mobility, planning to deploy more than 1400 
vehicles in 9 countries and 50 HRS from 10 suppliers in 6 countries (Element Energy, 2022). The technical data 
accumulated  in  the  H2ME  so  far  has  greatly  supported  the  analysis  on  market  and  customer  readiness.  By 
March 2023, 917 vehicles were deployed under the H2ME initiative from which 727 were reporting data through 
2023. From these 727 vehicles, 472 were passenger cars from a variety of manufacturers (Daimler, Honda, 
Hyundai  and  Toyota)  and  255  were  fuel  cell  range-extended  electric  vehicles  (FC  REEVs)  from  Symbio. 
Additionally, a total of 39 HRS were deployed by Air Liquide, ITM Power, Linde (including its subsidiaries AGA 
and BOC), McPhy and NEL Hydrogen Fuelling (Element Energy, 2022).  

30 

 
 
 
The aim of project ZEFER was to demonstrate viable business cases for captive fleets of FCEVs (taxi, private 
hire and police services). The 180 FCEVs planned are already in operation (60 in Paris, 60 in London and 60 in 
Copenhagen). ZEFER is upgrading three HRS (Zaventem, Paris, and London) and at the same time it makes use 
of H2ME stations for refuelling operations. The deployment of FCEV taxi fleets within H2ME and ZEFER has 
helped  to  improve  the business  case  of  FCEVs  and  HRS.  Fleet  vehicles  are  subjected  to  large  mileages  and 
typically refuel at a centralized hydrogen fuelling station at the depot. This makes, on the one hand, a favourable 
business  case  for  the  HRS. On  the other hand,  intensive  use  of  vehicles  and  HRS  is  expected  to  prove  their 
readiness for heavy-duty applications in the near future.  

Figure  12  illustrates  the  deployment  of  FCEVs  in  Europe  from  the  recent  Clean  Hydrogen  JU  FCEV  projects 
during the 2015-2023 period, including data from the H2ME, H2ME2 and ZEFER projects. The total FCEV fleet 
deployed in Europe during this period amounted to 1102. 

Figure 12. FCEVs in operation in Europe from 2015 to 2023. Projects: H2ME, H2ME2 and ZEFER 

Source: Clean Hydrogen JU, 2023 

The activities of the Clean Hydrogen JU, deploying hundreds of fuel cell hydrogen cars and vans along with the 
associated  refuelling  infrastructure,  can  be  considered  a  pioneering  initiative.  Figure  13  illustrates  the  total 
FCEV fleet rolled out across Europe from 2010 to 2023, encompassing data from H2MOVES SCANDINAVIA, 
HYTEC, SWARM, HYFIVE, H2ME, H2ME2 and ZEFER projects. The total number of FCEVs deployed during this 

31 

 
 
 
timeframe has crossed the 1300-unit benchmark. These projects have laid the foundation for the first genuinely 
pan-European  network,  and  aided  in  the  establishment  of  the  world's  most  extensive  network  of  hydrogen 
refuelling stations.  

Figure 13. FCEVs deployed in Europe from 2010 to 2023. Projects: H2MOVES SCANDINAVIA, HYTEC, SWARM, HYFIVE, 
H2ME, H2ME2 and ZEFER. 

Source: Clean Hydrogen JU, 2023 

The success of these FCEVs demonstration projects is evidenced by the fact that various project partners have 
plans to scale-up their FCEVs fleets. Positive business cases have been demonstrated by H2ME2 and ZEFER 
projects.  FCEVs  showed  an  operational  advantage  against  other  zero-emission  mobility  solutions  in  high 
mileage  and  high  required  availability  applications,  such  as  taxi  fleets.  Comprehensive  learnings  have  been 
achieved on customer acceptance, the business case for fuel cell vehicles and the technical performance of 
HRS and fuel cell vehicles under high utilisation. 

Additional  outputs  from  these  projects  worth  mentioning  are:  1)  the  significant  amount  of  data  collected, 
relevant for KPIs assessment and improvement of Well-to-Wheel (WTW) analysis and Total Cost of Ownership 
(TCO)  models;  and  2)  the  advancement  of  integrated  solutions  through  collaborations  between  powertrain 
manufacturers,  automotive  manufacturers,  and  hydrogen  providers  is  promoting  the  rapid  development  of 
hydrogen mobility in Europe. Nevertheless, there are still obstacles that need to be addressed. 

32 

 
 
 
FCEVs face challenges in competing with battery electric vehicles due to the latter's lower operational costs and 
increasing  range  capabilities,  driven  by  advancements  in  battery  development.  This  situation  has  been 
accentuated  through  2022  as  the  energy  crisis  impacted  the  hydrogen  prices  at  the  pump,  affecting  the 
operational  costs.  Moreover,  there  is  a  fragile  supply  chain  for  components  used  in  hydrogen  mobility 
applications. The primary problem lies in manufacturers' tendencies to respond to demand, resulting in limited 
flexibility  to  expand  spare  parts  inventory.  Consequently,  the  ability  to  boost  manufacturing  capacity  and 
optimize costs is restricted. Additionally, there is a lack of validated WTW data, specially adapted to the most 
recent models of FCEV passenger cars. 

3.1.5  Key Performance Indicators and Targets 

The targets originating from the Addendum to the MAWP of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking 
(Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking (FCH JU), 2018) for fuel cell light duty vehicles are summarised 
in Table 7.  

This  table  also  includes  SoA  values  for  2012  and  2017.  The  values  provided  in  this  table  originate  from 
agreement between the FCH 2 JU and a panel of industry experts. The parameters considered as KPIs for the 
purpose of the programme are: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

Fuel cell system durability (h). Durability of the fuel cell system until 10% power degradation.  

Hydrogen  consumption  (kg/100).  Hydrogen  consumption  for  100  km  driven  under  real  life 
operation using exclusively hydrogen feed. 

Availability (%). Percent of time that the vehicle is able to operate versus the overall time that it 
is intended to operate, assuming only FC related technical issues. 

Maintenance (EUR/km). Costs for spare parts and labour for the drivetrain maintenance per km 
travelled over the vehicle's complete lifetime of 6,000 to 7,000 hours. 

Fuel cell system cost (EUR/kW). Cost of the fuel cell system - excluding overheads and profits, 
assuming 100.000 systems/year as cost calculation basis. 

Areal power density (W/cm2). Power per cell area @ 0,66V: Ratio of the operating power of the fuel 
cell to the active surface area of the fuel cell. 

PGM loading (g/kW). Overall loading in Platinum Group Metals at cathode + anode. 

Cell  Volumetric  power  (kW/l).  Power  for  single  cell  (cathode  plate,  MEA,  anode  plate)  per  unit 
volume, ref: Autostack-core Evo 2 dimensions: cell pitch 1,0mm and cell area: 595cm2 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 7. State-of-the-art and future targets for fuel cell light duty vehicles (Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking 
(FCH JU), 2018) 

No. 

Parameter 

Unit 

State of the art 

Clean Hydrogen JU target 

2012 

2017 

2020 

2024 

2030 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Fuel cell system durability 

h 

2,500 

4,000 

5,000 

6,000 

7,000 

Hydrogen consumption 

Availability 

Maintenance 

kg/100 

% 

EUR/km 

n/a 

95 

n/a 

Fuel cell system cost 

EUR/kW 

500 

Areal power density 

PGM loading 

Cell Volumetric power 

W/cm2 

g/kW 

kW/l 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

1.2 

98 

0.04 

100 

1.0 

0.4 

5.0 

1.15 

98 

0.03 

60 

1.5 

0.17 

7.3 

1,1 

99 

0.02 

50 

1.8 

0.08 

9.3 

1 

>99 

0.01 

40 

2.0 

0.05 

10.0 

Source: Addendum to the Multi-annual Work Plan of the FCH 2 JU (Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking (FCH JU), 2018) 

Notes: 

1) Durability of the fuel cell system until 10% power degradation. The typical vehicle lifetime requirement is 
6,000-7,000 h of operation. 

2) Hydrogen consumption for 100 km driven under real life operation using exclusively hydrogen feed. 

3)  Percent  of  time  that  the  vehicle  is  able  to  operate  versus  the  overall  time  that  it  is  intended  to  operate, 
assuming only FC related technical issues. 

4) Costs for spare parts and labour for the drivetrain maintenance per km travelled over the vehicle's complete 
lifetime of 6,000 to 7,000 hours. 

5) Actual cost of the fuel cell system - excluding overheads and profits, assuming 100.000 systems/year as 
cost calculation basis. 

6) Power per cell area @ 0,66V: Ratio of the operating power of the fuel cell to the active surface area of the 
fuel cell. 

7)  Overall  loading  in  Platinum  Group  Metals  at  cathode  +  anode.  (To  be  only  used  as  guidance,  not  as  a 
development target). 

8) Power for single cell (cathode plate, MEA, anode plate) per unit volume, ref: Autostack-core Evo 2 dimensions: 
cell pitch 1,0mm and cell area: 595cm2 

Additionally, the following parameters related to the deployment of fuel cell buses have also been studied to 
assess the progress of Clean Hydrogen JU projects: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Number of vehicles deployed (units). Number of vehicles of the same model in deployment during 
the reference period in the reference location by the end date of the present reporting exercise. 

Number of vehicles deployed, cumulative (units). Cumulative number of vehicles deployed during 
the reference period in the reference location by the end date of the present reporting exercise. 

Distance  driven  (km).  Yearly  distance  driven  by  the  vehicles  over  the  timeframe  of  this  data 
collection exercise. 

34 

 
 
4. 

Distance driven, cumulative (km). Total distance driven by the vehicles within the project, until the 
end date of this data reporting exercise. 

3.1.6  Performance evaluation of FCEV projects in Europe 

In this section, the performance of the reviewed projects versus a series of specific KPIs will be assessed. The 
KPI values from each project were extracted from Final Reports, the TRUST database (Technology Reporting 
using Structured Templates) and other sources of information. The TRUST database was set up by the Clean 
Hydrogen JU to collect quantitative data from Clean Hydrogen JU projects, and it is now part of the required 
reporting process for ongoing projects. 

The information obtained from this study has then been used to review how the programme is progressing 
against  its  overall  targets,  and  to  suggest  future  modifications  to  the  research  programme  and  associated 
targets.  This  will  be  put  into  context  regarding  the  scale  of  the  project  and  the  conditions  under  which  the 
particular performance was achieved. The obtained data comes from the following demonstration projects: 

H2MOVES SCANDINAVIA, HYPE, SWARM, HYFIVE, H2ME, H2ME2, ZEFER. 

It should be noted that the values obtained should be provided under standard boundary conditions applying to 
all system KPIs (as defined in Table 7). In general, it has not been possible to establish whether all data has 
been given under these standard conditions. Adding to this remark, the plug-in vehicles (Symbio Hykangoo) have 
been excluded from the KPI analysis as they present a different powertrain architecture which would prevent a 
fair comparison. However, they have been included in the vehicle deployment and distance driven analysis and 
for this the project BIGHIT was also considered. 

3.1.6.1  Number of vehicles deployed in operation (units) 

Figure 14 shows the number of FCEV deployed in operation over the years by the Clean Hydrogen JU projects. 
In this figure all FCEVs deployed were considered (passenger cars in which the FC is the primary element of the 
powertrain and plug-in vans).  

It  is  noticed  that  the  early  deployments  that  started  with  the  H2MOVES  SCANDINAVIA,  HYTEC,  SWARM  and 
HYFIVE  projects  have  seen a  significant  growth  with  the  H2ME  initiative  (H2ME  and  H2ME2)  and the  ZEFER 
project. In 2022, 835 FCEVs were in operation from H2ME, H2ME2, ZEFER and BIG HIT projects in Europe. In 
2023, 726 FCEVs were in operation, slightly lower number than 2022 due to the H2ME project finalisation. It is 
worth  mentioning  that  the  gap  observed  between  2013  and  2015  is  an  artificial  one  due  to  lack  of  data 
reporting over that period. HYTEC, SWARM and HYFIVE projects were deploying vehicles over the 2013-2015 
period and we can observe the cumulative deployment from these projects in 2016.  

35 

 
 
 
Figure 14. Number of FCEVs deployed and in operation per project versus year 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2023. 

Figure 15 and Figure 16 show a detail of the FCEV models deployed over the years and the models deployed 
within the projects over the years, respectively. The models deployed came from a variety of manufacturers: 
Daimler (now Mercedes-Benz group), Hyundai, Th!nk, Intelligent Energy, Microcab, Toyota, BMW and Honda. A 
total  of  11  different  FCEV  models  were  deployed  over  the  years  in  the  different  projects.  The  deployment 
followed  the  international  state  of  art  with  the  latest  models  launched  being  deployed.  In  some  cases, 
prototype/concept cars were also deployed and tested within the projects timeframe. Figure 16 details the FCEV 
models deployed within each project. We can observe that the models most deployed for each project were: 1) 
Daimler B-Class FC for H2MOVES SCANDINAVIA with 10 units, 2) Hyundai ix35 FC for HYTEC with 25 units, 3) 
Microcab  H2EV  for  SWARM  with  8  units,  4)  Hyundai  ix35  FC  for  HYFIVE  with  112  units,  5)  Renault  Symbio 
HyKangoo for H2ME with 163 units, 6) Toyota Mirai for H2ME2 with 143 units and 7) Toyota Mirai for ZEFER 
with 120 units. 

36 

 
 
 
Figure 15. Number of deployed vehicles in operation from each model versus year for FCEV projects 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2023. 

37 

 
 
 
 
Figure 16. Number of deployed vehicles in operation from each model per year over the different FCEV projects 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2023. 

38 

 
 
 
3.1.6.2  Number of vehicles deployed, cumulative (units) 

Figure 17 illustrates the cumulative FCEVs deployed over the years by the different projects. There has been a 
linear  growth  in  deployment  numbers  from  2016  onwards.  This  growth  has  been  intensified  by  the  H2ME 
inititiative (H2ME + H2ME2). The H2ME inititiative has become a flagship European project deploying hundreds 
of fuel cell hydrogen cars, vans and their associated refuelling infrastructure. The total FCEV fleet deployed 
over the 2012-2023 period surpasses the 1300-unit milestone. 

Figure 17. Cumulative FCEVs deployed per project versus year 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2023 

3.1.6.3  Distance driven (km) 

Figure 18 shows the yearly distance driven by the vehicles deployed in each project per year. It is observed that 
the distance driven by the FCEVs per year was growing exponentially until 2020 with 9 million of km driven per 
year by the total fleet in operation. The effect of the lock-downs from the COVID-19 pandemic is noticeable in 
the data collected in 2021. However, a recovery in distance driven is shown in the data collected in 2022. It is 
worth  mentioning  that  the  gap  observed  between  2012  and  2016  is  an  artificial  one  due  to  lack  of  data 
reporting over that period. HYTEC, SWARM and HYFIVE projects were deploying vehicles over the 2013-2015 
period and we can observe the cumulative distance driven from these projects in 2016.  

39 

 
 
 
Figure 18. Yearly distance driven by the vehicles versus year of data collection 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2022. 

3.1.6.4  Distance driven, cumulative (km)  

Figure 19 shows the cumulative distance driven by the FCEVs of all the projects. The FCEVs deployed over the 
10 year period (2012-2022) have accumulated a mileage of more than 29 million km, demonstrating the FCEV 
technology. 

40 

 
 
 
Figure 19. Total distance driven by the vehicles within the project duration, until the end date of this data reporting 
exercise versus year 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2022. 

3.1.6.5  Fuel Cell System Durability (h) 

It  is  important  to  make  the  distinction  between  the  three  different  parameters  that  have  been  analysed  to 
assess the fuel cell system durability of the FCEVs in the reviewed projects from the TRUST database. 

●  Fuel  Cell  System  Durability  -  Descriptive:  Durability  of  the  fuel  cell  system  as  rated  by  the 

manufacturer - Indicative End of Life criterion: 10% stack power degradation. 

●  Fuel Cell System Durability - Operational: Only if at least one of the stacks reached their EoL (10% 
power degradation)15 during the timeframe of this exercise: Total hours of operation (since they 
were first put in operation) at the time they are taken out of service 

●  Hours of operation – Operational: Total hours of operation without considering the EoL criterion of 

10% power degradation. 

Figure 20 shows the descriptive fuel cell system durability versus the year of the data collection. The target 
values from the Multi-annual Work Programme of the Clean Hydrogen JU and the US Department of Energy 
are  shown  for  comparison  as  FCH  JU  target  and  DoE  target,  respectively.  These  targets  are  denoted  in  the 
figures  by  “X”  markers. Two sets  of  targets,  defined  in  the  2015 and  2017 updates  of  the  MAWP,  are  also 
included to show the State of Art (SoA). The SoA points will be denoted in the figures by diamond markers. 
Square markers will be use to depict average values of the project, each project with an associated colour. Other 

15 Average for all stacks 

41 

 
 
 
                                                       
 
type of markers (cross, triangle, sphere, etc.) will be use to differentiate between vehicle models and their colour 
will refer  to  the associated project.  The  projects  are  ordered  in  the legend  according  to  start  date, with  the 
earliest first. This format will be used for all subsequent figures regarding KPIs.  

Unfortunately, there is not much data reported by the projects on the rated fuel cell system durability. The only 
data reported for this parameter was by the H2ME2 project for the Honda Clarity FC and the Daimler/Mercedes-
Benz GLC models, both surpassing the trend line (polynomial approximation based on targets) set by the Clean 
Hydrogen JU and the US DoE targets with 5000 and 6000 h, respectively. 

Figure 20. Descriptive fuel cell system durability (h) versus year for FCEV projects 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2022. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 21 shows the operational fuel cell system durability versus the year of the data collection. The values 
for the international state of the art are included as SoA (International) with a dotted trend line, alongside the 
FCH  JU  and  DoE  target  trend  lines  for  comparison.  The  two  sets  of  targets,  defined  in  the  2015  and  2017 
updates of the MAWP, are also included in the figure. The SoA (International) data points come from a NREL 
study in which operational data was collected for a fleet of vehicles (Kurtz et al., 2018). The operational hours 
reached the targeted 5000 hours before 2020, however some of the vehicles in the fleet had already reached 
a  10%  voltage  degradation  when  the  data  was  collected.  Considering  the  EoL  criterion  of  10%  power 
degradation, a more conservative data point was reported with 4130 hours before the degradation threshold 
occurs. 

Values  for  the  operational  fuel  cell  system  durability  have  been  only  provided  by  two  projects  (H2ME  and 
H2ME2)  for  the  Daimler/Mercedes-Benz  models.  The  Daimler  B-Class  FC  model  reported  that  no  stack 
replacement was needed in 45,297 h cumulative for the 40 vehicles. However, this value only accounts for 
hours of operation during the project and not for the total operational durability of the fuel cell as the vehicles 
were still in operation when the project finished. The operational fuel cell system durability of the Daimler GLC 
model  was  reported  from  H2ME  and  H2ME2  projects  to  be  6000  h  in  2020.  However  no  information  on 
degradation was gathered so it is not possible to determine whether the degradation threshold was respected 
or not. Additionally, the value provided is the same as the descriptive durability value (6000 h) so it is assumed 
that during the length of the project no stack replacement was required. Other manufacturers have reported 
that they have not changed the fuel cell stack during the timeframe of the projects in which their cars were 
operating  and  similar  fuel  cell  system  durabilities  to  the  durabilities  of  conventional  cars  were  achieved. 
However, no information on fuel cell stack degradation was provided (Private Communication with Toyota Motor 
Europe).  Therefore,  these  data  points  are  not  included  in  Figure  21  as  they  do  not  reflect  the  operational 
durability (only if at least one of the stacks reached their EoL (10% power degradation) during the timeframe 
of this exercise). 

Figure 21. Operational Fuel Cell System Durability (h) versus Year for FCEV projects 

43 

 
 
 
Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU and NREL, 2022. 

Figure 22 shows the cumulative hours of operation of the best performing FCEV (the car that operated the most 
hours in the timeframe of the project) versus the final year of the project. Additionally, the operational data 
point of the NREL fleet has also been added as SoA US (Kurtz et al., 2018). The figure shows that the early 
projects (HYTEC, SWARM and HYFIVE) accumulated the least amount of operational hours, below the trend line 
of the international state of the art. This can be easily explained by the short duration of these early projects. 
The cars were only operating during a short timeframe and therefore not accumulating enough operation hours 
to be able to demonstrate the durability. That does not mean that the durability of these cars was limited to 
the operation hours recorded in the project timeframe. H2ME has been operating for the longest timeframe and 
the best performing FCEV of the project has surpassed the FCH JU targets. In the case of H2ME2 and ZEFER, 
the projects have been running for less time than H2ME and therefore have not accumulated yet the sufficient 
amount of hours to be compared with the best performing FCEV from H2ME. It is also worth mentioning that 
the lock-downs during the COVID-19 pandemic have had an effect on the total hours of operation recorded. 
This effect can be observed for H2ME2 and ZEFER projects.  

Figure 22. Total hours of operation of the best performing car (h) versus final year of the project or final year of the data 
collection if the project is still active. 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU and NREL, 2022. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 23 shows the cumulative hours of operation of the best performing FCEV for each model and for each 
project (the car that operated the most hours in the timeframe of the project) versus the final year of the data 
collection. Please note that the data points collected for 2022 are indicative because the projects are not yet 
finished. The improvement on hours of operation recorded from the early projects until the H2ME project is 
significant. The best performing H2ME FCEV (Toyota Mirai) has surpassed in operation hours the FCH JU and 
DoE targets. However, it is not known if the fuel cell degradation has surpassed the threshold stated in the 
MAWP. FCEV models operating under H2ME2 and ZEFER have accumulated less hours due to the fact that these 
projects have started later than H2ME and are still active. Recent models like the Toyota Mirai II in ZEFER project 
have been operating only for a year. Additionally, the lock-downs during the COVID-19 pandemic would have a 
negative impact (recording less hours than in normal years).  

Figure 23. Total hours of operation of the best performing car from each model (h) versus final year of the project or 
final year of the data collection if the project is still active 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU and NREL, 2022. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 24 shows the average operation hours per car recorded per project per year. This figure gives an insight 
on the evolution of the use of FCEVs in the Clean Hydrogen JU projects over the years. It can be observed that 
the amount of operation hours per year has increased significantly from the early projects (HYTEC, SWARM, 
HYFIVE) to the H2020 projects (H2ME, H2ME2, ZEFER). However, the impact of the lock-downs during the COVID-
19 pandemic are visible in the later years with the projects recording less hours of operation. This is noticeable 
in particular for the data points of H2ME, H2ME2 and ZEFER in 2021 and 2022 where part of their fleet was 
off service. This is also the case of the FCEVs deployed in Paris. Taxis in Paris were off road from March 2020 
to July 2021. Additionally, a legal dispute between the 2 taxi companies from August 2021 to October 2022 
severely altered the FCEVs operation. 

Figure 24. Average hours of operation per car per year versus year for FCEV projects  

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU and NREL, 2022. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
3.1.6.6  Hydrogen consumption (kgH2/100km) 

It is important to make the distinction between the two different parameters that have been analysed to assess 
the hydrogen consumption of the FCEVs in the reviewed projects from the TRUST database. 

●  Hydrogen  Consumption  -  Descriptive:  Hydrogen  tank  to  wheel  (TTW)  consumption  for  100  km 

driven according to the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) rated by the manufacturers. 

●  Hydrogen  Consumption  -  Operational:  Hydrogen  consumption  for  100  km  driven  under  real 

operation conditions, measured in the projects.  

Figure  25  shows  the  average  hydrogen  consumption  of  the  FCEVs  deployed  per  project  rated  by  the 
manufacturers (descriptive) over the years. The diamond markers representing the SoA fluctuate because each 
new model launched on the market has a specific rated consumption. Although the general trend is downward, 
indicating better consumption efficiency, some newer models have higher rated consumption than older ones. 
This is why the trendline is useful to observe the overall downward evolution of FCEV consumption.  

It is observed that all projects show a potential hydrogen consumption significantly below the FCH JU targets, 
demonstrating fuel efficiency which is really positive. The figure also shows that the FCEVs deployed over the 
last years (H2ME2 and ZEFER) have a rated consumption lower than the average international state of the art. 
This shows that the models deployed in H2ME2 and ZEFER (mainly Toyota Mirai, Toyota Mirai II and Hyundai 
Nexo) are at the forefront of the FCEV technology.  

Figure 25. Descriptive average hydrogen consumption for 100 km driven versus year for FCEV  

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2022. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 26 shows the average hydrogen consumption of the FCEVs deployed per project measured in operational 
conditions over the years, along with the FCH JU and DoE targets for comparison (with DoE target being more 
ambitious). The diamond markers representing the International SoA refer to the US SoA, showing the average 
values of fleets operating in US according to NREL reports.  

It is observed that only the ZEFER project achieves an average hydrogen consumption below the trend line of 
the  FCH  JU  targets  and  in  some  cases  below  the  international  state  of  the  art.  This  means  that  the  real 
conditions  in  which  the  cars  operated  differed  from  the  testing  conditions  used  by  manufacturers  (New 
European Driving Cycle). It is worth noting that the geographical conditions of each deployment site will also 
differ,  these  have  an  influence  on  the  fuel  consumption  reported.  Another  reason  for  the  improved  fuel 
efficiency in ZEFER is the training on “eco-driving” given to the taxi drivers participating in the project.  

Figure 26. Operational average hydrogen consumption for 100 km driven versus year for FCEV projects  

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2022. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
3.1.6.7  Availability (%) 

Figure 27 shows the average availability of the FCEVs deployed per project over the years. The availability is 
defined in the TRUST database as the percentage of time that the vehicles were able to operate versus the 
overall time that they were intended to operate during the timeframe of this data collection exercise, assuming 
only fuel cell related technical issues.  

From the data analysis we can observe that most of the projects have met or surpassed the trend line of the 
FCH JU target over the years. The exceptions have been observed for early projects such as SWARM and HYFIVE. 
In the case of H2ME the average availability has surpassed or closely met the FCH JU targets over the years 
with the exception of the year 2021. The cause for a lower average availability that year was the low availability 
reported  by  the  Daimler  GLC  models  (92%).  Nevertheless,  these  models  reported  a  100%  availability  the 
following year. H2ME2 shows higher average availabilities meeting and surpassing the FCH JU target trend line. 
ZEFER FCEVs have excelled every year in terms of the availability, surpassing the FCH JU targets. 

Figure 27. Average availability of the cars deployed per project versus year for FCEV projects 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2022. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
3.1.6.8  Maintenance (EUR/km) 

Final project reports and the TRUST database were consulted to gather yearly maintenance costs (spare parts 
and  labour  for  the  drivetrain  maintenance  in  EUR/km).  Very  few  vehicles  reported  reliable  information  on 
maintenance costs. These vehicles belonged to the H2ME2 project.  

Figure 28 shows the average yearly maintenance costs for this project. On average, H2ME2 showed very low 
maintenance costs, below the FCH JU targets and in line with the costs reported by NREL in their study (Kurtz 
et al., 2018). In the case of ZEFER the maintenance costs were included in the leasing contract so they are not 
reported  in  the  TRUST  database  and  cannot  be  included  in  the  figure.  It  is  worth  mentioning  that  project 
participants  pointed  out  that  one  of  the  major  factors  of  variability  in  the  maintenance  costs  were  the 
differences in labour costs among countries.  

Figure 28. Average maintenance costs (spare parts and labour) of each project versus year 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU and NREL, 2022. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
3.1.6.9  Fuel cell system cost (EUR/kW) 

There is not enough data reported on fuel cell system costs in the final project reports or TRUST database to 
conduct an in-depth analysis. The projections on fuel cell system costs from the US DoE show a value of 66.65 
EUR/kW for 2020, see SoA (International) dotted line (US Department of Energy, 2021). The FCH JU target was 
60 EUR/KW for 2020. The data found in TRUST is really scarce, available only from some FCEV models of the 
projects HYFIVE, H2ME and H2ME2. The costs reported by those projects significantly surpassed the FCH JU 
target for 2020 and are not included in Figure 29 due to confidentiality concerns. Further efforts are required 
to lower the fuel cell system costs. 

Figure 29. Operational fuel system costs (EUR/kW) versus year for FCEV projects 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2022. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
3.1.6.10  Areal power density (W/cm2) 

Areal power density data is sensitive for FCEV manufacturers. Therefore, no data was provided to assess the 
areal power density of the fuel cell from the cars deployed in the Clean Hydrogen JU projects.  

Figure 30 shows the FCH JU targets and the data observed for the international state of the art coming from 
the  US  DoE  (US  Department  of  Energy,  2016),  (US  Department  of  Energy,  2021).  It  is  observed  that  the 
international  state  of  the  art  falls  short  on  the  areal  power  density  target.  Further  efforts  are  required  to 
increase  the  areal  power  density  of  the  fuel  cells employed  in  FCEVs. However,  it  is also  observed  that  the 
targets are too optimistic, doubbling the 2017 SoA areal power density value by 2030. This target has been 
reviewed for mobility applications in the Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) (Clean Hydrogen JU, 
2021). There are not specific targets for FCEVs but there are targets for building blocks of FC trucks (fuel cell 
stacks) which can be applicable. For high TRL projects the targets for power densities are 1 W/cm2 in 2024 and 
1.2 W/cm2 in 2030. The best heavy-duty Clean Hydrogen JU funded project has achieved 1 W/cm2 and therefore 
it is assumed to be the current state-of-art for trucks (high power fuel cell stacks).  

Figure 30. Descriptive areal power density (W/cm2) versus year 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU and US DoE, 2022. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
3.1.6.11  PGM loading (g/kW) 

Platinum group metals (PGM) loading is another sensitive parameter for FCEV manufacturers, hence, no data 
was reported to assess the PGM loading of the fuel cells from the cars deployed in the Clean Hydrogen JU 
projects.  

Figure 31 shows the FCH JU targets and the data observed for the international state of the art (US Department 
of Energy, 2020). Again the FCH JU target was optimistic foreseeing that the PGM loading could be reduced by 
an order of magnitude in 15 years (2015 – 2030). This target has also been reviewed for mobility applications 
in the SRIA (Clean Hydrogen JU, 2021). There are not specific targets for FCEVs but there are targets for building 
blocks of FC trucks (fuel cell stacks) which can be applicable. For high TRL projects theses targets are 0.35 and 
0.3  g/kW  for  2024  and  2030,  respectively.  The  best  heavy-duty  Clean  Hydrogen  JU  project  has  currently 
achieved the 2024 target. 

Figure 31. Descriptive PGM loading (g/kW) versus year 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU and US DoE, 2022. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
3.1.6.12  Cell Volumetric power (kW/l) 

Cell volumetric power is also sensitive for FCEV manufacturers. No data was reported from the cars deployed 
in the Clean Hydrogen JU projects.  

Figure 32 shows the FCH JU targets and specifications of some FCEV models as international state of the art 
values. The international state of the art data indicates that the technology is falling behind the targets stated 
by the Clean Hydrogen JU in terms of cell volumetric power. 

Figure 32. Descriptive cell volumetric power (kW/L) versus year 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2022. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
3.1.7  Summary 

This  section  provides  a  summary  and  conclusions  for  Section  3.1.  A  complete  list  of  recommendations  is 
provided in Chapter 4. 

• 

• 

• 

FCEV projects generally use commercial or near-commercial vehicle models. 

FCEVs  deployment  in  Europe  has  seen  a  significant  growth  with  the  Clean  Hydrogen  JU  projects, 
especially with H2ME and H2ME2 projects. The total FCEV fleet deployed over the 2005-2023 period 
surpasses the 1300-unit milestone. 

The FCEVs deployed in Europe over the 17 year period (2005-2022) accumulated a mileage of more 
than 29 million km, demonstrating the readiness of the FCEV technology. 

•  Not all relevant data is submitted to the TRUST database due to commercial sensitivity, particularly 
regarding  fuel  cell  system  durability,  fuel  cell  system  costs,  maintenance  costs,  and  fuel  cell 
characteristics like areal power density, PGM loading, and cell volumetric power. 

• 

• 

To  assess  fuel  cell  system  durability,  parameters  like  FCEV  cumulative  operation  hours  have  been 
analysed alongside the limited durability data from projects. 

Initial projects such as H2MOVES SCANDINAVIA, HYTEC, SWARM, and HYFIVE had durations too short 
to assess vehicle and fuel cell system durability. This issue was addressed with H2020 projects like 
the  H2ME  initiative,  where  FCEVs  could  accumulate  enough  operational  hours  to  demonstrate 
durability. 

•  Although cumulative operational hours surpassed the FCH JU target on durability, fuel cell degradation 

was not measured. It should be reported for better assessment of fuel cell system durability. 

• 

The  criterion  on  degradation  set  in  the  MAWP  (10%  power  degradation)  should  be  better  defined, 
including  standard  operation  procedures  on  how  fuel  cell  degradation  should  be  measured.  More 
attention should be given to degradation rates under dynamic operating conditions. 

•  Despite falling short on some KPIs like fuel cell durability, data shows that technology advancement 
should enable fuel cell stacks to meet the target within 2–4 years (Kurtz et al., 2018), given the rate 
of improvement since initial demonstrations 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Reported values for hydrogen consumption (descriptive and operational) meet the FCH JU target and 
show consistent improvement over time.  

It would be beneficial for projects to submit both descriptive KPI hydrogen consumption values (as 
rated by manufacturers) and a separate operational value reflecting performance in real conditions 
(measured in the projects). 

Recent projects have excelled every year in terms of the availability, surpassing the FCH JU targets. 

From  the  limited  information  available  on  fuel  cell  system  costs,  it  can  be  inferred  that  costs 
significantly exceed the FCH JU target, although there has been considerable improvement over the 
years. This also applies to data from international state of the art, where costs are reported to exceed 
the target by 10%. 

Little information has been reported on maintenance costs, but available data largely complies with 
the FCH JU target and shows a downtrend. 

•  No  project  data  was  reported  on  fuel  cell  specifications.  International  data  indicates  that  reported 
values for areal power density, PGM loading and cell volumetric power of state-of-the-art fuel cells 
fall short of the FCH JU target.  

55 

 
 
 
 
3.2  Fuel Cell Electric Buses Projects 

3.2.1  Historical FCEBs Projects  

Table 8 contains a summary of all the early FCEB relevant projects that contributed to the initial development 
of  the  FCEB  technology  (mainly  in  FP4,  FP5  and  FP6).  These  projects  constituted  the  foundation  for  the 
demonstration  projects  that  were  developed  in  later  FPs  (FP7  and  H2020).  These  projects  focused  on  the 
assessment and harmonization of regulations and standards, and the early demonstration and technological 
improvements of FCEBs with the necessary refuelling infrastructure. The table includes the project acronym, 
the corresponding FP, the duration (start/end year), the project metrics (number of FCEBs deployed, number of 
HRSs deployed, participant cities, project total costs and corresponding EU funding), and a short description of 
the original project objectives. 

Table 8. Summary of the historical FCEB projects (early FCEB initiatives, mainly from FP4, FP5 and FP6). 

Project  

FP 

Start/End  

Project in numbers 

Project Title and Summary of original Project Objectives 

FP4 

1996-2001 

DEVELOPMENT  OF 
FULL  SIZE  ELECTRIC 
BUS  WITH  SECOND 
GENERATION  FUEL 
CELLS STACKS 

FUEL CELL BUS 

FP5 

2000-2003 

FUEL CELL BUS II 

FP5 

2000-2004 

Development of Full Size Electric Bus with Second Generation Fuel 
Cells Stacks. 

This  project  aims  to  develop  a  pre-commercial  fuel  cell  powered 
electric  bus  with  high  energy  efficiency,  autonomous  and  without 
range  limitation.  A  35-50  kW  PEM  hydrogen/air  fuel  cell  is  to  be 
installed  in  hybrid  combination  with  an  energy  buffer,  allowing 
energy recovery when slowing or braking.  

Fuel Cell Bus Project Berlin, Copenhagen, Lisbon.   

This project has three objectives: 1) Development, construction and 
implementation of the electrical storage system to support the fuel 
cell system; 2) Development, construction and implementation of a 
stationary hydrogen filling station; and 3) Demonstration of the bus 
in an inner-city environment and of the filling station infrastructure. 

Fuel Cell Bus Project Berlin, Copenhagen, Lisbon II  

This project was the phase 2 of the previous FUEL CELL BUS project. 
This  project  is  aimed  at  demonstrating  the  innovative  fuel  cell 
propulsion  system,  different  energy  storage  systems  and  a 
stationary  hydrogen  refilling  infrastructure.  Its  main  goal  is 
completing the demonstration approach of the first European fuel 
cell bus using liquefied hydrogen in an inner city application. 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Berlin (DE) 

Copenhagen (DK) 

Lisbon (PT) 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

1 HRS 

Berlin (DE) 

Copenhagen (DK) 

Lisbon (PT) 

5.2 M€  

1.8 M€ (35%) 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Project  

FP 

Start/End  

Project in numbers 

Project Title and Summary of original Project Objectives 

ECTOS 

FP5 

2001-2005 

3 FCEBs 

1 HRS 

Reykjavik (IS) 

6.9 M€  

2.9 M€ (41%) 

Ecological  City  Transport  System.  Demonstration,  Evaluation  and 
Research Project of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Bus Transportation System 
of the Future 

This project aims to perform a real scale comparative assessment 
of the effect of changing the transport energy base from fossil fuel 
to hydrogen with a consortium of leading European companies on 
hydrogen production and distribution and vehicle manufacturers. The 
project  will  perform  research,  demonstration  and  evaluation  of  a 
hydrogen infrastructure and fuel cell buses in Reykjavik. 

CUTE 

FP5 

2001-2006 

27 FCEBs 

Clean Urban Transport for Europe  

This  project  aims  to  develop  a  transport  system  including  the 
necessary accompanying energy infrastructure based on hydrogen. 
The goal is to achieve 250,000 hours of fuel cell operation with 27 
FCEB project has three objectives: 1) Operationalise the concept of 
sustainable mobility in the transport sector; 2) Perform an integrated 
assessment of the elements in the CTP and other policy measures; 
and 3) Create cost-effective policy packages for reducing transport's 
contribution to CO2 emissions. 

9 HRS 

Amsterdam (NL) 

Barcelona (ES) 

Hamburg (DE) 

London (UK) 

Luxemburg (LU) 

Madrid (ES) 

Porto (PT) 

Stockholm (SE) 

Reykjavik (IS) 

52.4 M€  

18.5 M€ (35%) 

HYFLEET:CUTE 

FP6 

2006-2009 

33 FCEBs 

Hydrogen for Clean Urban Transport in Europe 

This project will continue operating the FCEB fleets from the former 
CUTE  and  ECTOS  projects  (27).  Additionally,  the  project  aims  to 
develop and demonstrate a new FC hybrid pre-prototype and also to 
develop and demonstrate a fleet of 14 hydrogen powered internal 
combustion engine (ICE) buses in regular service in Berlin with the 
required hydrogen infrastructure.  

9 HRS (former CUTE) 

Amsterdam (NL) 

Barcelona (ES) 

Hamburg (DE) 

London (UK) 

Luxemburg (LU) 

Madrid (ES) 

Porto (PT) 

Reykjavik (IS) 

43 M€ 

19 M€ (44%) 

Source: JRC based on information from CORDIS, 2023. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 33 (a) shows the organisations participating at the early FCEB initiatives described in Table 8 covering 
the period from 1996 until 2010. It can be noticed that a number of specific partners are common to a number 
of projects, forming clusters. These clusters aggregate different types of organisations, commonly a university 
or research centre, some HRS components manufacturers and a bus manufacturer or bus operator company 
(e.g. cluster formed by University of Iceland, Norsk Hydro ASA, Icelandic New Energy LTD and Evobus GmbH). 
The organisations that participated in a greater number of FCEB and associated HRS projects covering the period 
1996-2010 were Universität Stuttgart, Norsk Hydro ASA, Shell PLC and Evobus GmbH, participating in 3 projects 
out of the 6 projects detailed in Table 8. All other organisations in Figure 33 (bus operators, bus manufacturers, 
research centres and other HRS components manufacturers) participated in at least 2 of the 6 projects detailed 
in Table 8. Many bus manufacturers and bus operators are present in these early initiatives, with Evobus GmbH, 
Icelandic New Energy LTD, London Bus Services, MVV GmbH, Hamburger Hochbahn AG, Empresa Municipal de 
Transportes de Madrid SA, Transports de Barcelona SA and MAN Nutzfahrzeuge AG participating in at least 2 
of the 6 projects detailed in Table 8. In terms of HRS components manufacturers and HRS operators, Shell PLC, 
Norsk Hydro ASA, BP PLC and Air Liquide are present in most of these FCEB projects since there were not so 
many HRS component manufacturers and HRS operators at the time.  

Figure 33 (b) shows the countries that were active in the greatest number of FCEB and associated HRS projects 
during this period. The member state that participated in the greatest number of projects was Germany with 4, 
followed by Norway, The Netherlands and Portugal with 3 projects. 

Figure 33. TIM plots showing (a) the participants for all projects considered in Table 8 (early FCEB initiatives 1996-
2010). 16 (b) EU Member State participation for all projects considered in Table 8 (early FCEB initiatives 1996-2010).17  

a) 

(16)  The size of the node represents the number of projects a partner is involved in, whilst the thickness of the links represents the number 
of projects in common between the linked partners. The coloured groupings are potential clusters identified by TIM’s algorithm. The 
table shows the top 10 participants from the plot. 

(17)  The size of the node represents the number of projects that has at least one participating organisation from that member state. The 
thickness of the links between the nodes is proportional to the number of projects those member states have in common. The United 
Kingdom does not appear in the graph as it is not a current EU member state. The table shows the top 10 countries represented, 
including the United Kingdom (an EU member state when the project was awarded) for comparison. 

58 

 
 
 
                                                       
 
b) 

Source: JRC (TIM) based on data from CORDIS, 2022. 

3.2.2  Overview of Clean Hydrogen JU FCEBs demonstration projects 

The following table contains a summary of all the relevant FCEBs demonstration projects that have provided 
most of the input values used in this report (Table 9). These projects, corresponding to FP7 and H2020, belong 
to the FCH JU Panel 1 category (Trials and Deployment of Fuel Cell Applications – Transport). They focus on the 
large-scale demonstration of the FCEB in Europe (deployment and performance monitoring). The table includes 
the project acronym, the corresponding FP, the duration (start/end year), the project metrics (number of FCEBs 
deployed, number of HRSs deployed, participant cities, project total costs and corresponding EU funding), and a 
short description of the original project objectives. These projects belong now to the Clean Hydrogen JU Pillar 3 
category (Transport). 

Table 9. Summary of all Clean Hydrogen JU FCEB demonstration projects analysed in this report (2010-2022). 

Project  

FP 

Start/End  

Project in numbers 

Project Title and Summary of original Project Objectives 

CHIC 

FP7 

2010-2016 

58 FCEBs 

Clean Hydrogen in European Cities 

towards 

this  project 

the  advance 

The  goal  of 
the 
is 
commercialisation of hydrogen powered fuel cell buses via operating 
a minimum of 26 fuel cell buses (FCEB) in medium sized fleets in 
normal city bus operation, whilst enlarging hydrogen infrastructure 
in  5  European  regions.  It  will  also  embed  the  knowledge  and 
experiences  of  previous  projects  operating  FCEB  (CUTE  and 
HyFLEET:CUTE). A life cycle assessment of the use of H2FC buses 
will also be performed. Additional objectives are: 1) the identification 
of  advantages,  improvement  potential  and  synergies  of  FCEB 
compared  with  conventional  and  alternative  technologies,  and  2) 
build  a  critical  mass  of  public  support  for  the  benefits  of  green 
hydrogen powered transport.  

7 HRS 

Aargau (CH) 

Berlin (DE) 

Bolzano (IT) 

Cologne (DE) 

Hamburg (DE) 

London (UK) 

Milan (IT) 

Oslo (NO) 

82 M€ 

25.9 M€ (32%) 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Project  

FP 

Start/End  

Project in numbers 

Project Title and Summary of original Project Objectives 

HIGH V.LO-CITY 

FP7 

2012-2019 

14 FCEBs 

Cities Speeding up the Integration of Hydrogen Buses in Public Fleets. 

to  hydrogen 

This project aims at increasing the “velocity” of integrating FCEB on 
a larger scale in European bus operations by implementing technical 
improvements that increase efficiency and reduce costs, as well as 
introducing  a  modular  approach 
refuelling 
infrastructure deployment. The technical improvements to increase 
efficiency  and  reduce  cost  of  ownership  will  be  directed  to:  1) 
decrease hydrogen consumption to 7-9 kg H2/100km, 2) integrating 
latest  drive  trains  and  battery  technologies,  3)  maintaining  an 
availability of 90% without permanent support, 4) go beyond 12000 
h  of  operation  and  decrease  additional  warranty  cost,  5)  increase 
key  components  lifetime  (FC  and  batteries)  and  6)  reduce 
investment costs beyond 1.3 million EUR. Efforts are also directed to 
reduce the cost of hydrogen supply. 

4 HRS 

Aberdeen (UK) 

Antwerp (BE) 

Groningen (NL) 

San Remo (IT) 

30.5 M€ 

13 M€ (43%) 

HYTRANSIT 

FP7 

2013-2018 

6 FCEBs 

European Hydrogen Transit Buses in Scotland 

The project will trial a fleet of 6 hybrid fuel cell buses in daily fleet 
services,  together  with  one  state  of  the  art  hydrogen  refuelling 
station in Aberdeen (Scotland) for over three years. This project aims 
to advance the commercialisation of hydrogen buses in Europe by: 
1) bringing together a European industrial consortium, 2) develop 6 
A330 hybrid fuel cell buses specifically modified for long sub-urban 
routes, 3) operate the fleet under similar conditions to diesel buses 
(14h and 270 km/day) and 4) build a state of the art HRS to serve 
the bus fleet.  

1 HRS 

Aberdeen (UK) 

17.7 M€ 

7 M€ (39%) 

3EMOTION 

FP7 

2015-2022 

29 FCEBs 

Environmentally Friendly, Efficient Electric Motion  

NEWBUSFUEL 

H2020 

2015-2017 

The  project  aims  to  overcome  technical  and  economic  barriers  as 
well as significantly increasing the number of bus operators involved 
with FCEB. The main technical goals are: 1) decrease H2 consumption 
below  9  kgH2/km,  2)  integrating  latest  drive  trains  and  battery 
technologies,  3)  maintaining  an  availability  of  >90%  without 
permanent  support,  4)  go  beyond  15000  h  of  operation  and 
decrease additional warranty cost, and 5) reduce investment costs 
to  850  K  EUR  for  a  13  m  FCEB.  To  achieve  these  targets  the 
consortium  will  operate  27  FCEB  in  5  EU  cities:  London,  Pau, 
Versailles, Rotterdam, and Aalborg (8 already existing) and develop 
3 new HRS.  

New Bus ReFuelling for European Hydrogen Bus Depots 

The main goal of the project is to resolve a significant knowledge 
gap around the technologies and engineering solutions required for 
the refuelling of a large number of buses at a single bus depot. The 
project will focus on improving: 1) scale (throughputs in excess of 
2000kg/day),  2)  ultra-fast  reliability  (ensure  close  to  100% 
availability), 3) short refuelling window, 4) footprint and 5) volume 
of hydrogen storage (exceeding 10 t per depot). 

5 HRS 

Aalborg (DK) 

London (UK) 

Pau (FR) 

Rotterdam (NL) 

Versailles (FR) 

88.8 M€ 

32 M€ (36%) 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

2.5 M€ 

2.4 M€ (99%) 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Project  

FP 

Start/End  

Project in numbers 

Project Title and Summary of original Project Objectives 

JIVE 

H2020 

2017-2024 

138 FCEBs 

Joint Initiative for Hydrogen Vehicles across Europe 

JIVE  will  pave  the  way  to  bus  commercialisation  through  the 
deployment  of  142  fuel  cell  buses  across  9  locations,  more  than 
doubling the number of FC buses operating in Europe. JIVE will use 
coordinated procurement activities to unlock the economies of scale 
which are required to reduce the cost of the buses. JIVE will also test 
new hydrogen refuelling stations with the required capacity to serve 
fleets in excess of 20 buses.  

9 HRS 

Aberdeen (UK) 

Birmingham (UK) 

Cologne (DE) 

Gelderland (NL) 

London (UK) 

Pau (FR) 

Rotterdam (NL) 

South Tyrol (IT) 

Wiesbaden (DE) 

Wuppertal (DE) 

88 M€ 

32 M€ (36%) 

JIVE 2 

H2020 

2018-2025 

119 FCEB 

Joint Initiative for Hydrogen Vehicles across Europe 2 

JIVE 2 is the successor of JIVE and is Europe’s most ambitious FCEB 
project to date: 152 buses in 14 cities across seven countries. JIVE 
2 involves regions with experience of the technology scaling up fuel 
cell  bus  fleets  (e.g.  Cologne),  and  those  seeking  to  build  their 
knowledge and experience by demonstrating FC buses in small fleets 
for the first time. The JIVE and JIVE 2 projects together will see the 
deployment and operation of nearly 300 FC buses in 22 European 
cities/regions, thus providing a sound basis for further development 
of this sector.  

Coaches with Hydrogen Fuel Cell Powertrains for Regional and Long-
Distance  Passenger  Transport  with  Energy  Optimised  Powertrains 
and Cost Optimised Design. 

The project will introduce two coach solutions to solve the challenges 
of  longer driving distances of  regional  and  long-distance  coaches, 
more  stringent  packaging  constraints,  less  favourable  driving 
patterns and higher auxiliary powers. 

10 HRS 

Auxerre (FR) 

Barcelona (ES) 

Brighton (UK) 

Cologne (DE) 

Emmen (NL) 

Groningen (NL) 

London (UK) 

South Holland (NL) 

Wuppertal (DE) 

90 M€ 

25 M€ (28%) 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

7.3 M€ 

5 M€ (68%) 

CoacHyfied 

H2020 

2021-2025 

Source: JRC based on information from the Clean Hydrogen JU, 2023. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 34 shows the timeline of the FCEBs demonstration projects assessed in this report covering the period 
from 2010 until 2022. 

Figure 34. Timeline of all FCEB demonstration projects analysed in this report 

Source: Clean Hydrogen JU, 2023 

TIM visualisation was also employed to observe the trends on organisations and countries participating on these 
projects. Figure 35 (a) shows organisations involved in the Clean Hydrogen JU FCEB demonstration projects with 
a table listing the top ten in project participation. It can be observed that a number of specific partners are 
common to a number of projects, forming clusters. These clusters aggregate different types of organisations, 
usually a bus manufacturer, a bus operator company (commonly a municipal transport company), some HRS 
components manufacturers and a university, research centre or consultancy. This is the case of the cluster in 
light blue in Figure 35: Evobus GmbH (bus manufacturer), HyCologne Wasserstoff Region Rheinland / Suedtiroler 
Trasportstrukturen  AG  (bus  operator  companies),  Air  Products,  Vattenfall  AB,  HySolutions  GmbH,  Linde  PLC, 
TotalEnergies  SE  (HRS  components  manufacturers)  and  Planet  Planungs  Gruppe  Energie  und  Technik  GbR 
(consultancy). The organisations that participated in a greater number of FCEB and associated HRS projects 
covering  the  period  2010-2022  were  Aberdeen  City  Council  (bus  operator)  and  Element  Energy  LTD 
(consultancy). These organisations participated in 4 projects out of the 8 projects detailed in Table 9. Following 
them with participation in at least 3 projects were Ballard Power Systems INC (fuel cell manufacturer), Rigas 
Satiksme SIA (bus operator), Sphera Solutions GmbH (HRS component manufacturer) and WSW Mobil GmbH 
(bus operator).  

Comparing the organisations participating in previous FCEBs bus projects from FP4 to FP6 (Figure 33a) with the 
Clean  Hydrogen  JU  FCEB  demonstration  projects  (Figure  35a),  it  is  observed  the  historical  shift  from  early 
projects composed of scientific institutions, FC providers, and bus OEM to new projects mainly composed of 
FCEB operators/authorities/cities and consultants (data collection, coordination). FC providers, bus OEM are not 
often  partners  in  the  newest  projects.  This  is  showing  the  evolution  from  new  technology  developments  to 
commercialisation and access to an open FCEB market. 

Figure 35 (b) shows that the trend observed on participating countries in the FCEB early initiatives (see Figure 
33  (b))  continues  with  the  Clean  Hydrogen  JU  FCEB  demonstration  projects.  This  means  that  the  countries 
involved in the earlier FCEB initiatives (1996-2010), participated in the greatest number of FCEB projects in the 
2010-2022  period.  The  country  that  was  the  most  active  was  the  United  Kingdom  with  participation  in  6 
projects, followed by Germany, Denmark, and Belgium, participating in 5 projects. 

62 

Figure 35. TIM plots showing (a) the participants for Clean Hydrogen JU FCEB demonstration projects (2010-2022). 18 (b) 
EU member state participation for Clean Hydrogen JU demonstration projects (2010-2022). 19 

a) 

b) 

Source: JRC (TIM) based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2022. 

It is worth mentioning that the Clean Hydrogen JU funded additional projects that further contributed to the 
demonstration  of  the  FCEB  technology.  These  projects  belong  to  FCH  JU  Panel  5  (Hydrogen  for  Sectoral 
Integration) and intend to develop hydrogen valleys in which the use of FCEBs is not the main objective, hence 
these projects were not included in the analysis. A summary of the hydrogen for sectoral integration projects 
that include deployment of few FCEBs is contained in Table 3.  

(18)  The size of the node represents the number of projects a partner is involved in, whilst the thickness of the links represents the number 
of projects in common between the linked partners. The coloured groupings are potential clusters identified by TIM’s algorithm. The 
table shows the top 5 participants from the plot. 

(19)  The size of the node represents the number of projects that has at least one participating organisation from that member state. The 
thickness of the links between the nodes is proportional to the number of projects those member states have in common. The United 
Kingdom does not appear in the graph  as it is not a current EU member state. The table shows the top  5 countries represented, 
including the United Kingdom (an EU member state when the project was awarded) for comparison. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                       
 
3.2.3  State of the Art  

3.2.3.1  Technical development 

Hydrogen fuel cell buses have undergone significant technological evolution since they were first developed in 
the early 1990s. At that time, hydrogen was primarily used in buses with internal combustion engines. However, 
bus developers are now concentrating almost entirely on fuel cell electric buses (FCEB). The primary advantage 
of FCEBs is their ability to produce electricity on-board with a high level of efficiency, providing zero-emissions 
transportation with a range of up to 300 to 500 km. Fuel cell buses draw their energy from the fuel cell system 
(composed of two fuel cell stacks for some FCEBs models, each with an output of around 100 kW). They also 
have  a  relatively  small  traction  battery  and  are  able  to  recover  brake  energy.  In  addition,  they  carry 
approximately 30 to 50 kg of compressed hydrogen on board, which is usually stored in pressure tanks at 350 
bar. 

The main FCEB manufacturers worldwide are Toyota Motors Corporation, Hyundai Motor Company, Daimler AG 
(now Mercedes-Benz Group), Van Hool NV and Wrightbus International Limited. These companies have been at 
the forefront of developing and deploying fuel cell technology in transportation, and particularly in urban buses. 
Other relevant FCEB manufacturers are New Flyer, VDL, Safra Bus, Solaris and Caetano Bus. They have been 
involved in various projects and initiatives worldwide aimed at reducing carbon emissions by promoting the use 
of hydrogen fuel cell-powered buses. As of 2019, the most deployed hydrogen fuel cell bus models per region 
were the Van Hool A330 FC in Europe, the New Flyer XHE60 in the US, the Hyundai Fuel Cell Electric Bus in the 
Republic of Korea, the Toyota Sora in Japan and the Yinlong Fuian Golden Dragon hydrogen fuel cell bus in 
China  (International  Energy  Agency,  2019).  The  technical  specifications  from  these  and  other  frequently 
deployed models can be observed in Table 10.  

Looking at the technical specifications we can observe that Ballard fuel cell technology is used by the many of 
FCEB models examined in Table 10, with 5 out of 11 FCEB manufacturers using their fuel cell stacks. This makes 
it the most commonly used fuel cell technology. Three other FCEB manufacturers use Toyota fuel cells, and 
there is no available information for the other models. The most widely used Ballard model is the FCvelocity-
HD85, followed by the earlier developed FCvelocity-HD6. The power output of the fuel cells ranges between 60 
kW to 228 kW, irrespective of the model. The majority of batteries used in these FCEBs are of the Li-ion type, 
with a few exceptions. Toyota utilises Ni-metal-hydride and Caetano Li-Ti-oxide (LTO) batteries. The battery 
capacity varies significantly from the lowest 11 kWh used by ENC model, to the highest one at 230 kWh used 
by Toyota Sora.  

The range of fuel cell buses also varies greatly; Toyota Sora has the shortest range at 200 km, while New Flyer, 
Wright, Yinlong and Geely buses have a range of over 450 km. However, greater ranges are observed in new 
model prototypes, e.g. Temsa intercity Hydrogen bus with a range of up to 1000 km (TEMSA, 2023). The majority 
of the FCEB models displayed in Table 10 can travel a range of more than 340 km. There is no clear correlation 
between newer models deployed and range increase, and data on their reliability and operation is limited, as 
they are still quite recent. Hydrogen storage in these buses generally ranges between 27 kg to 50 kg, and the 
majority of FCEBs use a large hydrogen tank with lower storage pressure, typically at 350 bar. Buses in Asia 
present a higher storage pressure, at 700 bar, while buses in Europe and America have a storage pressure of 
350 bar. 

In terms of bus cost, the Wright bus shows the lowest cost per bus at 570 000 EUR, whereas ENC can cost 
more  than  three  times  that,  at  1  963  000  EUR,  owing  the  lower  cost  of  the  Wright  bus  to  technological 
advantages and component cost reductions of newer models. There is a correlation of price reduction with the 
newer models. The average fuel consumption is approximately 8 kg per 100 km, ranging from 6 to 11 kg. This 
gives FCEBs an energy efficiency advantage of around 40% as compared with diesel buses. The operational 
data of newer models is limited, with only three out of eleven FCEB manufacturers reporting data on availability. 
These newer models have achieved an availability that ranges 75 – 89%.  

64 

 
 
  
Table 10. Specifications of the most commonly deployed FCEB models in Europe, US, Japan, Republic of Korea and China. 

Bus Manufacturer 

Van Hool 

Country of origin 

Belgium 

ENC 

US 

New Flyer 

US 

Wright 

UK 

Solaris 

Poland 

Toyota 

Hyundai 

Caetano 

Japan 

Rep. of Korea 

Portugal 

Foton 

China 

Model 

A330 FC 

Axess 

XHE40 

STREETDECK FCEV Hydroliner 

Urbino 12 hydrogen 

Toyota FC Bus / Sora 

Elec City Fuel Cell 

H2.City Gold 

BJ6123FCEVCH 

Start of Production 

2019 

2017 

Fuel cell OEM 

Ballard 

Ballard 

2018 

Ballard 

2020 

Ballard 

Model FC 

FCvelocity-HD85 

FCvelocity–HD6 

FCvelocity-HD85 

FCvelocity-HD85 

Power (kW) 

210 

150 

85 

85 

2020 

Ballard 

n/a 

120 

2017 

Toyota 

Toyota FC Stack 

228 

n/a 

n/a 

180 

2020 

2020 

Toyota FC Stack 

SinoHytec 

Design 

FC dominant 

FC dominant 

Hybrid (Battery dominant) 

FC dominant 

FC dominant 

Hybrid (Battery dominant) 

FC dominant 

Battery type 

Li-ion 

Li-ion 

Li-ion 

Li-ion 

Li-ion 

Ni-metal hydride 

Li-ion 

Li-titan oxide 

Battery capacity 

17.4 kWh 

11 kWh 

100 kWh 

27.4kWh 

29.2 kWh 

230 kWh 

78.4 kWh 

n/a 

65 kWh 

Toyota 

60  

n/a 

n/a 

Toyota 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Yinlong 

China 

Fuian Golden 
Dragon 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

120 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Geely 

China 

F12 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Range 

Storage  

Pressure 

350-400 km 

418 km 

482 km 

38.5 kg  

50 kg 

37.5 kg  

350 bar 

350 bar 

350 bar 

Hydrogen storage type 

Type III 

Type III 

Type IV 

Price (Thousand EUR) 

650 

1,718 - 1,963 * 

1,039* 

Fuel Consumption in 100 
km 

9-11 kg 

10 kg 

6.9 kg 

450 km 

27kg 

350 bar 

N/A 

570* 

n/a 

350 km 

1560 L 

350 bar 

Type IV 

650 

<10 kg 

Availability 

83-89% 

75% 

75,6% 

No data 

n/a 

200 km 

343 km 

400 km 

600L 

34.5 kg 

37.5 kg 

n/a 

n/a 

700 bar 

700 bar 

350 bar 

350 bar 

Type IV 

Type IV 

Type IV 

762* 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

6.9 kg 

>6 kg 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

500 km 

500 km 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

7.5 kg 

n/a 

Source: PwC, Study on State of the Art of FCEV, FCB and HRS 

65 

 
 
Other relevant European FCEBs manufacturers who have recently launched FCEB models and are not included 
in Table 10 are: Safra with Businova and its new H2City model, TEMSA with is intercity Hydrogen bus model, 
Skoda with its H’City model, IVECO Bus with its E-WAY H2 model, Mercedes Benz with its e-CITARO fuel cell 
model (using a fuel cell as a range extender), Karsan with its e-ATA hydrogen model, Otokar with its KENT C 
Hydrogen model and Irizar with its i6S Hydrogen model (Bus World Europe, 2023). 

The use of fuel cells and hydrogen in municipal buses has made a substantial contribution to the technical and 
economic development of this drive technology in road transport. For that reason, the use of fuel cell technology 
and  hydrogen  in  buses  is  also  regarded  as  a  model  which  can  be  transferred  to  other  commercial  vehicles 
(coaches,  MD  and  HD  vehicles).  However, FCEBs  also  face  some  challenges.  The  cost  of  manufacturing  and 
maintaining fuel cell buses is high, though it is expected to decrease as production volume increases. They also 
need  hydrogen  refuelling  stations,  which  are  not  widely  available  yet.  This  lack  of  infrastructure  is  a  major 
hurdle for the wider adoption of hydrogen fuel cell buses, and it is likely to contribute to slower growth than 
their battery electric counterparts. 

Despite  these  challenges,  FCEBs  are  regarded  as  a  key  component  of  sustainable  transport  solutions, 
particularly in urban areas. This is because they do not produce any harmful emissions, providing cleaner air to 
residents in cities where air pollution is often a significant problem. Demonstration projects with large fleets in 
long-term use are accelerating the market penetration, with FCEB fleets in Europe reaching between 300 and 
400 vehicles in 2020. In comparing FCEBs with other zero-emissions transport solutions, battery electric buses 
(BEBs) are often considered the main competitor. BEBs are more affordable in the short term, with lower vehicle 
and refuelling costs, and with battery technology improving rapidly the difference in range is gradually closing.  

In conclusion, fuel cell buses have undergone significant technological evolution in the last few decades. They 
represent a key component of sustainable transportation solutions in urban areas, but their high manufacturing 
and maintenance costs, as well as the lack of hydrogen refuelling infrastructure, are important challenges. They 
do, however, provide key advantages compared to battery electric buses in extended range and short refuelling 
times. 

3.2.3.2  Manufacturing 

From the analysis performed on FCEB manufacturing and sales data from 2016 to 2020 based on the IHS 
Markit, it can be concluded that the quantity of FCEBs manufactured varied significantly by region. The majority 
of FCEBs (88%) were manufactured in China, almost reaching 2500 units over the four years. During the same 
time period, European production accounted for approximately 123 buses, 4.5% of the global production. Japan 
and Republic of Korea followed with 92 and 81 units, respectively. The US came in last with 32 FCEBs (1.2% of 
the global production). Regarding fuel cell production for FCEBs, the largest fuel cell manufacturer was Ballard. 
Other main fuel cell system manufacturers for MD and HD vehicles are Cummings/Hydrogenics, Loop Energy, 
Nuvera, Plug Power, PowerCell and US Hybrid. Most fuel cell manufacturers offer a wide power range, typically 
30 - 100 kW, producing fuel cells for both range extender and primary power applications (US Department of 
Energy).  Toyota  and  Hyundai  use  similar  fuel  cell  technology  in  their  FCEBs  as  in  their  FCEVs  but  sized 
accordingly for the power needs of the FCEBs.  

China  has  the  largest  bus  and  coach  market  globally,  with  the  largest  FCEB  fleet.  However,  information  on 
Chinese manufacturers is limited. The data shows that Chinese FCEBs tend to be smaller in size, with fuel cell 
modules between 40 kW - 70 kW. These manufacturers heavily depend on imported fuel cell technology since 
the primary fuel cell producers have joint ventures or own factories in China. 

3.2.3.3  Deployment 

As  of  June  2023,  there  were  around  7000  fuel  cell  buses  in  operation  worldwide,  mostly  in  China,  which 
accounts for over 85% of global deployment (International Energy Agency, 2023). Other regions such as Europe, 
Republic of Korea, the United States and Japan are also developing fuel cell bus fleets, although at a slower 
pace. Figure 36 shows the breakdown of FCEBs deployment per country as of the end of 2022. The Republic of 
Korea (281) and The United States (211) follow China (5410) in second and third place. Japan (124), The United 
Kingdom (98), Germany (68), India (58) and The Netherlands (54) are further countries with more than 50 units 

66 

 
 
(Can  and  Rex, 2023).  Other  countries  that  also  operate  fuel  cell  buses  in  the  double  digits  are  France  (33), 
Austria  (25),  Switzerland  and  Italy  (20  each).  Other  European  countries,  such  as  Norway,  Latvia,  Spain, 
Luxemburg, Denmark, Belgium, Portugal and Sweden are the remaining countries that operate fuel cell buses, 
with one to nine units each. Europe as a whole had 364 fuel cell buses in operation at the end of 2022, being 
the most active region deploying hydrogen buses after China.  

Figure 36: Waterfall diagram showing country-based distribution of FCEBs on the road as of the end of 2022 

Source: (Can and Rex, 2023) 

There have been developments on fuel cell buses worldwide throughout 2022 and 2023. For example, Kansai 
Airport  (Japan)  launched  a  hydrogen  fuel  cell  shuttle  bus  service  in  2022  (VINCI  Airports,  2022).  In  Europe, 
Polish manufacturer Solaris announced in September 2022 plans to unveil an 18-metre fuel cell bus with the 
first deliveries scheduled for the second quarter of 2023 (Solaris, 2022). Solaris has delivered nearly 100 of 
their 12-metre fuel cell buses to European customers since 2019. Additionally, Wright Bus will supply up to 60 
fuel  cell  buses  to  the  city  of  Cologne  (Germany)  (Belfast  Telegraph,  2022),  and  Solaris  will  provide  up  to  a 
further 20 fuel cell buses with deliveries beginning in 2023 (Solaris, 2022). A hundred and twenty-four new 
fuel cell buses will be also deployed in The United Kingdom’s West Midlands, adding to the existing fleet of 20 
buses  (Express  &  Star,  2022).  Caetano  Bus,  part  of  Toyota  Caetano  Portugal,  has  also  announced  plans  to 
deploy 60 FCEBs in 2024 (Toyota Motor Corporation, 2023). In 2022, Safra launched a new fuel cell bus model 
at the European Mobility Expo held in Paris. The Hycity 12 will be the successor to their previous Businova H2 
model,  launched  in  2011.  In  2023,  Germany  has  witnessed  a  significant  uptake  of  FCEBs,  with  notable 
stakeholders like Deutsche Bahn, the cities of Weimar and Frankfurt, embracing this technology. For instance, 
Deutsche Bahn has approved the purchase of 60 FCEBs (Fuel Cell Works, 2023), while Weimar (Fuel Cell Works, 
2023)  and  Frankfurt  (Hydrogen  Fuel  News,  2023)  have  also  shown  their  support  for  FCEBs.  Similar 

67 

 
 
 
developments are taking place in Liverpool, where the introduction of the first of 20 planned FCEBs took place 
in 2023 (H2-view, 2023). Additionally, Higer, a Chinese manufacturer, is currently conducting trials for FCEBs in 
Brazil and Uruguay (Fuel Cell Works, 2023). Notably, the Republic of Korea has made substantial strides in this 
area, with plans to deploy 700 FCEBs in Incheon by the end of 2024 (Hydrogen Central, 2023) and a staggering 
1300 in Seoul by 2030 (Hydrogeninsight, 2023), partly supported by a subsidy program (Fuel Cell Works, 2023). 

3.2.4  Progress against the State of the Art in Europe 

3.2.4.1  Early FCEBs initiatives (2000-2010) 

The  early  initiatives  carried  out  during  the  implementation  of  FP4,  FP5  and  FP6  marked  the  start  of  the 
demonstration  activities  on  FCEBs  and  its  associated  refuelling  infrastructure  in  Europe.  The  projects 
“Development of Full Size Electric Bus with Second Generation Fuel Cells Stacks”, FUEL CELL BUS and FUEL 
CELL BUS II focused on the development and optimisation of pre-commercial fuel cell bus powertrains and its 
implementation in buses for inner city transport. Following these, ECTOS, CUTE and HIGH:FLEET CUTE projects 
led the way on the demonstration of the FCEB technology, deploying the first FCEB fleets in Europe, ahead of 
the  Clean  Hydrogen  JU  projects.  Figure  37  illustrates  the  deployment  of  Fuel  Cell  Electric  Buses  (FCEBs)  in 
Europe  during  the  2005-2010  period,  including  data  from  the  CUTE  and  HIGH:FLEET  CUTE  projects.  When 
considering the FCEBs deployed by the previous ECTOS project, the total European FCEB fleet amounted to 63.  

Overall, these projects played a significant role in the development and commercialization of fuel cell buses. 
Through  their  research,  demonstration  and  evaluation  of  fuel  cell  buses,  these  projects  were  able  to 
demonstrate  the  potential  of  fuel  cell  technology  for  sustainable  and  efficient  urban  transportation,  which 
helped to encourage the adoption and investment in fuel cell buses in the following years. These projects were 
also instrumental in establishing the first examples of hydrogen refuelling infrastructure for the urban transport 
sector, which was crucial for wider adoption of fuel cell buses in following projects. 

68 

Figure 37. FCEBs in operation in Europe from 2005 to 2010. Projects CUTE and HYFLEET:CUTE. 

Source: Clean Hydrogen JU, 2023 

3.2.4.2  Clean Hydrogen JU FCEB projects (2011-2023) 

The projects funded by the Clean Hydrogen JU (FP7 and H2020) were focused on the wider demonstration, 
progress and validation of FCEB technology and its refuelling infrastructure. The ultimate goal was to accelerate 
the  entrance  of  fuel  cell  technology  in  the  European  bus  manufacturing  industry  by  showcasing  market 
readiness  and  creating  competitive  cost  refuelling  networks.  Additionally,  these  projects  assisted  in  the 
gathering  of  substantial  FCEB  and  HRS  performance  data.  This  data  proved  to  be  useful  in  evaluating  the 
performance of the deployed fleets and HRS against the MAWP KPIs. 

Early Clean Hydrogen JU FCEB projects (2011-2019) 

Early Clean Hydrogen JU FCEB projects under FP7 (CHIC, HIGH V.LO-CITY, HYTRANSIT and 3EMOTION) mainly 
centred on the deployment of the state-of-the art HRS and FCEB fleets at different European sites, validating 
and monitoring the progress of the FCEB technology. These bus demo projects provided further positive evidence 
on  the  performance  and  functionality  of  hydrogen  fuel  cell  buses  and  associated  refuelling  infrastructure, 
steadily reducing barriers for their commercialisation in the short term. This was mainly achieved through major 
progress  in  fuel  cell  lifetime  (exceeding  the  expectations)  and  increasing  the  availability  of  high-capacity 

69 

 
 
 
refuelling systems. Operational experience was acquired with different bus drive trains and with different means 
of hydrogen production.  

CHIC continued the demonstration efforts from the former CUTE project. CHIC was the first Clean Hydrogen JU 
project  demonstrating  FCEB  reliability  by  operating  54  hydrogen  fuel  cell  buses  and  4  hydrogen  powered 
internal combustion engine buses in 9 cities in Europe and Canada. The buses were delivered by 5 different bus 
manufacturers  and  had  fuel  cells  from  two  different  suppliers.  Additionally,  it  contributed  to  enlarge  the 
hydrogen refuelling infrastructure in Europe. The progress in the refuelling infrastructure was also demonstrated 
with  more  reliability,  higher  availability  and  shorter  filling  times.  The  refuelling  stations  operated  with  an 
average availability of more than 94% over the entire project lifetime, and at greater than 98% for half the 
sites in the latter half of the project. Meeting the demanding daily operational requirements of public transport 
operations in a number of diverse cities across Europe and Canada was the most significant achievement. This, 
combined  with  the  step  change,  generational  improvement  in  performance,  including fuel  consumption,  and 
availability cemented the FCEB technology in urban transport.  

HIGH V.LO-CITY project accelerated the integration of a new generation of FCEBs. 14 FCEBs were operated in 
Scotland (UK), Liguria (IT), Flanders (BE) and Groningen (NL) in the public transport system. These buses were 
operated in fleets demonstrating the technical and operational quality. The project showcased their value in 
creating  a  clean  and  highly  attractive  public  transport  service  and  facilitated  the  modular  shift  that  local 
transport  policies  were  envisioning.  By  effectively  linking  previous  (CHIC)  and  future  demonstration  sites 
(3EMOTION and JIVE), the project sought to further broaden and consolidate a network of successful fuel cell 
bus operators able to widen the dissemination of fuel cell bus operations in Europe. During the project lifetime, 
all 14 buses and 3 planned HRSs (and 1 additional HRS) were delivered and operated in the 4 European regions, 
under a wide range of geographical-, climate- and operational conditions. The buses drove more than 1 million 
km throughout the project, consuming between 9 - 13 kg H2/100km. The refuelling times were kept in the 10 - 
12  min  interval  at  the  project  HRSs  with  an  average  availability  of  96.8%.  This  led  to  the  achievement  of 
avoiding more than 1000 t of CO2 emissions.  

HYTRANSIT  project  deployed  a  fleet  of  six  FCEBs  and  one  state-of-the-art  HRS  in  Aberdeen,  Scotland. 
Throughout  the  project,  the  Aberdeen  Kittybrewster  HRS  demonstrated  some  of  the  highest  utilisation  and 
availability figures observed across hydrogen projects in Europe. Over the four years of operation, an average 
availability of 99.5% was achieved, with over 147,000 kg of hydrogen dispensed in 5400 successful refills. This 
high level of performance was attributed to two main factors: the innovative station design which factored in 
great  levels  of  redundancy  into  the  station,  and  a  dedicated  on-site  technical  engineer  who  visited  and 
monitored  the  site  every  day  to  assess  performance  and  conduct  pre-emptive  maintenance.  Based  on  the 
success of the station, the HRS was upgraded in 2018 to include a 700-bar refueller on-site. This opened the 
station  to  passenger  cars  and  other  smaller  goods  vehicles,  increasing  the  utilisation  of  the  facility  and 
expanding Aberdeen City Council’s (ACC) potential for hydrogen deployments. Through rigorous operation, the 
FCEBs  demonstrated  that  the  technology  can  meet  many  of  the  operational  requirements  of  an  equivalent 
diesel bus, especially when considering the range and refuelling time of the technology. However, when placed 
in comparison with their diesel counterparts, the availability of the FCEB was a challenge for the bus operator 
averaging 80% across the project period, excluding the teething period of the FCEBs and the HRS. Despite these 
availability challenges, the 6 HYTRANSIT buses operated impressively in the project, driving approximately 1.4 
million kilometres and transporting over 1.3 million passengers. As a result, the consortium was able to compile 
a detailed dataset which has facilitated the development of a new generation of FCEBs capable of matching 
the full operational requirements of a conventional diesel bus. 

3EMOTION deployed all the 29 buses it originally aimed at: 10 buses in London, 6 in Rotterdam and the South 
Holland province, 7 in Versailles, 3 in Pau and 3 in Aalborg. The project demonstrated the operability of buses 
from four different manufacturers with two different fuel cells systems. Additionally, 3EMOTION succeeded in 
gathering operational data throughout the project and in sharing operational experiences, attracting new cities, 
regions and operators to hydrogen buses. The project has also shown good synergies with other projects (JIVE 
initiative), other funding calls such as H2 Bus Europe (CEF) and bus manufacturers (Van Hool, Toyota Motor 
Europe and Caetano Bus) by participating in meetings and sharing experiences and lessons learned. Additionally, 
four  peer-reviewed  scientific  publications  were  developed  under  the  project  duration,  mainly  on  hydrogen 
refuelling aspects related to buses. It is worth mentioning that the project also created spill-over effects and 

70 

 
 
new activities not originally targeted. An example of this is that the bus concepts developed and tested in the 
project (range extender trailers) led to the development of the first VDL hydrogen truck, which used the same 
module on a fuel cell heavy duty truck. A more integrated system for trucks (H2Haul project) evolved from the 
initial concepts tested in 3EMOTION with further development. The buses in some sites of 3EMOTION met the 
targets on Hydrogen Consumption (average of 8 kg H2/100 km), Warranty Time (15 000 h) and Bus Cost (< 850 
000  EUR)  but  fell  behind  slightly  on  Availability.  The  cumulative  distance  covered  by  the  3EMOTION  buses 
through  the  project  duration  was  close  to  4  million  km.  Overall,  the  project  met  its  targets  in  terms  of 
deployment and KPIs. The main difficulties experienced throughout the project were related to delays due to 
replacement of project sites or due to regulatory and permitting issues (homologation of new bus concepts). 
Another major issue was the impact of COVID-19 on the operation of the buses in the different sites. However, 
full operation of the project sites was achieved during 2022. 

Figure 38 shows the deployment of FCEBs in Europe from the early Clean Hydrogen JU FCEB projects during 
the 2011-2019 period, including data from the CHIC, HIGH V.LO-CITY, HYTRANSIT and 3EMOTION projects. The 
total FCEB fleet deployed in Europe during this period amounted to 107.  

Figure 38. FCEBs in operation in Europe from 2011 to 2019. Projects: CHIC, HIGH V.LO-CITY, HYTRANSIT and 3EMOTION. 

Source: Clean Hydrogen JU, 2023 

71 

 
 
 
Recent Clean Hydrogen JU FCEB projects (2020-2023) 

Recent Clean Hydrogen JU FCEB projects under H2020 (NEWBUSFUEL, JIVE and JIVE2) focused on accelerating 
the market penetration of FCEBs deployed in Europe, demonstrating market readiness and identifying business 
cases as well as developing the necessary refuelling infrastructure at a competitive cost. JIVE and JIVE2 both 
aimed  at  the  expansion  of  the  deployment  of  FCEBs  and  refuelling  infrastructure  across  Europe  while 
NEWBUSFUEL focused on techno-economic aspects of FCEB and associated infrastructure. 

Within  the  NEWBUSFUEL  project  engineering  studies  were  conducted  for  13  different  large  scale  hydrogen 
refuelling station designs at 12 different sites in seven European countries, taking into account the individual 
boundary  conditions  and  constraints  of  the  individual  projects.  These  comprised  numerous  challenges  with 
respect to local conditions such as topography and climate, the situation of the bus operator, e.g. the existing 
bus depots, or the national regulatory framework. Despite the large variation of requirements, suitable HRS 
solutions could be developed for all case studies within the project. This was achieved by close cooperation 
between the bus operators and infrastructure suppliers. All solutions considered components and technologies 
that  were  available,  proving  that  there  were  no  technological  limits  related  to  hydrogen  infrastructure.  The 
project also focused on the economic performance of the hydrogen infrastructure. Three case studies following 
different HRS technology concepts achieved the hydrogen target cost range of 4 – 6 €/kg H2. For those case 
studies  missing  the  target  cost  range,  the  most  relevant  reasons  and  obstacles  were  identified. 
Recommendations from the experiences and insights that were generated among the project participants were 
proposed for the three main stakeholder groups (bus operators, hydrogen infrastructure suppliers and policy 
makers).  These  aimed  for  further  technical  and  economic  improvements  of  the  HRS  technologies,  and 
consequentially for improving the cost-competitiveness of operating hydrogen fuel cell buses. 

Combined  JIVE  and  JIVE  2  are  deploying  over  300  fuel  cell  buses  in  16  cities  across  Europe,  the  largest 
deployment in Europe to date. The local fleets range from 5 to 50 FCEBs, typically 10 to 20. As of 2022, JIVE 
has ordered all the 142 planned buses and 132 are in operation, while JIVE 2 has ordered 122 buses out of the 
156 planned, has 98 buses in operation and expects to have the committed fleet delivered by mid-2024. These 
two projects have suffered considerable delays over the pandemic period and had to be extended. One city 
from JIVE and another city from JIVE2 do not yet have their buses operational, although they are expected to 
be  operational  by  the  summer  2023  and  November  2024,  respectively.  Considering  these  two  projects  and 
3EMOTION, 258 Clean Hydrogen JU buses were in operation and reporting data throughout 2022 in 17 cities. 
Considering  the  bus  demonstration  projects  that  were  reporting  in  TRUST  between  2016  and  2022,  a  total 
distance of over 14.8 million km was accumulated, with almost 6.9 million km accumulated in 2022 alone. In 
the last six years, over 1.4 million tonnes of hydrogen have been consumed, of which 44% in 2022. 

Figure  39  illustrates  the  deployment  of  FCEBs  in  Europe  from  the  recent  Clean  Hydrogen  JU  FCEB  projects 
during the 2020-2023 period, including data from the JIVE and JIVE2 projects. The total FCEB fleet deployed in 
Europe during this period amounted to 257.  

72 

 
 
 
 
Figure 39. FCEBs in operation in Europe from 2020 to 2023. Projects: JIVE and JIVE2. 

Source: Clean Hydrogen JU, 2023 

A major advantage for FCEBs is the longer distance range they can achieve in comparison to battery electric 
buses. The COACHYFIED project, which started in January 2021, is aiming to demonstrate coaches with fuel cell 
powertrains in regional and long-distance passenger transport. The project focuses on the evolution of the fuel 
cell city bus drive systems into the coach sector, taking into account the special challenges for electrification of 
coaches regarding range, speed, comfort (air conditioning) and luggage space. The project is addressing two 
coach types, both for the medium range Regional Coaches (M3 class II) for regional or intercity transport as 
well as the Long-Distance Coaches (M3 class III) for tourist transport. The demonstration comprises 6 coaches 
from two European coach manufacturers, with FC technology from two leading FC manufacturers and applies 
two  standard  compressed  hydrogen  tank  solutions.  The  vehicles  are  to  be  demonstrated  in  two  different 
European regions representing a bandwidth of different geography, climate and operational profiles. 

At a European level, the Clean Hydrogen JU bus deployment activities can be considered as a flagship. Figure 
40 shows the total European FCEB fleet deployed from 2005 to 2023, including data from CUTE, HIGH:FLEET 
CUTE, CHIC, HIGH V.LO-CITY, HYTRANSIT, 3EMOTION, JIVE and JIVE2. The number of deployed FCEBs during this 
period surpasses the 400-unit milestone. The success of bus demo projects is demonstrated by the fact that in 
different cities, bus operators have joined the projects after their start. This evidences a growing involvement 
of regions and a steadily increase in private contribution to the financing of the demo projects.  

73 

 
 
 
Figure 40. FCEBs deployed in Europe from 2005 to 2023. Projects: CUTE, HIGH:FLEET CUTE, CHIC, HIGH V.LO-CITY, 
HYTRANSIT, 3EMOTION, JIVE and JIVE2. 

Source: Clean Hydrogen JU, 2023 

Additional  outputs  from  these  projects  worth  mentioning  are:  1)  the  significant  amount  of  data  collected, 
relevant for KPIs assessment and improvement of WTW analysis and TCO models; 2) the collaboration with city 
councils  for  dissemination  to  the  public,  site  visits  and  dissemination  to  attract  new  customers;  and  3)  the 
development  of  integrated  solutions  offered  by  partnerships  among  powertrain  manufacturers,  bus 
manufacturers and hydrogen providers, promoting the acceleration of the development of hydrogen mobility in 
Europe. However, there are still barriers to be overcome.  

FCEBs encounter difficulties competing against the cheaper costs of battery electric buses. This situation has 
been accentuated through 2022 as the energy crisis impacted the hydrogen prices at the pump, affecting the 
financial viability of the projects. Maintenance and operational costs for the buses have become too high for 
some operators to commit to the project, especially due to the high hydrogen prices observed in 2022. The high 
hydrogen  price  has  been  a  significant  unforeseen  challenge  and  is  still  to  be  resolved.  Improvements  are 
expected, but uncertainties persisted at the end of 2022. Additionally, FCEB mass production is still not available 
and manufacturing times are long with 12 to 18 months between FCEB order and delivery. The ‘chicken and 
egg  problem’  for  refuelling  infrastructure  is  slowly  improving  but  there  are  still  few  providers  for  “package 
solutions” including hydrogen production, storage and dispensing, with operation and maintenance of the HRS. 
Another barrier to be considered is the weak supply chain of components for hydrogen mobility applications in 

74 

 
 
 
general. The main issue is that manufacturers tend to follow demand and there is little flexibility to increase 
the stock of spare parts. The increase of manufacturing capacity and cost optimisation are therefore limited. 

3.2.5  Key Performance Indicators and Targets 

The targets originating from the Addendum to the Multi-Annual Work Plan (MAWP) of the FCH JU 2 (Fuel Cells 
and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking (FCH JU), 2018) for fuel cell electric buses were employed to assess the 
performance of the FCEB projects. These targets are summarised in Table 11.  

This  table  also  includes  SoA  values  for  2012  and  2017.  The  values  provided  in  this  table  originate  from 
agreement between the FCH 2 JU and a panel of industry experts. The parameters considered as KPIs for the 
purpose of the programme are: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

Fuel cell system durability (h). Durability of the fuel cell system until 10% power degradation.  

Hydrogen  consumption  (kg/100).  Hydrogen  consumption  for  100  km  driven  under  real  life 
operation using exclusively hydrogen feed. 

Availability (%). Percent of time that the bus is able to operate versus the overall time that it is 
intended to operate. 

Yearly operation cost (EUR/year). Costs for spare parts and labour for the drivetrain maintenance. 

Fuel cell system cost (EUR/kW). Cost of the fuel cell system - excluding overheads and profits. 

Bus cost (Thousand EUR). Cost of manufacturing the vehicle. 

Table 11. State-of-the-art and future targets for fuel cell buses (Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking (FCH JU), 
2018) 

No. 

Parameter 

Unit 

State of the art 

Clean Hydrogen JU target 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

2012 

2017 

2020 

2024 

2030 

Fuel cell system durability 

h 

10000 

16000 

20000 

24000 

28000 

Hydrogen consumption 

Availability 

kg/100 

% 

Yearly operation cost (including labour) 

EUR/year 

9 

85 

n/a 

8.5 

90 

n/a 

8.0 

90 

7.5 

93 

7.1 

93 

16000 

14000 

11000 

Fuel cell system cost 

EUR/kW 

3500 

1500 

Bus cost 

Thousand EUR 

1300 

650 

900               
(250 units) 

750              
(500 units) 

600             
(900 units) 

625             
(150 units) 

600             
(250 units) 

500             
(300 units) 

Source: Addendum to the Multi-annual Work Plan of the FCH 2 JU (Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking (FCH JU), 2018) 

Notes: 

1) Durability of the fuel cell system subject to EoL criterion, fuel cell stack life 10% degradation in power or H2 
leak rate as per SAE2578. 

2) Hydrogen consumption for 100 km driven under operations using exclusively hydrogen feed according to 
SORT 1 and 2 drive cycle. 

3) Percent amount of time that the bus is able to operate versus the overall time that it is intended to operate 
for a fleet availability same as diesel buses. 

75 

 
 
 
4) Costs for spare parts and man-hours of labour for the drivetrain maintenance. 

5) Actual cost of the fuel cell system - excluding overheads and profits subject to yearly overall fuel cell bus 
module volume as stated. 

6) Cost of manufacturing the vehicle. In case of buses for which a replacement of the fuel cell stack is foreseen, 
the cost of stack replacement is included in the calculation. Subject to yearly volumes per OEM as assumed in 
Roland Berger FC bus commercialisation study. 

Additionally, the following parameters related to the deployment of fuel cell buses have also been studied to 
assess the progress of FCH 2 JU projects: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Number of buses deployed in operation (units). Number of buses deployed in operation during the 
reference period in the reference location by the end date of the present reporting exercise. 

Number of buses deployed, cumulative (units). Cumulative number of buses deployed during the 
reference period in the reference location by the end date of the present reporting exercise. 

Distance driven (km). Yearly distance driven by the buses over the timeframe of the data collection 
exercise. 

Distance driven, cumulative (km). Total distance driven by the buses within the project, until the 
end date of this data reporting exercise. 

3.2.6  Performance evaluation of FCEB projects in Europe 

In this section, the performance of the reviewed projects versus a series of specific KPIs is assessed. The KPI 
values  from  each  project  were  extracted  from  final  reports,  the  TRUST  database  and  other  sources  of 
information.  

The information obtained from this study has then been used to review how the programme is progressing 
against  its  overall  targets,  and  to  suggest  future  modifications  to  the  research  programme  and  associated 
targets.  This  will  be  put  into  context  regarding  the  scale  of  the  project  and  the  conditions  under  which  the 
particular  performance  was  achieved.  The  data  presented  is  obtained  from  the  following  demonstration 
projects: ECTOS, CUTE, HY:FLEET CUTE, CHIC, HIGH V.LO-CITY, HYTRANSIT, 3EMOTION, JIVE, JIVE2. 

It should be noted that the values obtained from these projects should be provided under standard boundary 
conditions applying to all system KPIs (as defined in Table 11). In general, it has not been possible to establish 
whether all data has been given under these standard conditions.  

3.2.6.1  Number of buses deployed in operation (units) 

Figure 41 shows the number of FCEBs deployed and in operation over the years by the early European FCEBs 
initiatives and the Clean Hydrogen JU FCEBs projects. A gap regarding deployment can be observed between 
the early European projects (ECTOS, CUTE, HYFLEET:CUTE) and the FCH JU projects kicking off (starting with 
CHIC).  

It is noticeable that compared to the early deployments that started with the ECTOS, CUTE and HYFLEET:CUTE 
projects, deployment numbers have seen a significant growth with the FCH JU projects, especially with JIVE and 
JIVE2  projects.  In  2023  (data  collected  from  May  2022  to  May  2023),  250  FCEBs  were  in  operation  and 
reporting data from 3EMOTION, JIVE and JIVE2 projects in Europe. These FCEBs are distributed in cities from 
seven European countries.  

76 

 
 
 
Figure 41. Number of FCEBs deployed and in operation per project versus year 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2023. 

Figure 42 and Figure 43 show a detail of the FCEB models deployed and in operation over the years and the 
models deployed within each project over the years, respectively.  

Figure 42. Number of buses deployed and in operation from each model versus year for FCEB projects 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2023. 

77 

 
 
 
 
The models deployed came from a wide variety of manufacturers: Mercedes-Benz group (CITARO FC and FC 
Hybrid), MAN Truck & Bus (LION’S CITY), APTS (PHILEAS), Van Hool (A330FC and XQC18FC), New Flyer (XHE40), 
Safra Bus (BUSINOVA H2), VDL (CITEA SFL-120 ELECTRIC), Wright Bus (PULSAR 2 H2 and STREETDECK H2), 
Caetano (H2 CITY GOLD) and Solaris (URBINO 12 H2). A total of 13 different FCEB models were deployed over 
the years in the different projects. The deployment followed the international state of art with the latest models 
launched to the market being deployed in the FCH JU projects. In some cases, prototype/concept buses were 
also deployed and tested within the projects timeframe. 

Figure 43 details the FCEB models deployed within each project. We can observe that the models most deployed 
for each project were: 1) CITARO FC for ECTOS, CUTE and HYFLEET:CUTE with 3, 27 and 33 units respectively, 
2) XHE40 for CHIC with 20 units, 3) A330FC for HIGH V.LO-CITY, HYTRANSIT and JIVE with 14, 6 and 45 units 
respectively, 4) PULSAR 2 H2 for 3EMOTION with 8 units and 5) SOLARIS URBINO 12 H2 for JIVE2 with 45 units. 

78 

 
 
 
Figure 43. Number of buses deployed in operation from each model per year over the different FCEB projects 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2023.  

79 

 
 
 
3.2.6.2  Number of buses deployed, cumulative (units) 

Figure  44  illustrates  the  cumulative  FCEBs  deployed  over  the  years  by  the  different  projects.  The  three 
deployment periods described in Section 3.2.3 are easy to distinguish in Figure 44: 1) the early FCEBs initiatives 
in the 2005-2010 period with the first FCEBs demonstration (ECTOS, CUTE, HYFLEET:CUTE projects); 2) the early 
Clean  Hydrogen  JU  projects  in  the  2011-2019  period,  focusing  on  the  wider  demonstration,  progress  and 
validation of FCEB technology (CHIC, HIGH V.LO-CITY, HYTRANSIT and 3EMOTION projects); and 3) the recent 
Clean  Hydrogen  JU  projects  in  the  2020-2023  period,  focusing  on  demonstrating  market  readiness  and 
identifying  business  cases  (JIVE  and  JIVE2  projects).  It  is  also  noticeable  the  significant  growth  of  FCEBs 
deployment with the Clean Hydrogen JU projects, especially with JIVE and JIVE2 projects in 2022 and 2023. 
The total FCEB fleet deployed over the 2005-2023 period surpasses the 400-unit milestone. 

Figure 44. Cumulative FCEBs deployed per project versus year 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2023. 

3.2.6.3  Distance driven (km) 

Figure 45 shows the distance driven by the buses deployed in each project per year. There is a lack of data 
reporting on yearly distance driven for the early European projects (ECTOS and CUTE). They cannot be considered 
in this analysis for that reason. Clean Hydrogen JU projects have reported the yearly distance driven by the 
FCEBs since 2012. It is observed that the distance driven by the FCEBs per year was growing until the end of 
CHIC project where it stagnated for several years. However, the year 2022 showed great distance driven figures 
from  3EMOTION,  JIVE  and  JIVE2  projects.  This  was  partly  caused  by  the  lock-downs  from  the  COVID-19 
pandemic, with fleets not operating for long periods of time and the FCEB deployments being postponed due 
to bottlenecks in supply chains. The recovery in distance driven is significant for 2022.  

80 

 
 
 
 
Figure 45. Yearly distance driven by the buses deployed versus year of data collection 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2022. 

3.2.6.4  Distance driven, cumulative (km)  

Figure 46 illustrates the cumulative distance driven by the FCEBs for all the projects. It can be concluded that 
the FCEBs deployed over the 17 year period (2005-2022) accumulated a mileage of more than 17 million km, 
demonstrating the readiness of the FCEB technology. 

Figure 46. Cumulative distance driven by the FCEBs per project versus year 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2022. 

81 

 
 
 
 
3.2.6.5  Fuel Cell System Durability (h) 

Similarly to FCEV (Section 3.1.6.5), three different parameters have been analysed to assess the fuel cell system 
durability of the FCEBs in the reviewed projects from the TRUST database. 

●  Fuel  Cell  System  Durability  -  Descriptive:  Durability  of  the  fuel  cell  system  as  rated  by  the 
manufacturer - Indicative End of Life criterion: 10% stack power degradation or H2 leak rate as 
per SAE2578. 

●  Fuel Cell System Durability - Operational: Only if at least one of the stacks reached their EoL (10% 
power degradation)20 during the timeframe of this exercise: Total hours of operation (since they 
were first put in operation) at the time they are taken out of service. 

●  Hours of operation – Operational: Total hours of operation without considering the EoL criterion of 

10% power degradation. 

Figure 47 shows the descriptive fuel cell system durability versus the year of the data collection. The target 
values from the MAWP of the Clean Hydrogen JU and the US Department of Energy are shown for comparison 
as FCH JU target and DoE target, respectively. Two sets of targets, defined in the 2015 and 2017 updates of 
the MAWP, are included. It is worth mentioning that the US Department of Energy targets allow for 20% power 
degradation whereas the FCH JU and MAWP targets are set with the constraint of 10% power degradation, 
which is more limiting. The projects are ordered in the legend according to start date, with the earliest first. This 
format will be used for all subsequent figures regarding KPIs. In the figures of this section, targets are denoted 
by  exes,  state-of-the-art  values  are  denoted  by  diamonds  and  the  average  KPI  values  for  each  project  are 
denoted by coloured squares. The colour on the squares is used to identify the corresponding project.  

Unfortunately, there is not much data reported by the projects on the rated fuel cell system durability. The only 
data reported for this parameter was from some of the models deployed in the CHIC, HYTRANSIT, 3EMOTION, 
JIVE and JIVE2 projects. A weighted average of the values for the models deployed in each project provided by 
the FCEB manufacturers is plotted. The data set is not complete as for some specific models the values were 
not provided. The rated fuel cell system durability observed ranges between 8000 and 15000 h in the earlier 
projects whereas the models deployed in the most recent projects offer a durability ranging from 15000 to 
25000 h. This is an indication of the advancement of the fuel cell technology. Despite the fact that some of the 
latest models offer 25000 h of fuel cell system durability (e.g. Van Hool A330 FC), the weighted average value 
of JIVE2 is not reaching the targets trend line set by the Clean Hydrogen JU with 20000 h in 2020. This is partly 
due to the lower figures provided for the 18 m buses deployed under JIVE2 in 2021 and 2022 with 16000 h. 
The manufacturers are following a conservative approach for these new 18 m buses providing lower descriptive 
fuel cell durability values. 

20 Average for all stacks 

82 

 
 
 
                                                       
 
Figure 47. Descriptive fuel cell system durability (h) versus year for FCEB projects 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2022. 

Figure 48 shows the operational fuel cell system durability versus the year of the data collection for specific 
models. The value for the US state of the art is included (US Department of Energy, 2021), along with the FCH 
JU and DoE target trend lines for comparison. The two sets of targets, defined in the 2015 and 2017 updates 
of the MAWP, are also included in the figure. In Figure 48, targets are denoted by exes, state-of-the-art values 
are denoted by diamonds and the values for each model is denoted by a marker other than a square (squares 
refer to average value of the project). The colour of the markers is used to identify the corresponding project. 
It  can  be  observed  that  there  is  little  data  available  on  operational  fuel  system  durability  from  the  Clean 
Hydrogen JU projects, the reason being that most of the FCEB deployed are still in operation. Nevertheless, the 
average operational hours for the older FCEB models recorded (CHIC) have not reached the targeted 20000 
hours with less than 10% degradation before 2020. The main reason for this is the short timeframe of the 
project.  However,  some  of  the  buses  deployed  under  CHIC  project  continued  operation  under  other  newer 
projects,  recording  higher  operational  fuel  cell  durabilities.  If  we  do  not  considered  the  10%  degradation 
constraint (no information on fuel cell stack degradation was reported), the Wrigh bus PULSAR 2 H2 deployed 
in London and the Mercedes Benz CITARO FC deployed in Bolzano accumulated more than 35.000 h and 20.000 
h, respectively. These data points have been included in the Figure 48 with an asterisk as the power degradation 
for  these  buses  has  not  been  reported.  The  US  department  of  Energy  reported  the  achievement  of  8500  h 
durability with less than 10% degradation and 17000 h with less than 20%, also lagging behind its targets 
(DOE/DOT interim FCEB durability target of 18000 h with less than 20% degradation in 2015 and 20000 h in 
2020).  

83 

 
 
 
Figure 48. Operational Fuel Cell System Durability (h) versus year of the end of data collection for FCEB projects 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU and NREL, 2022. 

Figure 49 shows the cumulative hours of operation of the best performing FCEB of each project (the bus that 
operated the most hours in the timeframe of the project) versus the year of the end of the project or end of 
the FCEB operation. Additionally, the operational data point of the best performing US fleet has also been added, 
provided that fuel cell system degradation was not limited to 10% (US Department of Energy, 2021). This fleet, 
already  retired  from  service  because  it  could  no  longer  provide  the  power  necessary  to  meet  service 
requirements, operated for over 32000 h. The figure shows that the early FCH JU projects which have already 
finished (HYTRANSIT) accumulated around 15000 h of operation, getting close to the FCH JU target trend line 
and surpassing greatly the hours accumulated by former European projects (ECTOS, CUTE and HYFLEET:CUTE). 
CHIC, also finished, accumulated over 20000 h before concluding, surpassing the FCH JU target trend line. Some 
of  the  buses  from  CHIC  continued  operation  after  the  project  finalised  and  managed  to  accumulate  the 
staggering 35.000 h of operation. This was the case of the Wrigh PULSAR 2 H2 buses deployed in London, 
depicted in the graph as CHIC*. HIGH V.LO-CITY, another FCEB project already finished, did not reach that amount 
of operation hours because of the short duration of the project (the bus operation was only recorded for 2 
years).  These  FCEBs  were  only  operating  during  a  short  timeframe  and  therefore  not  accumulating  enough 
operation hours to demonstrate the durability. That does not mean that the durability of these buses was limited 
to the operation hours recorded in the project timeframe. As the data recording stops when the projects finishes 
it is not possible to assess further the operation of these buses or draw conclusions on bus durability. Most 
recent projects (3EMOTION, JIVE and JIVE2) show less hours of operation, the reason being that these projects 
deployed their FCEBs very recently (many of them in 2021 and 2022) and the projects are still active. These 
FCEBs are still running, accumulating hours of operation. As these projects have been running for less time, they 
have not yet accumulated the sufficient amount of hours to be compared with the best performing FCEB from 
CHIC or HYTRANSIT. It is also worth mentioning that the lock-downs during the COVID-19 pandemic have had a 
significant effect on the total hours of operation recorded. This effect can be observed specially for 3EMOTION 
and JIVE projects. JIVE2 bus fleet started operation in 2021. 

84 

 
 
 
Figure 49. Total hours of operation of the best performing bus (h) versus final year of the project or final year of the 
data collection if the project is still active. 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU and NREL, 2022. 

Figure 50 shows the cumulative hours of operation of the best performing FCEB for each model and for each 
project (the bus that operated the most hours in the timeframe of the project) versus the final year of the data 
collection. The different markers displayed in the figure refer to different models while the colour of the marker 
is selected according to the corresponding project. It is important to note that the data points collected for 2022 
are misleading because the projects are not yet finished. The improvement on hours of operation recorded over 
the years is noticeable, for example for the Mercedes Benz CITARO FC and the Van Hool A330FC, (from 1700 h 
in ECTOS to 21200 h in CHIC and from 3500 h in CHIC to close to 15000 h in HYTRANSIT, respectively). The 
FCEB model that recorded the greatest number of operation hours was the CHIC FCEB Wright Bus PULSAR 2 H2 
with over 15000 h, close to the FCH JU and MAWP target trend lines. This bus model continued operation after 
the project CHIC finished and managed to accumulate over 35000 of operation (denoted as CHIC*). This bus 
has greatly surpassed the FCH JU target trend line. However, it is not known if the fuel cell degradation has 
surpassed the threshold stated in the MAWP. FCEB models operating under 3EMOTION, JIVE and JIVE2 have 
accumulated less hours due to the fact that these projects have started operation very recently and are still 
active. Recent models like the Safra BUSINOVA H2 and the VDL CITEA SLF-120 in 3EMOTION project, the Wright 
Bus STREETDECK H2 in JIVE project and the Van Hool XQC18FC in JIVE2 project have been operating only for a 
year. Additionally, the effect of the lock-downs during the COVID-19 pandemic have had a significant effect in 
these projects (recording less hours than in normal years and delaying FCEBs deployment).  

85 

 
 
 
Figure 50. Total hours of operation of the best performing bus from each model (h) versus final year of the project or 
final year of the data collection if the project is still active 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU and NREL, 2022. 

Figure 51 shows the average operation hours per bus recorded per project per year. This figure gives an insight 
on the evolution of the use of FCEBs in the Clean Hydrogen JU projects over the years. It can be observed that 
the amount of operation hours per year has increased significantly from 2015 up to 2019 included, with values 
ranging the 870 h of operation in 2006 to values of 4200 h in 2019. In 2020 however, the significant effect of 
the COVID-19 lock-downs is noticeable with a sudden decrease in operation hours for HYTRANSIT, 3EMOTION 
and JIVE projects. This effect continued over 2021. Operation hours have slightly increased in 2022 with the 
end of the restrictions.  

86 

 
 
 
Figure 51. Average hours of operation per bus per year versus year for FCEB projects  

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU and NREL, 2022. 

3.2.6.6  Hydrogen consumption (kgH2/100km) 

It is important to make the distinction between the two different parameters that have been analysed to assess 
the hydrogen consumption of the FCEBs in the reviewed projects from the TRUST database. 

●  Hydrogen  Consumption  -  Descriptive:  Hydrogen  tank  to  wheel  (TTW)  consumption  for  100  km 

driven according to SORT 1 and SORT 2 drive cycles rated by the manufacturers. 

●  Hydrogen  Consumption  -  Operational:  Hydrogen  consumption  for  100  km  driven  under  real 

operation conditions, measured in the projects.  

An  additional  remark  to  the  “Hydrogen  Consumption  –  Descriptive”  is  that  it  can  be  provided  according  to 
different  drive  cycles.  The  descriptive  hydrogen  consumption  of  the  FCEBs  deployed  has  been  provided 
according to “Standardised On-Road Test” (SORT) cycles developed by the UITP Bus Committee specifically for 
comparing  energy  consumption  between  different  buses  (International  Association  of  Public  Transport). 
Descriptive hydrogen consumption has been provided according to SORT 1 and SORT 2 cycles that represent 
heavy urban and urban, respectively.  

Figure 52 shows the average descriptive hydrogen consumption of the FCEBs deployed per project according to 
SORT  1,  while  Figure  53  shows  the  average  descriptive  hydrogen  consumption  according  to  SORT  2.  It  is 
observed that most projects show a potential hydrogen consumption slightly above the FCH JU targets. The 
figures also show that the FCEBs deployed over the last years (JIVE and JIVE2) have a rated consumption lower 
than the buses deployed in previous projects, confirming the improvement in the consumption efficiency over 
the years. The value assigned to the international SoA is given by the rated consumption of Hyundai Elec City 
Fuel  Cell  and the New  Flyer  XHE40,  both rated at  6.9  Kg  H2/100  km.  However,  it  must  be  noted  that  these 
models are battery dominant and that is why their hydrogen rated consumption is lower.  

87 

 
 
 
Figure 52. Descriptive average hydrogen consumption for 100 km driven (SORT 1) versus year for FCEB projects 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2022. 

Figure 53. Descriptive average hydrogen consumption for 100 km driven (SORT 2) versus year for FCEB projects  

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2022. 

88 

 
 
 
 
Figure 54 displays the descriptive hydrogen consumption of FCEBs deployed per model according to SORT 1 
(where available), while Figure 55 shows the descriptive hydrogen consumption per model according to SORT 2 

Figure 54. Descriptive hydrogen consumption for 100 km driven per model (SORT 1) versus year for FCEB projects 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2022. 

Figure 55. Descriptive hydrogen consumption for 100 km driven per model (SORT 2) versus year for FCEB projects 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2022. 

89 

 
 
 
 
It is noticeable in both figures (Figure 54 and Figure 55) that the newer FCEB models deployed over the last 
years (project 3EMOTION) have a rated consumption lower than the bus models deployed in previous projects 
(CHIC and HYTRANSIT), reassuring the improvement of the consumption efficiency over the years. 

Figure  56  shows  the  average  hydrogen  consumption  of  the  FCEBs  deployed  per  project  over  the  years 
(operational). We can observe a major shift on fuel efficiency from the projects preceding the FCH JU (CUTE, 
HYFLEET:CUTE) to the FCH JU projects (e.g. CHIC). The fuel cell technology evolved significantly over these years.  

Figure 56. Operational average hydrogen consumption for 100 km driven versus year for FCEB projects  

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU and NREL, 2022. 

Figure 57 focuses only on the evolution of the hydrogen consumption of the FCEBs deployed through FCH JU 
projects. It is observed that despite the significant improvement on fuel efficiency of the FCEBs over the years, 
the hydrogen consumption is still slightly higher than the FCH JU targets with the exception of JIVE buses in 
2021. If we compare the FCHJU data with the data from NREL reflecting the US SoA, we can observe that the 
hydrogen consumption is very much in line with the reported by the FCH JU projects. It is worth noting that the 
geographical  conditions  of  each  deployment  site  will  also  differ,  these  have  an  influence  on  the  fuel 
consumption reported. 

90 

 
 
 
Figure 57. Operational average hydrogen consumption for 100 km driven versus year for FCH JU FCEB projects  

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU and NREL, 2022. 

3.2.6.7  Availability (%) 

Figure 58 shows the average availability of the FCEBs deployed per project over the years. The availability is 
defined in the TRUST database as the percentage of time that the bus was able to operate versus the overall 
time that it is intended to operate for a fleet availability same as diesel buses. From the data analysis we can 
observe that the availability has significantly increased over the years for FCH JU projects. Most of the projects 
have met or surpassed the trend line of the FCH JU target over the years. The exceptions are projects HYTRANSIT 
and 3EMOTION which reported lower average availabilities. This is mainly due to data points of lower availability 
in some specific sites which impacted the average value while most of the sites reported availabilities close to 
the FCHJU targets. Recent projects such as JIVE and JIVE2 have surpassed or closely met the FCH JU targets 
over the years with the exception of the year 2021. The cause for a lower average availability that year could 
be  related  to  the  impact  of  lock-down  periods  in  specific  sites.  It  must  be  noticed  that  the  European  fleets 
deployed  under  the  FCH  JU  projects  have  outperformed  US  fleets  in  terms  of  availability  (data  from  NREL 
reports). 

91 

 
 
 
Figure 58. Average availability of the buses deployed per project versus year for FCEB projects 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU and NREL, 2022. 

3.2.6.8  Maintenance (EUR) 

Final project reports and the TRUST database were consulted to gather yearly maintenance costs (spare parts 
and labour for the drivetrain maintenance in EUR). Few projects reported information on maintenance costs, 
only CHIC, 3EMOTION, JIVE and JIVE2. Figure 59 shows the average yearly maintenance costs for these projects. 
It can be seen that the maintenance costs have decreased over the years, a good example of this is the data 
collected by NREL fleets reflecting the US SoA. This effect is also noticed in the FCH JU projects when comparing 
earlier projects with recent ones. While project CHIC exceeded significantly the FCHJU target trend line, recent 
projects  like  JIVE  and  JIVE2  achieved  the  FCHJU  targets  in  maintenance  costs.  The  exception  is  3EMOTION 
project which in 2021 exceeded slightly the FCHJU targets. If the data is expressed in EUR/km units (see Figure 
60) it can be observed the maintenance costs have decreased significantly in recent projects compared to early 
ones. The lessons learned from the early projects include changes to the maintenance strategy. For example, 
allocating a dedicated person full-time on-site for preventive and corrective maintenance on a 10-bus fleet has 
proven to be worthwhile. Additionally, building a spare parts shop at the depot, providing spare components has 
been shown to reduce maintenance time and, consequently, minimize downtime. It is worth mentioning that 
project participants pointed out that an additional factor of variability in the maintenance costs is the difference 
in labour costs among countries. 

92 

 
 
 
Figure 59. Average maintenance costs (spare parts and labour) of each project versus year 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU and NREL, 2022. 

Figure 60. Average maintenance costs (spare parts and labour) per km of each project versus year 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU and NREL, 2022. 

93 

 
 
 
 
3.2.6.9  Fuel cell system cost (EUR/kW) 

There is not enough data reported on fuel cell system costs in the final project reports or TRUST database to 
conduct an in-depth analysis. The US targets for fuel cell system cost are not given per kW but as overall costs 
(US Department of Energy, 2012) and therefore excluded from the analysis. The FCH JU target was 900 EUR/KW 
for 2020. The data found in TRUST is really scarce, available only from some FCEB models of the projects HIGH 
V.LO-CITY, 3EMOTION and JIVE2. The costs reported by those projects surpassed the FCH JU target for 2020. 

The TRUST database recorded two parameters related to the fuel cell system cost analysis: “fuel cell system 
costs” and “estimated fuel cell system costs”. Figure 61 shows the fuel cell system costs reported for HIGH 
V.LO-CITY  Van  Hool  A330FC,  3EMOTION  Van  Hool  A330FC,  and  JIVE2  Van  Hool  XQC18FC.  From  the  data 
analysed it can be concluded that the fuel cell system varies among projects and models. The common trend is 
that in all cases the costs have surpassed the FCHJU targets, even if slightly in the case of the HIGH V.LO-CITY 
Van Hool A330FC.  

Figure 61. Operational fuel system costs (EUR/kW) versus year for FCEB projects 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU, 2022. 

In terms of the parameter “estimated fuel cell cost in EUR/kW” (estimated cost of the fuel cell system at an 
assumed mass production) the models reported values that surpassed slightly the FCHJU targets, see Figure 
62. Further efforts are required to lower the fuel cell system costs. 

94 

 
 
 
Figure 62. Estimated fuel cell system costs at mass production (EUR/kW) versus year 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU and PwC, 2022. 

3.2.6.10  Bus cost (thousand EUR) 

Final project reports and the TRUST database were consulted to gather bus cost per model and year. Only recent 
projects reported information on capital costs for specific models (HIGH V.LO-CITY, HYTRANSIT, 3EMOTION, JIVE 
and JIVE2). Figure 63 shows the capital cost for specific models from these projects compared against the SoA 
of US and Asia. It is observed that the costs have decreased over the years, a good example of this is the data 
collected by NREL fleets reflecting the US SoA on bus costs. This effect is also noticed in the FCH JU projects 
when comparing the same model over different projects. This can be observed for the Van Hool A330FC, the 
price has halved from the HYTRANSIT project to the JIVE project. Some variability was reported for this model 
in  the  3EMOTION  project,  depending  on  the  location  the  bus  was  deployed.  These  differences  for  the same 
model (Van Hool A330FC) can be explained by the customisation of the buses depending on the requirements 
of the local fleets. JIVE 2 project also shows higher bus cost because it is an 18 m bus, more costly than the 
14 m ones. The US SoA data is in line with the data from the FCHJU projects but the region most competitive 
on bus price is Asia (Toyota Sora).  

95 

 
 
 
Figure 63. Bus costs (thousand EUR) versus year 

Source: JRC based on data from Clean Hydrogen JU and NREL, 2022. 

3.2.7  Summary 

This  section  provides  a  summary  and  conclusions  for  Section  3.2.  A  complete  list  of  recommendations  is 
provided in Chapter 4. 

•

•

•

•

•

•

FCEB projects primarily deploy commercial or near-commercial bus models.

FCEBs  deployment  in  Europe  has  seen  a  significant  growth  with  the  Clean  Hydrogen  JU  projects,
especially  with  JIVE  and  JIVE2  projects  in  2022  and  2023.  The  total  FCEB  fleet  deployed  over  the
2005-2023 period surpasses the 400-unit milestone.

The FCEBs deployed in Europe over the 17 year period (2005-2022) accumulated a mileage of more
than 17 million km, demonstrating the readiness of the FCEB technology.

Not all relevant information is being submitted to the TRUST database due to data unavailability and
commercial sensitivity.

Fuel cell system durability, fuel cell system costs, and maintenance costs are often not reported.

The  fuel  cell  system  durability  of  FCEBs  has  been  analysed  using  three  parameters  (descriptive
durability, operational durability and total hours of operation). The best performing buses from early
FCH  JU  projects  have accumulated around  35000 hours  of  operation.  However,  the  fuel  cell  power
degradation  of  these  buses  was  not  reported.  Fuel  cell  degradation  is  not  being  measured  in  the
projects  and  should  be  reported  for  better  assessment.  The  average  hours  of  operation  have
significantly increased over the years. FCH JU projects following CHIC and HYTRANSIT were too short
to assess durability.

96 

•  Hydrogen consumption is slightly higher than the FCH JU target but has consistently improved. 

•  Bus availability has notably increased over the years, with European fleets outperforming US fleets. 

• 

• 

Limited information has been reported on maintenance costs, but the available data aligns with the 
FCH JU target. 

The data on fuel cell system cost is scarce and mostly exceeds the FCH JU target. 

•  Bus capital cost has decreased remarkably over the years and recent projects have achieved the FCH 

JU target. Asian countries are the most competitive in terms of bus cost. 

•  Despite falling short on some KPIs, overall improvement has been seen in many areas, with many KPIs 

achieving the FCH JU target values. 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
4  Conclusions and Recommendations 

4.1  Conclusions 

The Clean Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (JU) has played a pivotal role in the advancement of hydrogen mobility 
in Europe, as evidenced by the deployment of over 1300 Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) and more than 400 
Fuel  Cell  Electric  Buses  (FCEBs)  from  2005  to  2023.  These  initiatives  have  not  only  demonstrated  the 
operational advantages and technological readiness of hydrogen-powered transport but have also established 
a foundation for the first pan-European hydrogen refuelling network. 

The  FCEV  projects  have  shown  promise  in  high  mileage  applications,  such  as  taxi  fleets,  and  have  spurred 
interest from various partners in scaling up their fleets. Similarly, the success of FCEB deployment has been 
marked  by  the  growing  involvement  of  regions  and  an  increase  in  private  contributions,  highlighting  the 
technology's viability for public transport systems. 

Both FCEV and FCEB projects have provided a wealth of data for improving performance benchmarks, such as 
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), Well-to-Wheel (WTW) analysis, and Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) models. 
Collaborations  between  manufacturers  and  hydrogen  providers  have  promoted  the  rapid  development  and 
integration of hydrogen solutions in the mobility sector. 

Despite  these  successes,  challenges  persist.  Both  FCEVs  and  FCEBs  face  competition  from  battery  electric 
alternatives, which benefit from lower operational costs and advancements in technology. The energy crisis of 
2022 has further impacted the financial viability of hydrogen-powered transport by increasing hydrogen fuel 
costs. The supply chain for components remains fragile, with limited flexibility to ramp up production or expand 
spare  parts  inventory.  Specific  challenges  for  FCEBs  include  long  manufacturing  times  and  the  slow 
development of 'package solutions' for hydrogen refuelling infrastructure. 

4.2  Recommendations 

To address these challenges and to continue fostering the growth of hydrogen mobility in Europe, the following 
recommendations are suggested: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Enhanced  Financial  Support:  Implement  long  term  financial  mechanisms,  such  as  subsidies  or  tax 
incentives specific to hydrogen mobility, to offset the higher operational costs and make FCEVs and 
FCEBs more competitive. 

Supply Chain Development: Strengthen the European supply chain for hydrogen mobility components 
by  incentivising  investments  and  encouraging  manufacturers  to  increase  production  flexibility  and 
spare parts availability. 

Standardisation  and  Data  Transparency:  Develop  standardised  methodologies  for  measuring  and 
reporting  fuel  cell  degradation  and  operational  metrics.  Encourage  comprehensive  data  sharing  to 
refine performance assessments and inform technology improvements. 

Research  and  Innovation:  Continue  investments  in  research  and  development  to  reduce  costs  and 
enhance  the  efficiency  of  fuel  cell  systems,  as  well  as  hydrogen  production  and  refuelling 
infrastructure. 

Infrastructure Expansion: Continue expanding the hydrogen refuelling network for FCEVs and develop 
integrated 'package solutions' for FCEBs and Fuel Cell Electric Trucks (FCET) that combine hydrogen 
production, storage, dispensing, and maintenance. 

Public Education and Market Creation: Launch campaigns to raise public awareness of the benefits of 
hydrogen  mobility  and  skills  development  related  to  hydrogen  mobility  applications.  It  is  also 
instrumental to continue supporting initial markets, such as public transport fleets and corporate usage, 
as well as hydrogen valleys to foster broader hydrogen adoption. 

98 

 
 
 
•

•

Collaboration  and  Best  Practices:  Continue  international  collaboration  to  learn  and  exchange  global
best practices, particularly in regions with competitive cost structures, to drive down capital costs and
accelerate market readiness. It is pivotal to reinforce European leadership in such collaborations.

Policy Alignment: Align policies in East Europe to support the expansion of FCEVs, FCEBs, and hydrogen
refuelling infrastructure, as participation in Clean Hydrogen JU projects and other pioneering initiatives
has been primarily from west European countries.

• Monitoring  and  Evaluation:  Continue  to  uphold  the  robust  established  frameworks  for  ongoing
monitoring and evaluation to measure the impact of hydrogen mobility projects and adapt strategies
as needed.

By  implementing  these  recommendations,  the  EU  can  continue  to  lead  in  the  transition  to  a  sustainable 
transportation  system,  leveraging  the  full  potential  of  hydrogen  mobility  to  achieve  its  ambitious 
decarbonisation targets. The progress made by the Clean Hydrogen JU projects provides a strong foundation 
upon which to build a resilient, efficient, and low-carbon future for European transport. 

99 

References 

Ajanovic, A., and R. Haas, ‘Economic and Environmental Prospects for Battery Electric

 and Fuel Cell Vehicles A 

Review’, Fuel Cells, Vol. 19, No. 5, 2019, pp. 515–529. 

Belfast  Telegraph,  ‘Wrightbus  to  Supply  German  City  of  Cologne  with  60  Hydrogen  Buses’,  2022. 
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/northern-ireland/wrightbus-to-supply-german-city-of-
cologne-with-60-hydrogen-buses/41696266.html. 

‐

BMW, 

‘BMW 

IX5 

Hydrogen 

Defies 

the 

Extreme 

Cold’, 

2022. 

https://www.bmwgroup.com/en/news/general/2022/bmw-ix5-hydrogen.html. 

BMW, 

‘Launch 

of 

the 

BMW 

IX5 

Hydrogen 

Pilot 

Fleet’, 

2023. 

https://www.bmwgroup.com/en/news/general/2023/BMWiX5Hydrogen.html. 

Bus World Europe, ‘Exhibitor List 2023’, 2023. https://busworldeurope.org/exhibitor-list-2023. 

Can, R., and M. Rex, ‘Deployment of Fuel Cell Vehicles in Road Transport and the Expansion of the Hydrogen 

Refueling Station Network: 2023 Update’, Energy and Environment, Vol. 611, 2023, p. 15. 

Clean Hydrogen JU, Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda 2021-2027, 2021. 

Element Energy, Hydrogen Mobility Europe: Emerging Conclusions, 2022. 

Energy News, ‘Changan Dreams of Being the Tesla of Hydrogen’, 2022. https://energynews.biz/changan-dreams-

of-being-the-tesla-of-hydrogen/. 

European 

Commission, 

‘2030 

Climate 

& 

Energy 

Framework’, 

2021. 

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2030_en. 

European Commission, ‘A Hydrogen Strategy for a Climate-Neutral Europe, COM(2020) 301’, 2020. https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0301. 

European 

Commission, 

‘Clean 

Energy 

for 

All 

Europeans 

Package’, 

2019. 

https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-strategy/clean-energy-all-europeans-package_en. 

European 

Commission, 

‘Hydrogen 

and 

Decarbonised 

Gas 

Market 

Package’, 

2021. 

https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/markets-and-consumers/market-legislation/hydrogen-and-
decarbonised-gas-market-package_en. 

European Commission, ‘Implementing the Repower EU Action Plan: Investment Needs, Hydrogen Accelerator and 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

Bio-Methane 

SWD(2022) 

Targets, 

2022. 

230’, 

Achieving 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52022SC0230&from=EN. 

European  Commission, 

‘REPowerEU  Plan,  COM(2022)  230’,  2022.  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52022DC0230&from=EN. 

European  Commission, 

‘The  European  Green  Deal’,  2019.  https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-

policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en. 

European Union, ‘Regulation (EU) 2023/1804 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 September 
2023 on the Deployment of Alternative Fuels Infrastructure, and Repealing Directive 2014/94/EU’, 2023. 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1804/oj. 

European Union, ‘Regulation (EU) 2023/956 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 
Establishing  a  Carbon  Border  Adjustment  Mechanism’,  2023.  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2023:130:FULL. 

European Union, ‘Regulation (EU) 2023/957 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 
Amending Regulation (EU) 2015/757 in Order to Provide for the Inclusion of Maritime Transport Activities 
in the EU Emissions Trading System and for the Monitoring, Repor’, 2023. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2023:130:FULL. 

100 

Express & Star, ‘West Midlands to Launch UK’s Largest Hydrogen Bus Fleet after Securing £30m Government 
https://www.expressandstar.com/news/local-hubs/birmingham/2022/03/28/west-

Funding’, 
midlands-to-launch-uks-largest-hydrogen-bus-fleet-after-securing-30m-government-funding/. 

2022. 

Fuel  Cell  Works, 

‘Deutsche  Bahn  Approves 

Purchase 

of  60  Hydrogen  Buses’,  2023. 

https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/deutsche-bahn-approves-purchase-of-60-hydrogen-
buses/?mc_cid=bcc521eb55&mc_eid=da4624d261. 

Fuel  Cell  Works,  ‘Great  Wall  Motors  to  Launch  Independent  Brand  for  Fuel  Cell  Passenger  Vehicles’,  2022. 

https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/great-wall-motors-to-launch-independent-brand-for-fuel-cell-
passenger-vehicles/. 

Fuel  Cell  Works,  ‘Higer  Will  Have  an  Articulated  Electric  Bus  Running  in  Brazil  and  Uruguay  by  July’,  2023. 
https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/higer-will-have-an-articulated-electric-bus-running-in-brazil-and-
uruguay-by-july/?mc_cid=762126b762&mc_eid=da4624d261. 

Fuel Cell Works, ‘In 2023, Korea Will Provide 16920 Hydrogen Vehicles With Subsidies of 30M Won ($24.4M)’, 
https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/in-2023-korea-will-provide-16920-hydrogen-vehicles-with-

2023. 
subsidies-of-30m-won-24-4m/?mc_cid=49fd008c93&mc_eid=da4624d261. 

Fuel  Cell  Works, 

‘Weimar  Becomes  First  City  With  Hydrogen  Buses 

in  Thuringia’,  2023. 

https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/weimar-becomes-first-city-with-hydrogen-buses-in-
thuringia/?mc_cid=850deae301&mc_eid=da4624d261. 

Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking (FCH JU), Addendum to the Multi-Annual Work Plan 2014-2020, 

2018. 

H2-view, 

‘Hydrogen  Buses 

Enter 

Passenger 

Service 

in 

Liverpool’,  2023. 

https://www.h2-

view.com/story/hydrogen-buses-enter-passenger-service-in-liverpool/. 

Hino, ‘Isuzu, Toyota, Hino, and CJPT to Promote Planning and Development of Mass-Market Light-Duty Fuel Cell 

Electric Trucks’, 2022. https://www.hino-global.com/corp/news/2022/20220719-003291.html. 

Hydrogen Central, ‘Korea – 700 Hydrogen-Powered Buses In Incheon By End Of 2024’, 2023. https://hydrogen-

central.com/korea-700-hydrogen-powered-buses-incheon-2024/. 

Hydrogen  Fuel  News, 

‘Frankfurt 

to  Boost  Presence  of  Hydrogen  Buses 

in 

https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hydrogen-buses-icb-solaris/8558799/#:~:text=The 
metropolis has ordered,ICB fleet in Q1 2024. 

Its  City’,  2023. 
German 

Hydrogeninsight, ‘South Korean Capital City Signs Deal for 1,300 New Hydrogen Buses by 2026, Says Hyundai’, 
2023.  https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/south-korean-capital-city-signs-deal-for-1-300-new-
hydrogen-buses-by-2026-says-hyundai/2-1-1463347. 

International 

Association 

of 

Public 

Transport, 

‘UITP 

SORT  & 

E-SORT 

Brochures’, 

n.d. 

https://www.uitp.org/publications/uitp-sort-e-sort-brochures/. 

International 

Energy 

Agency, 

‘Global 

Hydrogen 

Review 

2023’, 

2023. 

https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/8d434960-a85c-4c02-ad96-
77794aaa175d/GlobalHydrogenReview2023.pdf. 

International Energy Agency, Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Buses: Comparative Analysis of Six National Projects, 

2019. 

International Energy Agency, Hydrogen Patents for a Clean Energy Future, 2023. 

Jaguar  Land  Rover,  ‘Jaguar  Land  Rover  to  Develop  Hydrogen-Powered  Defender  Fuel  Cell  Prototype’,  2021. 

https://media.jaguarlandrover.com/news/2021/06/jaguar-land-rover-develop-hydrogen-powered-
defender-fuel-cell-prototype. 

Kurtz, J., S. Sprik, C. Ainscough, G. Saur, and S. Onorato, NREL Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Performance Composite 

Data Products : Spring 2018, 2018. 

101 

 
 
Luo, Y., Y. Wu, B. Li, T. Mo, Y. Li, S.P. Feng, J. Qu, and P.K. Chu, ‘Development and Application of Fuel Cells in the 

Automobile Industry’, Journal of Energy Storage, Vol. 42, No. August, 2021. 

Renault, ‘Renault Niagara Concept’, 2023. https://www.renault.co.uk/concept-cars.html. 

Renault Press, Renault Runs on Hydrogen with Master ZE Hydrogen and Kangoo ZE Hydrogen, 2019. 

Riversimple, ‘Riversimple Rasa Is Unveiled’, 2022. https://www.riversimple.com/riversimple-rasa-is-unveiled-2/. 

Solaris, 

‘Cologne 

to  Operate 

the 

Biggest 

Fleet 

of  Hydrogen 

Solaris 

Buses’, 

2022. 

https://www.solarisbus.com/en/press/cologne-to-operate-the-biggest-fleet-of-hydrogen-solaris-buses-
1787. 

Solaris, 

‘Online  Launch  of 

the  Solaris  Urbino  18  Hydrogen  Bus  on  14  September’,  2022. 

https://www.solarisbus.com/en/press/online-launch-of-the-solaris-urbino-18-hydrogen-bus-on-14-
september-1816. 

Stellantis, ‘Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technology’, 2023. https://www.stellantis.com/en/technology/hydrogen-fuel-cell-

technology?adobe_mc_ref=. 

TopElectricSUV, 

‘12  Upcoming  Hydrogen  FCEVs  with  up 

to  500  Miles  of  Range’,  2023. 

https://topelectricsuv.com/featured/upcoming-hydrogen-fcev-cars/. 

Toyota Motor Corporation, ‘CaetanoBus Receives Large Order for Hydrogen Buses’, 2023. https://www.toyota-

europe.com/news/2023/caetanobus-receives-large-order-for-hydrogen-buses. 

US Department of Energy, 2019 Fuel Cell Technologies Market Report, n.d. 

US  Department  of  Energy,  DOE  Hydrogen  and  Fuel  Cells  Program  Record: Automotive  Fuel  Cell  Targets  and 

Status 2020, 2020. 

US Department of Energy, ‘DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Record: Fuel Cell System Cost - 2016’, 2016. 

US Department of Energy, DOE Hydrogen Program Record: Durability-Adjusted Fuel Cell System Cost, 2021. 

US Department of Energy, Fuel Cell Bus Targets, Vol. i, Vol. i, 2012. 

US  Department 

Cell 
‘On-Road 
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/20008-fuel-cell-bus-durability.pdf. 

Transit  Bus 

Energy, 

Fuel 

of 

Stack  Durability’,  2021. 

VINCI 

Airports, 

‘Kansai 
https://www.vinci.com/vinci.nsf/en/news-
update/pages/kansai_airport_launches_a_hydrogen_shuttle_bus_service_japan_052022.htm. 

Hydrogen 

Launches 

Shuttle 

Airport 

Bus 

Service’, 

a 

2022. 

102 

 
 
  
 
List of abbreviations and definitions 

AFID 

AFIR 

BEB 

BEV 

Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive 

Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation 

Battery Electric Bus 

Battery Electric Vehicle 

CBAM 

Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism 

CHP 

CTP 

DoE 

EC 

Combined Heat and Power 

Common Transport Policy 

US Department of Energy 

European Commission 

EU-ETS  EU Emissions Trading System 

FC 

FCEB 

FCEV 

FCET 

Fuel Cell 

Fuel Cell Electric Buses 

Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles 

Fuel Cell Electric Trucks 

FCH JU 

Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking 

FCH 2 JU  Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking 

FC REEV  Fuel Cell Range Extender Electric Vehicles 

FP 

Framework Programme 

GHG 

Green House Gas Emissions 

HD 

HRS 

HPF 

KPI 

LHP 

MS 

Heavy Duty 

Hydrogen Refuelling Stations 

High Performance Fuels 

Key Performance Indicators 

Lighthouse Project 

Member States 

MAIP 

Multi-Annual Implementation Plan 

MAWP  Multi-Annual Work Plan 

MD 

Medium Duty 

NEDC 

New European Driving Cycle 

OEMs 

Original Equipment Manufacturer 

PGM 

Platinum Group Metals 

PV 

Photovoltaic Installation 

PWC 

PriceWaterhouseCoopers 

SoA 

TCO 

State-of-the-art 

Total Cost of Ownership 

103 

TIM 

TRL 

TTW 

UITP 

Tools for Innovation Monitoring 

Technology Readiness Levels 

Tank to Wheel 

International Association of Public Transport 

WTW 

Well to Wheel 

104 

List of figures  

Figure 1. Cumulative level of Clean Hydrogen JU funding versus project start year for FCEV, FCEB and HRS 
technologies .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 

Figure 2. TIM plots showing (a) the participants for all projects considered in this report (35 projects covering 
the period 1998-2022). (b) EU member state participation for all projects considered (35 projects covering the 
period 1998-2022). ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 10 

Figure 3. TIM plots showing (a) the participants for Clean Hydrogen JU demonstration projects (17 projects in 
the 2010-2022 period). (b) EU member state participation for Clean Hydrogen JU demonstration projects (17 
projects in the 2010-2022 period). ................................................................................................................................................................ 11 

Figure 4. TIM plots showing (a) the participants for all 9 projects considered in Table 1 (early FCEV initiatives 
1998-2010). (b) EU Member State participation for all 9 projects considered in Table 1 (early FCEV initiatives 
1998-2010). ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 15 

Figure 5. Timeline of all FCEV demonstration projects analysed in this report .................................................................. 18 

Figure 6. TIM plots showing (a) the participants for the 9 Clean Hydrogen JU FCEV demonstration projects 
(2010-2022). (b) EU member state participation for the 9 Clean Hydrogen JU demonstration projects (2010-
2022). .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 19 

Figure 7. Major steps in the development of FCEVs compared to BEVs. ................................................................................ 21 

Figure 8. Evolution of fuel cell power (kW), storage capacity (kg), range (km) and hydrogen consumption 
(kg/100) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 

Figure 9. Waterfall diagram showing the breakdown of FCEV (passenger cars) worldwide ....................................... 26 

Figure 10. Shares of FCEV (passenger cars) over continents, detailing the contributions within Asia, America 
and Europe.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 

Figure 11. FCEVs in operation in Europe from 2011 to 2014. Projects: H2MOVES SCANDINAVIA, HYTEC, 
SWARM and HYFIVE ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 30 

Figure 12. FCEVs in operation in Europe from 2015 to 2023. Projects: H2ME, H2ME2 and ZEFER ........................ 31 

Figure 13. FCEVs deployed in Europe from 2010 to 2023. Projects: H2MOVES SCANDINAVIA, HYTEC, SWARM, 
HYFIVE, H2ME, H2ME2 and ZEFER................................................................................................................................................................... 32 

Figure 14. Number of FCEVs deployed and in operation per project versus year ............................................................. 36 

Figure 15. Number of deployed vehicles in operation from each model versus year for FCEV projects ............. 37 

Figure 16. Number of deployed vehicles in operation from each model per year over the different FCEV 
projects ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38 

Figure 17. Cumulative FCEVs deployed per project versus year.................................................................................................. 39 

Figure 18. Yearly distance driven by the vehicles versus year of data collection ............................................................. 40 

Figure 19. Total distance driven by the vehicles within the project duration, until the end date of this data 
reporting exercise versus year .......................................................................................................................................................................... 41 

Figure 20. Descriptive fuel cell system durability (h) versus year for FCEV projects ...................................................... 42 

Figure 21. Operational Fuel Cell System Durability (h) versus Year for FCEV projects .................................................. 43 

Figure 22. Total hours of operation of the best performing car (h) versus final year of the project or final 
year of the data collection if the project is still active. ....................................................................................................................... 44 

105 

 
 
Figure 23. Total hours of operation of the best performing car from each model (h) versus final year of the 
project or final year of the data collection if the project is still active ...................................................................................... 45 

Figure 24. Average hours of operation per car per year versus year for FCEV projects ................................................ 46 

Figure 25. Descriptive average hydrogen consumption for 100 km driven versus year for FCEV .......................... 47 

Figure 26. Operational average hydrogen consumption for 100 km driven versus year for FCEV projects ...... 48 

Figure 27. Average availability of the cars deployed per project versus year for FCEV projects ............................. 49 

Figure 28. Average maintenance costs (spare parts and labour) of each project versus year .................................. 50 

Figure 29. Operational fuel system costs (EUR/kW) versus year for FCEV projects ......................................................... 51 

Figure 30. Descriptive areal power density (W/cm2) versus year ................................................................................................ 52 

Figure 31. Descriptive PGM loading (g/kW) versus year ................................................................................................................... 53 

Figure 32. Descriptive cell volumetric power (kW/L) versus year ............................................................................................... 54 

Figure 33. TIM plots showing (a) the participants for all projects considered in Table 8 (early FCEB initiatives 
1996-2010). (b) EU Member State participation for all projects considered in Table 8 (early FCEB initiatives 
1996-2010). ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 58 

Figure 34. Timeline of all FCEB demonstration projects analysed in this report ............................................................... 62 

Figure 35. TIM plots showing (a) the participants for Clean Hydrogen JU FCEB demonstration projects (2010-
2022). (b) EU member state participation for Clean Hydrogen JU demonstration projects (2010-2022). ........... 63 

Figure 36: Waterfall diagram showing country-based distribution of FCEBs on the road as of the end of 2022
 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 67 

Figure 37. FCEBs in operation in Europe from 2005 to 2010. Projects CUTE and HYFLEET:CUTE. .......................... 69 

Figure 38. FCEBs in operation in Europe from 2011 to 2019. Projects: CHIC, HIGH V.LO-CITY, HYTRANSIT and 
3EMOTION. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 71 

Figure 39. FCEBs in operation in Europe from 2020 to 2023. Projects: JIVE and JIVE2. .............................................. 73 

Figure 40. FCEBs deployed in Europe from 2005 to 2023. Projects: CUTE, HIGH:FLEET CUTE, CHIC, HIGH V.LO-
CITY, HYTRANSIT, 3EMOTION, JIVE and JIVE2. ......................................................................................................................................... 74 

Figure 41. Number of FCEBs deployed and in operation per project versus year ............................................................. 77 

Figure 42. Number of buses deployed and in operation from each model versus year for FCEB projects ........ 77 

Figure 43. Number of buses deployed in operation from each model per year over the different FCEB projects
 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 79 

Figure 44. Cumulative FCEBs deployed per project versus year.................................................................................................. 80 

Figure 45. Yearly distance driven by the buses deployed versus year of data collection ............................................ 81 

Figure 46. Cumulative distance driven by the FCEBs per project versus year ..................................................................... 81 

Figure 47. Descriptive fuel cell system durability (h) versus year for FCEB projects ...................................................... 83 

Figure 48. Operational Fuel Cell System Durability (h) versus year of the end of data collection for FCEB 
projects ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 84 

Figure 49. Total hours of operation of the best performing bus (h) versus final year of the project or final 
year of the data collection if the project is still active. ....................................................................................................................... 85 

106 

 
 
Figure 50. Total hours of operation of the best performing bus from each model (h) versus final year of the 
project or final year of the data collection if the project is still active ...................................................................................... 86 

Figure 51. Average hours of operation per bus per year versus year for FCEB projects ............................................... 87 

Figure 52. Descriptive average hydrogen consumption for 100 km driven (SORT 1) versus year for FCEB 
projects ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 88 

Figure 53. Descriptive average hydrogen consumption for 100 km driven (SORT 2) versus year for FCEB 
projects ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 88 

Figure 54. Descriptive hydrogen consumption for 100 km driven per model (SORT 1) versus year for FCEB 
projects ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 89 

Figure 55. Descriptive hydrogen consumption for 100 km driven per model (SORT 2) versus year for FCEB 
projects ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 89 

Figure 56. Operational average hydrogen consumption for 100 km driven versus year for FCEB projects ...... 90 

Figure 57. Operational average hydrogen consumption for 100 km driven versus year for FCH JU FCEB 
projects ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 91 

Figure 58. Average availability of the buses deployed per project versus year for FCEB projects ......................... 92 

Figure 59. Average maintenance costs (spare parts and labour) of each project versus year .................................. 93 

Figure 60. Average maintenance costs (spare parts and labour) per km of each project versus year ................. 93 

Figure 61. Operational fuel system costs (EUR/kW) versus year for FCEB projects ......................................................... 94 

Figure 62. Estimated fuel cell system costs at mass production (EUR/kW) versus year ............................................... 95 

Figure 63. Bus costs (thousand EUR) versus year ............................................................................................................................... 96 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
List of tables 

Table 1. Summary of the historical FCEV projects (early FCEV initiatives, mainly from FP4, FP5 and FP6). ..... 12 

Table 2. Summary of all Clean Hydrogen JU FCEV demonstration projects analysed in this report (2010-
2023). .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 16 

Table 3. Summary of Clean Hydrogen projects on hydrogen sectorial integration with FCEVs deployment...... 20 

Table 4. FCEVs that entered production phase and were commercially available ............................................................ 22 

Table 5. Specifications of FCEVs that were mass produced and were commercially available ................................. 23 

Table 6. Specifications of fuel cell range extender vehicles commercially available in Europe ................................ 25 

Table 7. State-of-the-art and future targets for fuel cell light duty vehicles (Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint 
Undertaking (FCH JU), 2018).............................................................................................................................................................................. 34 

Table 8. Summary of the historical FCEB projects (early FCEB initiatives, mainly from FP4, FP5 and FP6). ..... 56 

Table 9. Summary of all Clean Hydrogen JU FCEB demonstration projects analysed in this report (2010-
2022). .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 59 

Table 10. Specifications of the most commonly deployed FCEB models in Europe, US, Japan, South Korea and 
China. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 65 

Table 11. State-of-the-art and future targets for fuel cell buses (Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking 
(FCH JU), 2018) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 75 

108 

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you online 
(european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

On the phone or in writing 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service: 

— by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

— at the following standard number: +32 22999696, 

— via the following form: european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/write-us_en. 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information  about  the  European  Union  in  all  the  official  languages  of  the  EU  is  available  on  the  Europa  website  (european-
union.europa.eu). 

EU publications 

You  can  view  or  order  EU  publications  at  op.europa.eu/en/publications.  Multiple  copies  of  free  publications  can  be  obtained  by 
contacting Europe Direct or your local documentation centre (european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex (eur-
lex.europa.eu). 

Open data from the EU 

The portal data.europa.eu provides access to open datasets from the EU institutions, bodies and agencies. These can be downloaded 
and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. The portal also provides access to a wealth of datasets 
from European countries. 

 
110