## 3 Results and Discussion
### BEV/FCEV Truck Data  
In our model, the entire drivetrain (transmission, motor, inverter, battery, fuel cell, tank) can be exchanged between BETs, FCETs, and ICETs much more easily than would be possible experimentally. Of course, drive-technology-specific features have been taken into account. We have paid particular attention to the different weights of the drive components. As in real life, different vehicles were used in the model for the two tours under investigation (Table 10). This was mainly due to the distance of the tours. It was precisely this difference, with its effects on the drive and energy storage, that we paid particular attention to. The data for the diesel trucks used can be found in Table 3.  
As can be seen from Table 10, the main differences resulting from the tour distance are in the battery and tank capacities. The rest of the drivetrain could be kept the same as the payloads differed only slightly. Particular attention should be paid to the drive-technology-specific differences in battery sizes. While the BET battery must store the amount of energy required for the entire journey, the FCET battery can be dimensioned significantly smaller. This is because the main energy store in the FCET is the hydrogen tank. The battery only  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Drive Technology**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameter**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Short Tour**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Long Tour**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **BET** & **FCET** & **BET** & **FCET** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Electric motor} & Rated power (kW) & 450 & 450 & 450 & 450 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Rated torque (Nm) & 1,074 & 1,074 & 1,074 & 1,074 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Max. efficiency & 95\% & 95\% & 95\% & 95\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Inverter} & Rated power (kW) & 700 & 500 & 700 & 500 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Battery} & Rated capacity (kWh) & 600 & 66 & 900 & 66 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Rated voltage (V) & 400 & 400 & 400 & 400 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Rated dis-/charging power (kW) & 735 & 500 & 735 & 500 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Weight (kg) & 2,000 & 220 & 3,000 & 220 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Fuel cell} & Rated power (kW) & - & 396 & - & 396 \\ \cline{2-6}  & FC weight (kg) & - & 400 & - & 400 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{H\({}_{2}\) tank} & Tank pressure (bar) & - & 700 & - & 700 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Fuel weight (kg) & - & 35 & - & 40 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & Tank weight, empty (kg) & - & 250 & - & 250 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & Tank weight, fully loaded (kg) & - & 285 & - & 290 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 10: BET/FCET drive data (referring to 2030 values of Table 7; see Tables S1 and S2 of [41]).  
Figure 8: A priori simulated and measured consumption of ICEV trucks on the two reference tours.  
has to supply the engine with power for a short time. Due to the dominance of highway driving, little more than 10% of the BET battery capacity is sufficient for this purpose. Due to the high energy density, the hydrogen tanks vary only slightly on the different tours.  
As expected, the ICET-CNG weighs the least, as the combustion engine only requires the CNG tank for energy storage. The CNG stored there under high pressure has a low weight with a high energy density. The FCET contains most of the drive components, including the gearbox, motor, inverter, battery, fuel cell and hydrogen tank; therefore, it has a somewhat higher weight. However, the battery is significantly smaller compared to the BET. In total, the FCET is heavier by about 1 t than the ICET-CNG, but lighter by 2 t than the BET. Figure 9 illustrates that the additional weight of the BET is exclusively due to the battery, which weighs 3 t for the long reference tour with a capacity of 900 kWh (see Table 10). This significant difference in weight has a negative effect on the BET's energy consumption, especially in hilly terrain.