Heavy-duty trucks are entering a decisive technological transition, but the question of which powertrain will dominate cannot be answered by looking only at vehicle prices or laboratory efficiency. A new study by researchers including J. Hoppe, F. Ueckerdt and P. Plötz examines how alternative truck technologies perform economically when they are evaluated against the way freight vehicles are actually used. Published in Nature Communications, the research focuses on cost competitiveness under real-world utilisation profiles—a shift that could reshape how fleets, manufacturers and policymakers judge the future of road freight.
The stakes are enormous. Heavy-duty trucks move most of the world’s goods, yet they also consume large quantities of fuel and are responsible for a substantial share of transport-related greenhouse-gas emissions. Unlike passenger cars, trucks often travel long distances, carry heavy loads, operate for many hours each day and face strict delivery schedules. Those operating conditions make electrification more complicated. A technology that appears affordable for a vehicle used occasionally may become far more attractive—or far less practical—when the same truck is driven continuously across highways, loaded near its maximum capacity and required to return to service rapidly.
The study’s central insight is that truck economics depend on utilisation as much as on technology. Battery-electric trucks, hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles and other low-carbon alternatives are not competing on a level playing field if they are assessed using a single generic driving pattern. Their total costs are shaped by annual mileage, trip length, payload, charging or refuelling time, energy prices, infrastructure availability, vehicle lifetime and the cost of keeping a truck productive. In commercial freight operations, every hour spent waiting for energy can influence the number of deliveries a vehicle completes and the number of trucks a company must own.
Battery-electric trucks benefit from highly efficient electric drivetrains and the falling cost of batteries. Electric motors convert a large share of stored energy into motion, while regenerative braking can recover energy that would otherwise be lost as heat, particularly in routes with frequent slowing and acceleration. Yet batteries are heavy, and the mass required for long-range operation can reduce payload capacity. Recharging also requires appropriate grid connections, depot planning and enough time between trips. For vehicles that return regularly to a base, overnight charging may be relatively straightforward; for trucks operating almost continuously, the need for rapid charging and additional infrastructure becomes much more important.
Hydrogen fuel-cell trucks approach the problem differently. Instead of storing electricity directly in a large battery, they carry hydrogen and use a fuel cell to generate electricity onboard. This can reduce refuelling times and potentially provide longer operating ranges without the same battery mass. However, fuel-cell systems are less energy-efficient overall than direct battery-electric pathways because electricity must first be used to produce, compress or liquefy hydrogen before the vehicle converts it back into electrical power. The cost and climate impact of hydrogen therefore depend heavily on how it is produced, transported and supplied. A technically capable truck is not automatically a low-carbon or low-cost truck.
Real-world utilisation profiles bring these trade-offs into sharper focus. A regional delivery vehicle with predictable daily routes may have a very different cost structure from a long-haul tractor crossing national borders. A truck that spends much of its time waiting at loading docks may have opportunities to recharge, while another vehicle working back-to-back shifts may have almost none. The study evaluates these differences rather than treating all trucks as identical. That approach is particularly significant because fleet averages can conceal the operational conditions that determine whether a technology succeeds in practice.
The researchers compare technologies through a total-cost-of-ownership perspective, which includes far more than the purchase price. Such assessments typically account for energy consumption, maintenance, infrastructure, financing, depreciation and the number of kilometres travelled over a vehicle’s working life. They also expose why headline comparisons can be misleading. A powertrain with a higher upfront cost may become competitive if it uses energy efficiently and travels many kilometres annually. Conversely, a cheaper vehicle may lose its advantage if it requires expensive fuel, frequent downtime or major infrastructure upgrades. In freight transport, productivity is an economic variable—and sometimes the most important one.
The findings challenge the idea that one alternative powertrain will inevitably replace every other option. Instead, competitiveness appears to depend on matching technology to mission. Battery-electric trucks may be especially attractive where routes are predictable, charging can be scheduled and vehicles can exploit the high efficiency of direct electrification. Hydrogen-based systems may retain an advantage in applications where range, rapid refuelling and high utilisation are dominant concerns, provided hydrogen becomes widely available at an acceptable price. Other options, including renewable fuels or hybrid configurations, may occupy narrower roles where existing infrastructure or unusual operating requirements limit the practicality of full electrification.
This mission-specific perspective could have major consequences for climate policy. Regulations that simply require zero-emission vehicles may not be enough to accelerate adoption if fleets cannot obtain affordable energy or maintain delivery schedules. The results point toward a need for coordinated investment in electricity networks, high-power charging corridors, hydrogen supply chains and reliable information about vehicle use. They also underline the importance of carbon-aware energy planning: replacing diesel with an alternative whose production remains emissions-intensive may deliver fewer climate benefits than expected. Technology policy, infrastructure policy and energy policy must therefore advance together.
For fleet operators, the message is both encouraging and demanding. The transition away from diesel is not a single purchase decision but a system redesign involving routes, depots, logistics, energy contracts and vehicle scheduling. Companies that understand their own utilisation profiles may be able to identify early opportunities for electrification, while avoiding investments that do not fit their operations. For researchers and policymakers, the study offers a reminder that realistic driving patterns matter. The future of heavy-duty transport will not be decided by laboratory efficiency alone, nor by the most impressive prototype, but by which technologies can deliver goods reliably, affordably and with dramatically lower emissions in the messy conditions of everyday freight.
Subject of Research: Cost competitiveness of alternative heavy-duty truck technologies under real-world utilisation profiles
Article Title: Cost competitiveness of alternative heavy-duty truck technologies under real-world utilisation profiles
Article References: Hoppe, J., Ueckerdt, F., Plötz, P. et al. Cost competitiveness of alternative heavy-duty truck technologies under real-world utilisation profiles. Nature Communications (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-76265-1
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-026-76265-1
Keywords: heavy-duty trucks, electric trucks, battery-electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cells, zero-emission transport, freight transport, total cost of ownership, transport decarbonization, real-world utilisation, sustainable mobility
