energies
Article
Performance and Total Cost of Ownership of a Fuel Cell Hybrid
Mining Truck
Rajesh K. Ahluwalia * , Xiaohua Wang
Citation: Ahluwalia, R.K.; Wang, X.;
Papadias, D.D.; Star, A.G.
Performance and Total Cost of
Ownership of a Fuel Cell Hybrid
Mining Truck. Energies 2023, 16, 286.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en16010286
Academic Editor: Attilio Converti
Received: 2 December 2022
Revised: 20 December 2022
Accepted: 22 December 2022
Published: 27 December 2022
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Energies 2023, 16, 286. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16010286
, Dionissios D. Papadias and Andrew G. Star
Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL 60439-4858, USA
* Correspondence: walia@anl.gov
Abstract: The main objective of this work was to investigate the potential of hydrogen and fuel cells
replacing diesel and internal combustion engines in the ultraclass haul trucks deployed in the mining
sector. Performance, range, durability, and cost are the main criteria considered for comparing the
two fuels and engine options. Fuel cell system (FCS) performance is characterized in terms of heat
rejection, efficiency, and fuel consumption for a hybrid platform equivalent to a 3500 hp diesel engine
operating on a representative open pit mining duty cycle. A hybrid platform was chosen because the
heat rejection, with a constrained radiator frontal area, limits the maximum fuel cell-rated power by
about 50% compared to that of the diesel truck. The hybrid powertrain was 81–88% more efficient
than the diesel powertrain on the truck duty cycle. A liquid hydrogen storage system is required for
an equal range or time between refilling, but the packaging remains a challenge. Fuel cell and battery
durability were evaluated for their performance degradation and lifetime. Achieving a fuel cell
lifetime comparable to the time between major overhauls for diesel trucks necessitates the oversizing
of the membrane-active area, catalyst overloading, and voltage clipping. For an equal lifetime, the
battery must be oversized to control its depth of discharge and charge/discharge rates. A total cost of
ownership (TCO) analysis considering the initial capital expenditures, as well as the lifetime cost
of fuel, operation, and maintenance, indicates that fuel cells and hydrogen can compete with diesel.
A breakeven fuel cost for TCO parity is obtained if H2 is available at USD 5.79–6.85/kg vs. diesel
at USD 3.25/gal and the FCS-specific cost is USD 323/kWe relative to USD 250/kW for a diesel
genset. Volume manufacturing is required for FCS cost reduction. High volume is possible through
the standardization, modularity, and proliferation of class 8 long-haul truck systems across different
heavy-duty applications.
Keywords: fuel cells; hydrogen storage; heavy duty applications; mining trucks
1. Introduction
The mining industry was responsible for approximately 7% of global carbon dioxide
emissions in 2020 [1]. A large portion of these emissions is due to diesel trucks, which
consume 30–50% of a mine’s total energy use and can account for over 50% of the GHG
emissions from mining operations [1,2]. Collectively, mining haul trucks are responsible for
68 million tons of CO2 emissions globally per year. Decarbonizing these large mining trucks
is a key focus for the mining industry. The large energy consumption of these vehicles
and high utilization (24/7 operation in many cases) makes this a difficult application to
decarbonize with batteries. Hydrogen and fuel cells offer a potential route for decarbonizing
these vehicles; the motivation of this work is to objectively assess this potential.
Polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs) convert hydrogen energy to electric
power without CO2 or pollutant criteria emissions and can replace diesel engines in
transportation applications. Advances in fuel cells for on-road vehicles of heavy-, medium-,
and light-duty sizes have brought PEMFCs to nascent commercial viability [3–5]. Although
considerable technical and economic challenges remain for transportation fuel cells [6],
advances in the performance, cost, and manufacturing economies of scale suggest that
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2023, 16, 286 2 of 17

they can be competitive with diesel platforms as the hydrogen economy scales up [7,8].
Rail, maritime, and construction off-road vehicles are being evaluated for conversion to
PEFC propulsion [9,10], and recent attention has been extended to emissions-free ultra-
class mining haul trucks [11–14]. In May 2022, Anglo American unveiled a prototype
hydrogen fuel cell hybrid ultraclass haul truck to operate in South Africa’s Mogalakwena
open pit mine [15].
Figure A1 in Appendix A summarizes some important attributes of the commercially
available MW-sized haul trucks. The data has been collected from the websites maintained
by the equipment manufacturers and shows that these trucks are powered by diesel
engines rated at 1000 to 4000 gross horsepower (hp), are capable of handling a nominal
payload between 100 and 400 tons (t), and provide a fuel tank capacity of between 360 and
1140 gal. The ultraclass generally refers to haul trucks with a payload capacity exceeding
270 t (300 short tons). Figure A1 indicates that the commercial ultraclass haul trucks are
equipped with >2700 hp diesel engines and >700 gal fuel tanks with the preponderance at
the 3500 hp and 2700 hp engine sizes.
The purpose of this work is to investigate the performance, durability, and cost of
fuel cells for ultraclass mining trucks relative to diesel engines. A 3500 hp engine was
selected as the diesel baseline for evaluating the fuel cells because it is close to the largest
machine in Figure A1, and it is likely in demand judging by the number of manufacturers
offering it. The specific objectives are to characterize the performance of fuel cells for
mining trucks in terms of heat rejection, efficiency, and fuel consumption, determine
the operating conditions and hybridization strategies to mitigate the fuel cell thermal
management problem, develop a criterion for evaluating the range of fuel cell trucks and
propose the appropriate fuel storage method for achieving this, evaluate the fuel cell and
battery durability for performance degradation, lifetime, and component oversizing, and
conduct a total cost of ownership analysis considering the initial capital expenditures, as
well as the lifetime cost of fuel, operation, and maintenance.
The contributions of this paper are organized into three sections. The section on our
approach, methods, and data presents the diesel and fuel cell powertrain configurations,
engine efficiencies, mining haul route/duty cycle, the fundamentals of energy storage
system performance and lifetime, FCS thermal management, and the performance and
financial metrics. The section on the results presents the heat rejection consideration that
limits FCS-rated power and requires the adoption of a hybrid platform, battery performance,
and durability for the mining truck drive cycle, battery thermal management system,
power profiles and operating strategies of the hybrid platform, powertrain efficiencies and
fuel consumption, and total cost of ownership. The discussion section summarizes and
interprets the unique results of this study regarding the technology, performance, lifetime,
and cost of hybrid fuel cells for ultraclass haul trucks in mining applications.

2. Approach, Methods, and Data

2.1. Powertrain Configuration
Figure 1a shows the diesel powertrain for MW-class mining trucks. The genset in
Figure 1a produces electrical power with a diesel internal combustion engine and an
alternator [16,17]. Electric power is rectified from AC to DC, is conditioned through a DC
link, and is then delivered to the inverters, motors, gearboxes, and wheels to propel the
truck [16,17]. The power for the radiator systems is siphoned after conditioning in the
DC-link before delivery to the inverters.
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 20

Energies 2023, 16, 286 3 of 17

for traction [7,12,18]. An electric braking retarder is used for the regenerative recovery of
braking energy and storing it in the battery.

Powertrainconfigurations:
Figure1.1.Powertrain
Figure configurations:(a)
(a)diesel
dieselgenset;
genset;(b)
(b)hybrid
hybridfuel
fuelcell.
cell.The
Thereference
referencediesel
dieseltruck
truck
has an electric drivetrain with dual motors and gearboxes. The fuel cell powertrain retains the
has an electric drivetrain with dual motors and gearboxes. The fuel cell powertrain retains the same same
electric
electricdrivetrain
drivetrainbut
buthas
hasDC–DC
DC–DCconverters
convertersforformatching
matchingthethevoltages
voltagesofofthe
thebattery,
battery,FC
FCstack,
stack,and
and
traction motors.
traction motors.

The FCS
Two FCS hybrid
hybridpowertrain
powertrainoperating
in Figurestrategies
1b is similar to the diesel
are considered: (1)powertrain, but it
a fuel cell hybrid
directlyingenerates
(FCH), which the DC electrical
FCS delivers power
maximumthat is power
delivered duringto a DC bus and
ascent, idlesthen either
during stored
descent,
in the
and battery
delivers or delivered
36% to the inverter/rectifier,
power otherwise, and (2) a fuel cellmotor/generator,
as a battery charger gearbox,
(FCBC),and wheel
in which
for FCS
the traction [7,12,18].
operates An electric
at constant power braking
except retarder
duringisthe used for theduring
descent, regenerative
which recovery
it idles. In of
braking
both cases,energy and storing
the battery it in in
operates thea battery.
charge-sustained mode, i.e., zero-net energy during
Twocycle,
the duty FCS hybrid
and nopowertrain operating
external charging is strategies
required. The are considered:
architecture(1) fora fuel
thesecell
two hybrid
sys-
(FCH), in which the FCS delivers maximum power during ascent,
tems is the same, but the sizes of the components vary. For both fuel cell architectures, theidles during descent, and
delivers 36% power otherwise, and (2) a fuel cell as a battery
number of stack startups and shutdowns are minimized by idling the stack when the charger (FCBC), in which the
FCS operates at constant power except during the descent,
power demand on the duty cycle drops below 10% of its rated power. Idling at a minimumduring which it idles. In both
cases, the
power alsobattery
protectsoperates in from
the cells a charge-sustained
high voltagesmode, (near-openi.e., zero-net energy during
circuit potentials), the duty
which can
cycle, and no external charging is required. The architecture
damage the cathode catalysts and membrane. The fuel cell system and battery are sized for these two systems is the
same, but the sizes of the components vary. For both fuel cell
to satisfy duty cycle power demand at end of life (EOL). The FCS platform has the same architectures, the number of
stack startups and shutdowns are minimized by idling the stack
radiator frontal area and fan size as the diesel system to avoid packaging challenges. To when the power demand
on the duty cycle
simultaneously drops equal
achieve belowtime 10% between
of its rated power.
refills (TBR) Idling at adiesel
as the minimum power
platform also
while
avoiding further packaging challenges, a liquid hydrogen (LH2) storage system [19]the
protects the cells from high voltages (near-open circuit potentials), which can damage is
cathode catalysts and membrane.
used for the ultraclass mining truck. The fuel cell system and battery are sized to satisfy duty
cycle power demand at end of life (EOL). The FCS platform has the same radiator frontal
areaEngine
2.2. and fan size as the diesel system to avoid packaging challenges. To simultaneously
Efficiency
achieve equal time between refills (TBR) as the diesel platform while avoiding further
It is assumed that the MW-class fuel cell system for mining trucks is modular and
packaging challenges, a liquid hydrogen (LH2 ) storage system [19] is used for the ultraclass
assembled from multiple 175–275 kWe PEMFC systems for heavy-duty trucks [20–22].
mining truck.
Each module has its own thermal, fuel, water, and thermal subsystems but shares a com-
mon radiator
2.2. Engine for heat rejection. The FCS is sized to satisfy the power requirements at end
Efficiency
of lifeIt(EOL) to ensure
is assumed thatno loss
the of functionality,
MW-class fuel cell throughput,
system for mining or productivity
trucks is overmodularthe life-
and
time
assembled from multiple 175–275 kWe PEMFC systems for heavy-duty trucks [20–22]. clip-
of the vehicle. The EOL is defined as 25,000 h and may be achieved by voltage Each
ping
moduleto mitigate electrode
has its own and fuel,
thermal, membrane
water, degradation, membrane-active
and thermal subsystems area oversizing
but shares a common
to compensate for performance losses, and catalyst overloading.
radiator for heat rejection. The FCS is sized to satisfy the power requirements at end of life
(EOL)This study uses
to ensure theofFCS
no loss and dieselthroughput,
functionality, genset steady-state efficiencies
or productivity over shown in Figure
the lifetime of the
2. The FCS
vehicle. Theefficiency in Figure
EOL is defined 2a declines
as 25,000 h and mayfrom bethe beginning
achieved of lifeclipping
by voltage (BOL) totoEOL, mitigateas
determined
electrode and from a modeldegradation,
membrane and the assumptions described
membrane-active areainoversizing
previous publications
to compensate [20–for
22]. The FCS has
performance 63.1%
losses, andpeak
catalystefficiency at BOL. The FCS efficiency at the rated power is
overloading.
56.0%Thisat BOL, decreasing to 50.6%
study uses the FCS and diesel genset at EOL. The diesel genset
steady-state efficiency
efficiencies in Figure
shown 2a is2.
in Figure
modeled from CAT C175-16 data [23]. This genset powers
The FCS efficiency in Figure 2a declines from the beginning of life (BOL) to EOL, several relevant ultraclass haul as
trucks: modelfrom
determined 793Fa(2650
model hp),
and794AC (3500 hp), and
the assumptions 798AC in
described (3500 hp). The
previous genset efficiency
publications [20–22].
peaks
The FCS at ~41% at 80%
has 63.1% peakof the rated power
efficiency at BOL.and Theexhibits a steep at
FCS efficiency decline
the ratedat apower
powerisbelow
56.0%
20% [23].decreasing
at BOL, All engine to efficiencies
50.6% at EOL.exclude Thelosses
dieseldue to fan
genset power. in Figure 2a is modeled
efficiency
from CAT C175-16 data [23]. This genset powers several relevant ultraclass haul trucks:
model 793F (2650 hp), 794AC (3500 hp), and 798AC (3500 hp). The genset efficiency peaks
Energies 2023, 16, 286 4 of 17

at ~41%
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW at 80% of the rated power and exhibits a steep decline at a power below 20%4 [23].
of 20
All engine efficiencies exclude losses due to fan power.

70 100
100%
60 FCS BOL 98 State of Health

Battery EFficiency, %
Efficiency, % 96
50 FCS EOL 70%
94 State of Health
40
Diesel Genset 92
30 90
(a) 25 °C Battery Tempearture (b)
20 88
0 20 40 60 80 100 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Power, % C-rate, kW/kWh

Figure2.2.Steady-state
Figure Steady-state FCS
FCS and
and battery
battery performance
performance are
are presented
presented to
to illustrate
illustrate the
the effect
effect of
of degra-
degra-
dation. Actual
dation. Actual performance
performance is is dynamic
dynamic and
anddepends
dependsononambient
ambienttemperature.
temperature. (a) (a) FCS
FCSand
anddiesel
diesel
gensetefficiencies
genset efficienciesatatsteady
steadystate;
state;(b)
(b)battery
batterycharge
chargeand
anddischarge
dischargeefficiencies
efficienciesatatsteady
steadystate.
state.

Figure2b
Figure 2bshows
showsthe
thesteady-state
steady-statebattery
batteryefficiency,
efficiency,which
whichisislower
lowerduring
duringdischarge
discharge
thancharge
than chargeand
anddecreases
decreasesas
asthe
thecapacity
capacityfades
fadesover
overits
itslifetime
lifetimedue
duetotoloss
lossof
oflithium
lithiumand
and
SEIgrowth.
SEI growth.

2.3.
2.3.Haul
HaulRoute
Routeand
andDuty
DutyCycle
Cycle
Pit
Pitmine
minehaul
haulroutes
routesinclude
includeaadescent
descentdown
downthe thegrade
gradeinto
intothe
themine,
mine,travel
traveltotothe
thefill
fill
site, fill, return travel to the grade, ascent up the grade, ingress to the dump
site, fill, return travel to the grade, ascent up the grade, ingress to the dump site, dump, site, dump,
egress
egressfrom
fromthe thedump
dumpsite,
site,and
andthen
thenthethecycle
cyclerepeats.
repeats. Table
Table11provides
providesaarepresentative
representative
mining haul route from Terblanche et al. [23] that is used in this
mining haul route from Terblanche et al. [23] that is used in this study. study. Sectors 15 and
Sectors 0 are0
15 and
ingress to and egress from the dump site, which must be traversed carefully
are ingress to and egress from the dump site, which must be traversed carefully as the as the dynamic
soil poses soil
dynamic a significant danger to danger
poses a significant the haultotruck [17,24].
the haul truck [17,24].

Table1.1.Haul
Table Haulroute
routefrom
fromReference
Reference[23].
[23].

Normalized
Normalized
Sector
SectorDistance [m] [m]
Distance Grade % %Speed
Grade [mph]
Speed [mph] Time
Time[s]
[s]
Truck
TruckMass
Mass
0 0 25 25 0 0 1.4 1.4 11 40
40
1 125 0 9.3 1 30
Ingress 1 125 0 9.3 1 30
Ingress 2 175 0 28 1 14
3 2 50 175 0 0 18.6 28 11 614
3 50 0 18.6 1 6
4 1005 −10 18.6 1 121
5 4 2501005 0 −10 2818.6 11 121
20
Descent
6 5 100250 0 0 9.3 28 11 20
24
Descent 7 20 100 0 0 4.5 9.3 11 10
6 24
8 7 1 20 0 0 0 4.5 2.281 10
120
Fill 9 8 100 1 0 0 9.3 0 2.28
2.28 24
120
10 250 0 18.6 2.28 30
Fill 9 100 0 9.3 2.28 24
11 10 1005250 10 0 18.618.6 2.28
2.28 calculated
30
12 50 0 18.6 2.28 6
Ascent
13
11 175
1005 0
10 28
18.6 2.28
2.28
calculated
14
14 12 125 50 0 0 9.318.6 2.28
2.28 306
Ascent
Egress 15 13 25 175 0 0 1.1 28 2.28
2.28 14
52
14 125 0 9.3 2.28 30
Dump 16 1 0 0 1 40
Egress 15 25 0 1.1 2.28 52
Dump 16 1 0 0 1 40

The ramp grade is 10%, and the fill takes 120 s [17,18,24,25]. The vehicle remains
nearly stationary during fill and dump, maneuvering only slightly to receive and deposit
the earth. The vehicle speed is determined by road limits which are regulated and depend
on the quality and degree of maintenance of the roads. Speed is maximized (subject to 28
mph road limit) to increase the rate of earth hauled, except for during the ascent, where
Energies 2023, 16, 286 5 of 17

The ramp grade is 10%, and the fill takes 120 s [17,18,24,25]. The vehicle remains
nearly stationary during fill and dump, maneuvering only slightly to receive and deposit
the earth. The vehicle speed is determined by road limits which are regulated and depend
on the quality and degree of maintenance of the roads. Speed is maximized (subject to
28 mph road limit) to increase the rate of earth hauled, except for during the ascent, where
the vehicle’s rated power (3500 hp for the diesel genset) limits the speed [17,18,24,25].
The true ascent speed and time are calculated using a vehicle dynamics model, given by
Equation (1) [17,18,26,27].
dv(t)
m = Ft + Fb + Fg + Fr + Fa (1)
dt
m is the vehicle mass, v is the vehicle velocity, Ft is the traction force, Fb is the braking force,
Fg is the force of gravity, Fr is the force of rolling resistance, and Fa is the aerodynamic
drag force. The model inputs are the haul route, engine gross power, and vehicle mass.
Well-maintained roads exhibit a 2% rolling resistance factor, and the aerodynamics include
a drag coefficient of 0.9, air density of 1.146 kg/m3 at 35 ◦ C and 1 atm, and a vehicle frontal
area of 67.5 m2 [17,18,23].
Simulations were performed for a 3500 hp (2610 kW) diesel vehicle weighing 258 tons
(empty) with a 330-ton payload at a 1 s time resolution. The FCS hybrid vehicle is sized
to accomplish the same duty cycle while delivering an equal payload with an equal TBR
(as the diesel vehicle). Simulations determine the power demand and vehicle speed. The
vehicle’s depth in the mine, mine grade, vehicle speed, and vehicle power demand at
the wheel are shown in Figure A2 in Appendix A. Ascent speed and travel time up the
grade are limited by the engine’s rated power and are calculated as 7.6 mph and 294 s.
Regenerative power and the energy available after battery charging and drivetrain losses
during the descent on the 10% grade are 1851 kWe and 62 kWh, respectively. The maximum
traction power required at the wheel is 2033 kW, and the total energy requirement over the
complete cycle is 202 kWh. The FCS hybrid powertrain is approximately 2% lighter than the
diesel-electric powertrain; power demand duty cycles are mass-corrected. The total duty
cycle time is 883 s, during which ~40% is idling, ~15% descending, and ~35% ascending.

2.4. Energy Storage System

Battery performance and lifetime are based on the literature data for lithium iron
phosphate (LFP) batteries. LFP batteries have good cycling durability when maintained at
a modest temperature, moderate energy density, a flat voltage-discharge curve, low-cost
cf. containing the Li-ion batteries, and are relatively safe. Lithium titanium oxide (LTO)
batteries could be candidates due to their exceptional heat tolerance and durability; how-
ever, they are presently more expensive and lack “at-scale” manufacturing. Battery cycling
and calendar aging cause loss of lithium inventory and SEI growth: battery degradation
modes manifest as capacity fade and internal resistance increase [28]. A cycling capacity
fade model [29], a calendar-aging model [30], and an internal resistance model are coupled
to simulate battery performance and lifetime while operating on the mining duty cycle [31].
After Olmos et al. [29], the cyclic aging of LFP batteries, i.e., capacity fade (∆C1 ), is
represented as a product of the cluster functions that describe the individual degradation
caused by the main stress factors: operating temperature (T), depth of discharge (D), charge
rate (Cc ), discharge rate (Cd ), mean state of charge (Sm ), and full equivalent cycles (F).

∆C1 ( T, D, Cc , Cd , S, F ) = β f 1 ( T ) f 2 ( D ) f 3 (Cc )f 4 (Cd ) f 5 (S) f 6 ( F ) = β 1 ek T (T −Tre f )/Tre f ek D D ekc Cc ekd Cd

Sm (2)
[1 + k S Sm 1 − Smre f ] Fα
Energies 2023, 16, 286 6 of 17

Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Following Sui et al. [30], the capacity fade (∆C2 ) of LFP batteries due to calendar 6aging of 20
is expressed as a product of the cluster functions that represent the degradation caused by
the individual stress factors: g( T ) for storage temperature, g(S) for battery state-of-charge,
and g(t, T, S) for storage time.
Following Tran et al. [31], the Thevenin equivalent circuit model (ECM) is used to
a2 T a3 S (− a4 T a5 − a6 S a7 + a8 ) current (𝐼 ).
∆C2 (t, T,
calculate the
S)battery
= a1 g1 (terminal
T ) g2 (S) gvoltage
3 ( t, T, S ) +in∆C
(E) response
0 = a1 e toethet changes in load + ∆C0 (3)
The open-circuit voltage (𝐸 ) is considered an ideal voltage source that correlates with the
Following
battery’s Tran
state of et al.𝑅[31],
charge, the Thevenin
denotes the ohmic equivalent
resistancecircuit
of themodel
battery, (ECM)
and the is used to
voltage
calculate
drop (𝐸 )the battery
across the terminal
parallel RC voltage
network and 𝐶 to
(E) in(𝑅response the changes
) represents theintransient
load current (IL ).
behavior
The open-circuit
caused voltage (E
by the interfacial 0 ) is considered
charge-transfer an ideal at
reactions voltage source that
the electrode. 𝐶 correlates
and 𝑅 denote with the
the
battery’s of charge, R
interfacial capacitance and0 charge-transfer resistance at the electrode surfaces,voltage
state denotes the ohmic resistance of the battery, and the respec-
drop (E1 ) across the parallel RC network (R1 and C1 ) represents the transient behavior
tively.
caused by the interfacial charge-transfer reactions at the electrode. C1 and R1 denote the
interfacial capacitance and charge-transfer 𝐸 = 𝐸resistance
− 𝐸 − 𝐼at𝑅the electrode surfaces, respectively. (4)

E =𝐼E0=−𝐸E1+−𝐶IL𝑑𝐸 R0 (4)
(5)
𝑅 𝑑𝑡
E1 dE
The parameters 𝑅 , 𝑅 , and 𝐶IL are + C1 1of the battery state of health (𝑆𝑂𝐻(5)=
= functions
R1 dt
1 − ∆𝐶 (𝑇, 𝐷, 𝐶 , 𝐶 , 𝑆, 𝐹) − ∆𝐶 (𝑡, 𝑇, 𝑆)), temperature, and SOC [31]. The battery efficiency
(𝜂 )The parameters
during charge orR0discharge
, R1 , and Cis1 are functions
defined as theofratio
the battery state of health
of the terminal voltage(SOH = 1−
to OCV as
∆C1 ( T, D, Cc , Cd , S, F ) − ∆C2 (t, T, S)), temperature, and SOC [31]. The battery efficiency
follows.
(ηb ) during charge or discharge is defined as the ratio of the terminal voltage to OCV
as follows. Charge: 𝜂 = (6)
E0
Charge : ηb = (6)
E
Discharge: 𝜂 = (7)
E
Discharge : ηb = (7)
The energy storage system includes a liquid-cooled E0 battery thermal management sys-
tem The
(BTMS) shown
energy in Figure
storage system3a with two aloops:
includes ethylene glycol
liquid-cooled batterycirculating from the bat-
thermal management
system
tery pack(BTMS) shown
through in Figure
a pump, a heat3aexchanger,
with two loops: ethylene
and a chiller glycol
before circulating
returning to thefrom the
battery
battery pack through a pump, a heat exchanger, and a chiller before returning to
pack. A second loop circulates a refrigerant through the chiller, an evaporator, a compres- the battery
pack.
sor, aA second loop
condenser, ancirculates
expansiona valve,
refrigerant through
and then the chiller,
returns an evaporator,
to the chiller [32]. Theabattery
compressor,
cool-
aing
condenser,
system is ansized
expansion valve, and then
to accommodate heatreturns
removal to at
thethe
chiller [32].maximum
battery The batterydischarge
cooling
system
power is atsized
EOL to
in accommodate
a 50 °C ambient heat removal at the
environment whilebattery maximum
maintaining discharge
a battery power at
temperature
EOL a 50 ◦ C ambient environment while maintaining a battery temperature of 35 ◦ C.
of 35in°C.

Figure3.3.Thermal
Figure Thermalmanagement
managementsystems
systemsfor
forbattery
batteryand
andFCS.
FCS.The
Thedrivetrains
drivetrainshave
haveseparate
separatecircuits
circuits
for
for cooling the traction motor and the final drive. (a) Battery thermal management system
cooling the traction motor and the final drive. (a) Battery thermal management system (BTMS);
(BTMS);
(b)
(b)FCS
FCSheat
heatrejection
rejectionsystem.
system.

2.5. FCS Thermal Management

As shown in Figure 3b, the FCS thermal management system includes (a) an A/C
condenser for truck cabin cooling, (b) a low-temperature radiator (LTR) for cooling the
stator of the motor in the air management system, and the air precooler upstream of the
membrane humidifier, (c) a high-temperature (HTR) radiator that cools the fuel cell stack,
and (d) radiator fan. The stacked radiator arrangement in Figure 3b is identical to that in
a diesel powertrain, except that LTR has replaced the charged air cooler. The diesel
Energies 2023, 16, 286 7 of 17

2.5. FCS Thermal Management

As shown in Figure 3b, the FCS thermal management system includes (a) an A/C
condenser for truck cabin cooling, (b) a low-temperature radiator (LTR) for cooling the
stator of the motor in the air management system, and the air precooler upstream of the
membrane humidifier, (c) a high-temperature (HTR) radiator that cools the fuel cell stack,
and (d) radiator fan. The stacked radiator arrangement in Figure 3b is identical to that in a
diesel powertrain, except that LTR has replaced the charged air cooler. The diesel thermal
management system includes a circuit for the rear-axle retarder [33]. The FCS platform
employs regenerative energy capture and rejects waste heat through the independent BTMS.
Both systems share the same oil loop for oil-cooling the final drive and an independent
system for air-cooling the motors and inverters.

2.6. Performance and Financial Metrics

The total cost of ownership (TCO) is the ultimate technoeconomic metric for com-
paring commercial favorability. The duty-cycle-optimized powertrain performance and
cost metrics are synthesized into one-time expenses, capital expenses (CAPEX), and
recurring expenses, including operating expenses (OPEX), operation and maintenance
expenses (O&M), and fuel expenses. CAPEX is amortized over the economic life of
the vehicle into equal
h annualized
i payments according to the capital recovery factor,
CRF = i × (i + 1)t / (1 + i )t − 1 , where i is the internal rate of return and t is the economic
lifetime [34]. The first fuel cell stack and battery are considered CAPEX. Fuel cell stack
and battery replacements are treated as OPEX; however, their lifespans greatly surpass
one year. Accordingly, replacements are amortized over the economic life of the vehicle.
Other OPEX costs, for example, diesel exhaust fluid (DEF), are consumed rapidly, obviating
amortization.

3. Results
Table 2 lists the important performance and cost metrics grouped into five categories
for performance, vehicle parameters, component costs, fuel-related costs, and financial
parameters. A diesel genset-specific power of 158 W/kg was determined by correlating
the available literature data for MW-class engines. The FCS-specific power of 1000 W/kg
corresponds to the upper limit for light-duty vehicles, but the ruggedization for heavy-duty
applications may result in a lower value. The specific energy of the fuel storage systems is
comparable after accounting for the nearly three times greater lower heating value (LHV)
of H2 than diesel: 42.8 MJ/kg-diesel vs. 120.2 MJ/kg-H2 .
In the TCO analysis, the mining truck operates for 6000 h/year, and the diesel engine
undergoes a major overhaul after 20,000 h, whereas the fuel cell stack is replaced after
25,000 h.
The cost metrics include (a) the initial cost of USD 250/kW for the genset after a
20% allowance for tier-4 modifications and USD 323/kWe for FCS at 10,000 units/year
manufacturing volume; (b) the comparable costs of diesel overhaul and fuel cell stack
replacement, and (c) the cost of the battery and drivetrain components.
Table 2 lists the baseline costs of diesel and H2 ; however, recognizing the volatility of
fuel costs, the analysis also determines the relative cost of H2 that leads to TCO parity.
The TCO analysis only considers the costs of the powertrain components shown in
Figure 1, and the fuel storage system applies a 30% surcharge for the installation and omits
the common components, such as the chassis, tires, labor, and insurance.
Energies 2023, 16, 286 8 of 17

Table 2. Performance and cost metrics for diesel genset, status FCS, and ultimate FCS.

Units Genset FCS Status FCS Ultimate

Performance Metrics
Engine Specific Power W/kg 158 1000 1000
Fuel Storage System-Specific Energy kWh/kg 8.0 6.0 6.0
ESS Specific Energy Wh/kg 200 200
BTMS Specific Power W/kg 123 123
Vehicle Parameters
Annual Operating Hours h 6000 6000 6000
Engine TBO (Diesel) or Lifetime (FCS) h 20,000 25,000 25,000
Cost Metrics
Tier-4 Genset or FCS USD/kW 250 323 60
Engine Overhaul, Stack Replacement % 79 73 73
Battery USD/kWh 157 80
Engine or FCS Routine Maintenance USD/MWh 5.3 8.3 8.3
Drivetrain Components
Alternator USD/kW 59
Rectifier USD/kW 90
DC Link USD/kW 1.5
DC-DC Converter USD/kW 75 75
Inverter USD/kW 75 75 75
AC Motor USD/kW 120 120 120
Gearbox USD/kW 70 70 70
Power Conditioning USD/kW 60 60 60
Fuel Related Cost
USD/gal,
Fuel 3.25 5 3
USD/kg
Lubrication USD/gal 0.49
Diesel Exhaust Fluid (Urea) USD/gal 0.18
Financial Parameters
Economic Lifetime years 15 15 15
Salvage Value % Price 23 23 23
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) % 7 7 7
Inflation % 2 2 2
Installation Cost Multiplier 1.3 1.3 1.3

3.1. FCS Heat Rejection

An analysis was conducted to determine the maximum FCS size that can reject waste
heat using the same frontal radiator area and fan size as in a 3500 hp diesel mining truck.
Compared to diesel engines, despite their higher efficiency, fuel cells have a unique thermal
management problem because they operate at a lower temperature, and a smaller fraction
of the fuel heating value is rejected through the exhaust gas. The analysis considers 50 ◦ C
as the maximum ambient temperature, a maximum coolant exit temperature of 110 ◦ C
for diesel and 95 ◦ C for fuel cell stack, and 0.7 V cell voltage at EOL. Table 3 summarizes
the heat loads on the diesel HTR, CAC, and A/C condenser for these conditions. Diesel
engines are generally equipped with one or more radiator fans that may consume up to 8%
of the engine BOP.
A finite-volume model was developed to determine the pressure drop and heat transfer
parameters from the diesel radiator heat loads. The model and parameters were then used
to determine the maximum FCS size subject to the specified HTR frontal area. Table 3
indicates that the HTR heat transfer constraint and 95 ◦ C coolant temperature limit the
stack size to a 1568 kWe gross power at a 0.7 V cell voltage. The parasitic loads are 144 kWe
for the compressor-expander-motor (CEM) module in the air management system, 38 kWe
for the coolant pump and H2 recirculation blower in the fuel management system, 29 kWe
for the cabin A/C hydraulic fan for the direct air cooling of the inverter, alternator, and
traction motor, 209 kWe for the radiator fans, and 45 kWe for the BTMS. The FCS produces
1387 kWe net power, and the balance of 1125 kWe must be supplied by the battery during
the ascent phase. Table 3 also lists the heat loads on the HTR and LTR in the FCS, cabin
A/C condenser, and the air-cooled HX, evaporator, and A/C condenser in the BTMS.
Energies 2023, 16, 286 9 of 17

Table 3. Radiator heat loads, power sharing, and system parasitic sources at the rated power condition
of 50 ◦ C ambient temperature. Thermal management systems for FCS and ESS are independent.

3500 hp Equivalent Mining Truck Units Diesel FCH FCBC

Powertrain
Engine/FCS, w/o Fan kWe 2611 1387 1172
FC stack kWe 1568 1325
CEM Parasitic kWe 144 122
Other FCS Parasitics 1 kWe 38 32
Other System Parasitics 2 kWe 29 29 29
Radiator Fan kWe 209 209 209
BTMS 3 kWe 45 63
Battery Discharge Power kWe 1125 1350
Heat Duty Parameters
High-Temperature Radiator kW 1352 1292 1092
CAC/Low-Temperature Radiator kW 451 130 110
AC Condenser kW 7 7 7
BTMS 3 kW 50 70
1 Other FCS parasitics include H recirculation, blower, and coolant pump. 2 Other system parasitics include
2
AC and hydraulic fan for direct air cooling of the inverter, alternator, and traction motor. 3 The diesel thermal
management system includes a circuit for the rear-axle retarder. The FCS platform employs regenerative energy
capture and rejects waste heat through the BCS. Both systems share the same oil loop for cooling the final drive.

A method was formulated to determine the smallest FCS size in the FCBC configu-
ration that can power the hybrid powertrain over the truck duty cycle with ESS operated
in a charge-sustaining mode. The average power requirement over the duty cycle, the
peak power required during the ascent, the energy required for the duty cycle, and the
recoverable braking energy were calculated using the weight of the vehicle and the load.
The average power required was 1172 kWe , which defines the minimum size of the fuel cell
that can be operated in a hybrid system in the charge-sustaining mode. The calculations
show that an 1172-kWe FCS, together with 62-kWh ESS regenerative braking energy, can
provide 202 kWh to the traction motor, which is necessary to propel the mining truck
on the truck duty cycle. As indicated in Table 3, the FCBC configuration downsizes the
fuel cell stack to 1325 kWe from 1568 kWe in the FCH but requires a larger battery and
BTMS. The smaller radiator heat loads in the FCBC configuration allow the maximum stack
coolant exit temperature to be lowered to 78 ◦ C. Lower stack operating temperatures favor
extended membrane and electrode lifetimes.

3.2. Battery
The combined battery performance and durability model was used to determine
the battery capacity for the same lifetime as the fuel cell, i.e., 25,000 operating hours. The
simultaneous replacement of these major powertrain components prevents long, extraneous
vehicle downtime periods, which are costly opportunity losses for mine operators. The
EOL is defined as a failure to absorb 62 kWh at 1851 kWe during the descent or to provide
1125 kWe or 1350 kWe for the FCH and FCBC platforms, respectively, during ascent. When
allowing for 30% capacity fade during the lifetime, the modeled nominal battery capacities
are 1405 kWh and 1468 kWh for the FCH and the FCBC platforms, respectively. As shown in
Figure 4a, cycling capacity loss dominates calendar aging loss for the high-uptime mining
truck with 6000 operating and 2760 nonoperating annual hours. The 25,000 h battery
lifetime corresponds to 5038 full equivalent cycles for the FCH platform.
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 20

Energies 2023, 16, 286 10 of 17

4a shows that the battery capacity fades at a faster rate as it ages because of the increasing
C-rates and DOD in Figure 4b,c.

Full Equivalent Cycles, x1000 Full Equivalent Cycles, x1000

0 0.9 1.8 2.8 3.9 5.0 6.3 7.9 9.0 0 0.9 1.8 2.8 3.9 5.0 6.3 8.0 9.0
100 2.0
Target Initial Capacity: 1405 kWh Target
Lifetime Battery for FCH Lifetime
80 1.5

Capacity, %

C Rating
60 Initial Capacity: 1405 kWh 1.0
Battery for FCH
40
(a) 0.5 (b)
20
Calendar Aging Loss
0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Vehicle Operating Time, x1000 h Vehicle Operating Time, x1000 h
Full Equivalent Cycles, x1000
60 0 0.9 1.8 2.8 3.9 5.0 6.3 8.0 9.0

50
SOC, %

40
Cycle Lower SOC
30
Initial Capacity: 1405 kWh (c)
Battery for FCH
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Vehicle Operating Time, x1000 h

Figure 4.4. Illustration

Figure Illustration of
of battery
battery capacity
capacity sizing
sizing methodology
methodology to
to achieve
achieve 25,000
25,000 hh operating
operating life
life by
by
controlling the charge and discharge C-rates, mean SOC, and DOD: (a) Capacity fade; (b)
controlling the charge and discharge C-rates, mean SOC, and DOD: (a) Capacity fade; (b) Average Average
C-ratesfor
C-rates forcharge
chargeand
anddischarge;
discharge;(c)
(c)Upper
Upperand
andlower
lowerSOC.
SOC.

Figure
Figure4b,c show that,
5 presents the as the battery
illustrative ages and
results fromthe capacity fades,
a trade-off study its C-rate battery
between for charge
ca-
and discharge
pacity increases
and battery by 45%
lifetime. from BOL
A smaller to EOL,
battery hasand the battery
a shorter depth
lifetime of discharge,
because it mustthe
be
difference between the cycle maximum SOC and the minimum SOC,
operated at a larger DOD to provide the target charge and discharge power. As an exam- increases from 7.5%
at BOL
ple, theto 10.2%lifetime
battery at EOL reduces
for FCHto(9.1% at h
15,000 BOLif itstocapacity
13.1% atisEOL for FCBC).
decreased from Because
1405 kWh of to
a
higher C-rate,
975 h for the battery
the FCH platform discharges
and frommore1468 during
kWh todischarge
1050 h forthan during
the FCBC charge. Figure
platform. 4a
A smaller
shows
batterythat
hasthe
thebattery
advantagescapacity fadescompact,
of being at a fasterlighter,
rate asandit ages because
easier of the increasing
to package. The disad-
C-rates
vantagesandareDOD in Figure
a shorter 4b,c. increased downtime for battery replacement, lower effi-
lifetime,
Figure 5 presents the illustrative
ciency, and possibly, a higher lifetime results
cost.from a trade-off study between battery capacity
and battery lifetime. A smaller battery has a shorter lifetime because it must be operated
at a larger DOD to provide the target charge and discharge power. As an example, the
battery lifetime reduces to 15,000 h if its capacity is decreased from 1405 kWh to 975 h for
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW
the FCH platform and from 1468 kWh to 1050 h for the FCBC platform. A smaller battery 11 of 20
has the advantages of being compact, lighter, and easier to package. The disadvantages
are a shorter lifetime, increased downtime for battery replacement, lower efficiency, and
possibly, a higher lifetime cost.

Figure5.5. The trade-off between

Figure between battery
battery capacity
capacity and
andbattery
batterylifetime
lifetimeininthe
theFCH
FCHand
andFCBC
FCBCconfig-
con-
urations. A smaller
figurations. battery
A smaller hashas
battery a shorter lifetime
a shorter and and
lifetime requires one or
requires more
one replacements
or more over 25,000
replacements over
h.
25,000 h.
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 20
Energies 2023, 16, 286 11 of 17

3.3. Battery Thermal Management System

3.3. Battery
The BTMSThermal Management
system is sized toSystem
limit the steady-state battery temperature to 35 °C at a
maximum discharge power on
The BTMS system is sized to limit the hottest
the day (50 °C ambient
steady-state batterytemperature).
temperature to 35 ◦ C at
Because bat-
a
tery efficiency degrades and heat generation ◦
increases as the battery
maximum discharge power on the hottest day (50 C ambient temperature). Because battery ages, the temperature
limit is enforced
efficiency degrades at and
its EOL.
heat At these operating
generation increases temperatures,
as the batteryaages,
coefficient of performance
the temperature limit
(COP)
is of 1.1
enforced at may be representative
its EOL. of the
At these operating BTMS state-of-the-art.
temperatures, a coefficientThe COP is the ratio
of performance (COP) of
the1.1
of power
may be consumed in the compressor,
representative coolant pump, and
of the BTMS state-of-the-art. TheHXCOP blower
is the fan
ratio(see Figure
of the power 3a)
to the waste
consumed heat
in the generated coolant
compressor, in the battery.
pump, and Under these conditions,
HX blower fan (see Figurethe calculated peak
3a) to the waste
heat
BTMS generated
parasiticinpower
the battery. Under these
consumption is 45 conditions,
kWe for thethe FCHcalculated
platformpeak andBTMS63 kWparasitic
e for the

power consumption is 45 kWe for the FCH platform and 63 kWe for the FCBC platform.
FCBC platform.
Figure
Figure 66 presents
presentsthe the BTMS
BTMS power
power consumption
consumptionover overthe
theduty
duty cycle
cycle for
for the
the FCH
FCH and and
FCBC
FCBCplatforms.
platforms.The Thepeakpeakininpower
powerconsumption
consumption occurs at the
occurs endend
at the of the
of ascent phase.
the ascent The
phase.
results are shown
The results are shownfor thefortwo
theextreme conditions:
two extreme the hottest
conditions: day at
the hottest dayEOL (50 ◦ C
at EOL ambient;
(50 °C am-
35 ◦ ◦ ◦C
bient; 35 °C battery temperatures) and normal operating conditions at BOL (25 °C 25
C battery temperatures) and normal operating conditions at BOL (25 C ambient; ambi-
battery
ent; 25 °Ctemperatures). Because the
battery temperatures). available
Because peak power
the available peakduring
powerregenerative braking
during regenerative
greatly exceeds the peak discharge power during the ascent, only a portion
braking greatly exceeds the peak discharge power during the ascent, only a portion of the of the available
braking
availableenergy
braking is recoverable at EOL and
energy is recoverable 50 ◦ C
ataEOL andambient
a 50 °Ctemperature.
ambient temperature.

70 70
FCBC EOL Sizing
60 60 Ta: 50°C, Tb: 35°C
(a) FCH EOL (Sizing) (b)
BTMS Power, kWe

BTMS Power, kWe

50 Ta: 50°C, Tb: 35°C 50
40 40
30 FCH BOL 30 FCBC BOL
Ta: 25°C Ta: 25°C
20 20
Tb: 25°C Tb: 25°C
10 10
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Time, s Time, s

Figure6.
Figure 6. Dynamic
DynamicBTMS BTMSpower
powerconsumption
consumptionon ontruck
truckdrive
drive cycle
cycle at at extreme
extreme conditions
conditions represent-
representing
ing 100%
100% and and
70% 70% battery
battery statestate of health
of health (BOL(BOL and EOL)
and EOL) andhot
and the theand
hot normal
and normal ambient
ambient tempera-
temperatures
tures
(50 and(50
25and
◦ C),25 °C), which
which also the
also affect affect the battery
battery temperature
temperature (35 and(35
25and
◦ C):25
(a)°C):
FCH (a)platform;
FCH platform; (b)
(b) FCBC
FCBC platform
platform.

3.4.
3.4. Power
Power Profiles
Profiles and
and Operating
Operating Strategies
Strategies
Figure
Figure 7 summarizes the the BOL
BOLand andEOL EOLpower
poweroutputs
outputsforfor
allall
the the powertrain
powertrain com-
compo-
ponents
nents at at °C◦and
25 25 C and °C ◦ambient
50 50 C ambient temperatures.
temperatures. The The results
results are calculated
are calculated withwith 1s
1 s time
time resolution
resolution over over the duty
the duty cycle.cycle.
The FCSTheinFCS the in
FCHtheplatform
FCH platform
delivers delivers
maximum maximum
power
power
duringduring the ascent,
the ascent, idles during
idles during the descent,
the descent, and delivers
and delivers 36% power
36% power otherwise.
otherwise. The
The power
power split during the ascent is 50% FCS and 50% battery. The battery
split during the ascent is 50% FCS and 50% battery. The battery power maxima are 2154 power maxima are
2154 kW
kWe duringe during charge and 1125
charge and 1125 kWe duringkW e during discharge. The FCS in the FCBC
discharge. The FCS in the FCBC platform oper- platform
operates at constant
ates at constant power,power,
exceptexcept
duringduring the descent
the descent whenwhen it idles.
it idles. The power The power split
split during
during the ascent
the ascent is 40% isFCS40% FCS
and andbattery,
60% 60% battery,
and theand the battery
battery power power
maxima maxima are 2134
are 2134 kWe kW
dur-e
during charge ◦ C ambient temperature,
ing charge andand13501350
kWkW e during
e during discharge.
discharge. At EOL
At EOL andand
a 50a°C
50 ambient temperature, the
the recovered
recovered fraction
fraction of the
of the braking
braking energy
energy is ~55%
is ~55% and and
~65%~65% forFCH
for the the FCH and FCBC
and FCBC plat-
platforms, respectively. Nearly 100% of the available braking energy
forms, respectively. Nearly 100% of the available braking energy may be recovered at BOLmay be recovered at
BOL and a 25 ◦ C ambient temperature.
and a 25 °C ambient temperature.
Energies 2023, 16,
Energies 2023, 16, 286
x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of
13 of 17
20

2000 2000
1500 (a) FCH FCS BOL 1500 (b)
1000 FCH FCS EOL 1000 FCBC FCS BOL
500 500 FCBC FCS EOL

Power, kWe
Power, kWe
0 0
-500 -500
-1000 FCH Battery EOL -1000 FCBC Battery EOL
-1500 -1500
-2000 -2000
FCH Battery BOL FCBC Battery BOL
-2500 -2500
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Time, s Time, s

Figure 7. Power
Powersharing
sharingbetween
betweenFCSFCSandandbattery during
battery a mining
during truck
a mining dutyduty
truck cyclecycle
at extreme con-
at extreme
ditions: BOLBOL
conditions: vs. EOL and and
vs. EOL 50 °C ◦ C25
50vs. ◦ C ambient
vs.°C25ambient temperatures: (a) FCH
temperatures: platform;
(a) FCH (b) FCBC
platform; plat-
(b) FCBC
form
platform.

3.5. Powertrain Efficiencies and Fuel Consumption

Figure
Figure 8 presents
presents the time-resolved
time-resolved BOL
BOL and EOL efficiencies
efficiencies for the FCS and battery
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW
over the truck duty cycles at a 25 ◦ C ambient temperature. The FCS in FCBC platform 14 of is
20
over the truck duty cycles at a 25 °C ambient temperature. The FCS in FCBC platform is
less efficient than in the FCH platform because it operates closer to the rated power
less efficient than in the FCH platform because it operates closer to the rated power (87– (87–90%
of
90%theofrated power),
the rated exceptexcept
power), duringduring
descent. Battery
descent. efficiency
Battery is alsoislower
efficiency in the FCBC
also lower in the
platform because
FCBC platform higher higher
because C-ratesC-rates
are demanded duringduring
are demanded charging and discharging.
charging and discharging.
The overall powertrain efficiency, 𝜂 , can be defined as the ratio of the total energy
65
supplied to the wheel to the lower heating value 100 of the fuel consumed.
Tamb = 25°C
60 Tbat = 25°C
98P 𝑑𝑡
Battery Efficiency, %

FCH BOL 𝜂 = (8)

FCS Efficiency, %

55 FCH BOL
96 ∆𝐻 𝑑𝑡
𝑚 FCBC BOL
50 FCH EOL
where P is theFCBC power
BOL
at the wheel at time t, 𝑚 94 is the rate of fuel consumption, FCH EOL ∆𝐻 is
45
the lower heating value of the fuel, and τ is the duty cycle duration. WhenFCBC applying
EOL Equa-
40 FCBC EOL 92
tion (4) to (a)
the truck duty cycle, the powertrain efficiencies (b) are 20.3% for diesel,
Tamb = 25°C, Tbat = 25°C 38.3% for
FCH 35 at BOL, decreasing to 33.6% at EOL and 33.7% 90 for FCBC at BOL, decreasing to 28.8%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
at EOL. Inclusive of FCS and
Time, s
battery performance degradation, the lifetime efficiencies of
Time, s
the FCH and FCBC are, respectively, 77% and 54% higher than the diesel powertrain.
Figure
Figure 8.8.Degradation
The Degradation ininFCS
reference diesel FCS and
truck battery
and battery
holds efficiencies over
efficiencies
1311 gallons thefuel
over
of lifetime
the andof
lifetime the
ofFCH
consumes the FCHand FCBC
it atand platforms.
FCBC
a rate plat-
of 16.5
forms.
The The
resultsfor
gal/cycle results
are19.1 are
presented presented over
over the truck
h of operating the
time truck
duty duty cycle
cycle torefueling
between to emphasize
emphasize(TBR). the dynamicthe dynamic
On thevariations
same dutyvariations
in battery
cycle,in
battery
performanceperformance during
during therate charge the charge
andkg/cycleand
discharge discharge cycles: (a) FCS efficiencies; (b) Battery effi-
the H2 consumption is 9.9 atcycles:
BOL, (a) FCS efficiencies;
increasing to 11.3 (b) Batteryatefficiencies.
kg/cycle EOL for the
ciencies.
FCH platform, and 11.3 kg/cycle at BOL, increasing to 13.2 kg/cycle at EOL for the FCBC
The overall powertrain efficiency, ηPT , can be defined as the ratio of the total energy
platform.
3.6. Total to For an
Cost equal TBR (19.1 h) at EOL, the required H2 storage capacity is 947 kg for
supplied theofwheel
Ownershipto the lower heating value of the fuel consumed.
the FCH platform and 1003 kg H2 for the FCBC platform.
Figure 9a summarizes a breakdown of the R τ initial capital expenditure (CAPEX) amor-
tized over the component economic Pw dt
ηPT = R τ 0. The CAPEX includes a selective catalyst
lifetimes. (8)
reduction system for tier 4 diesel emissions0 compliance m f ∆H f dt (selective catalyst reduction; SCR)
[35], powertrains, and fuel storage. All other. common cost elements, such as the chassis
where Pw is
and tires, arethe powerfor
omitted at the
easewheel at time t, m
of comparison f is the rate
between of fuel consumption,
the platforms. CAPEX only ∆H f is the
includes
lower heating value of the fuel, and τ is the duty cycle duration.
the cost of the first installed FCS and battery. The cost of the FC stack and battery replace- When applying Equation
(4) to the
ments aretruck duty cycle,
considered OPEX.the powertrain
The platform efficiencies
ranking of arethe20.3%
mostfor diesel, 38.3%
expensive to the forcheapest
FCH at
BOL, decreasing to 33.6% at EOL and 33.7% for FCBC
is FCH Status > FCBC Status > Diesel > FCH Ultimate ~ FCBC Ultimate. The CAPEXat BOL, decreasing to 28.8% at EOL. is
Inclusive of FCS and battery performance degradation, the lifetime
higher for the diesel drivetrain than the genset. The rankings for most expensive to least efficiencies of the FCH
and FCBC are,
expensive respectively,
components 77%FCS
for the andplatform
54% higher are than the diesel
as follows: FCHpowertrain.
Status: Drivetrain > FCS
> Fuel Storage > Battery, FCBC Status: Drivetrain > FCS > Fuelconsumes
The reference diesel truck holds 1311 gallons of fuel and Storage > itBattery,
at a rate FCH of
16.5 gal/cycle for 19.1 h of operating time between refueling (TBR). On the same duty cycle,
Ultimate: Drivetrain > Fuel Storage > (FCS ~ Battery), FCBC Ultimate: Drivetrain > Fuel
the H2 consumption rate is 9.9 kg/cycle at BOL, increasing to 11.3 kg/cycle at EOL for the
Storage > (FCS ~ Battery).
FCH platform, and 11.3 kg/cycle at BOL, increasing to 13.2 kg/cycle at EOL for the FCBC
Figure 9b summarizes the TCO breakdown in terms of the CAPEX, OPEX, O&M, and
platform. For an equal TBR (19.1 h) at EOL, the required H2 storage capacity is 947 kg for
fuel cost. OPEX includes the amortized cost of the FC stack and the battery replacements
the FCH platform and 1003 kg H2 for the FCBC platform.
and the major diesel engine overhauls. O&M includes the scheduled repair of the FCS and
diesel platforms, diesel lubrication, DEF, SCR catalyst recharge, and insurance. Figure 8b
shows that fuel cost dominates, as it represents ~75% of the TCO for FCS platforms and
~65% for the diesel platform. The FCH option has the lowest TCO, with a Status technol-
ogy of USD 27/h less than the diesel vehicle and an FCH Ultimate of USD 146/h less than
 Energies 2023, 16, 286 13 of 17

3.6. Total Cost of Ownership

Figure 9a summarizes a breakdown of the initial capital expenditure (CAPEX) amor-
tized over the component economic lifetimes. The CAPEX includes a selective catalyst re-
duction system for tier 4 diesel emissions compliance (selective catalyst reduction; SCR) [35],
powertrains, and fuel storage. All other common cost elements, such as the chassis and
tires, are omitted for ease of comparison between the platforms. CAPEX only includes the
cost of the first installed FCS and battery. The cost of the FC stack and battery replacements
are considered OPEX. The platform ranking of the most expensive to the cheapest is FCH
Status > FCBC Status > Diesel > FCH Ultimate ~ FCBC Ultimate. The CAPEX is higher for
the diesel drivetrain than the genset. The rankings for most expensive to least expensive
components for the FCS platform are as follows: FCH Status: Drivetrain > FCS > Fuel
Storage > Battery, FCBC Status: Drivetrain > FCS > Fuel Storage > Battery, FCH Ultimate:
Drivetrain > Fuel Storage > (FCS ~ Battery), FCBC Ultimate: Drivetrain > Fuel Storage
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 20>
(FCS ~ Battery).

Figure
Figure9.9.Total
Totalcost
costofofownership
ownershipofofthe
thediesel
dieseland
andfuel
fuelcell
cell hybrid
hybrid platforms
platforms isis USD
USD 3.25/gal
3.25/galfor
for
diesel, USD 5/kg-H2 for the status technologies, and USD 3/kg-H2 for the ultimate technologies. The
diesel, USD 5/kg-H2 for the status technologies, and USD 3/kg-H2 for the ultimate technologies. The
TCO is dominated by fuel costs and is more aptly described by the breakeven cost of H2 relative to
TCO is dominated by fuel costs and is more aptly described by the breakeven cost of H2 relative to
diesel for TCO parity: (a) CAPEX; (b) TCO
diesel for TCO parity: (a) CAPEX; (b) TCO.
Finally, Figure 10 summarizes the results from a sensitivity analysis on the H2 break-
Figure 9b summarizes the TCO breakdown in terms of the CAPEX, OPEX, O&M, and
even
fuel cost
cost.as a function
OPEX of FCS
includes cost. Currently,
the amortized cost offuel
the cells are produced
FC stack at a low
and the battery manufac-
replacements
turing volume and may cost upward of USD 1000/kW e. At this FCS price and an ESS cost
and the major diesel engine overhauls. O&M includes the scheduled repair of the FCS and
ofdiesel
USD platforms,
157/kWh, the breakeven
diesel H2 cost
lubrication, DEF,for TCO
SCR parityrecharge,
catalyst with diesel
andisinsurance.
USD 4.88–5.64/kg.
Figure 8b
Ramping
shows that fuel cost dominates, as it represents ~75% of the TCO for FCSimprovements
up the production volume to 100,000 units/year and with certain platforms and
in stackfor
~65% technology may help The
the diesel platform. in reaching the ultimate
FCH option FCS cost
has the lowest TCO,target
withof USD 60/kW
a Status e. In
technology
this case, the breakeven H 2 cost relaxes to USD 6.31–6.85/kg if the ESS cost also decreases
of USD 27/h less than the diesel vehicle and an FCH Ultimate of USD 146/h less than diesel.
toThe
its FCBC
ultimatehastarget
a USDof9/h–4/h
USD 80/kWh.
higher TCO than the FCH but has the advantage of a lower
operating temperature that can stabilize the electrode and membrane by mitigating Pt
dissolution and the fluoride release rate in membranes. Further work is needed to quantify
the impact of the operating temperatures on TCO. If hydrogen cost does not reach USD
5/kg, the FCS platform is still favored if it equals or surpasses the breakeven cost for TCO
parity. The breakeven costs of H2 relative to diesel at USD 3.25/gal are USD 6.18/kg-H2
for FCH Status, USD 5.79/kg-H2 for FCBC Status, USD 6.85/kg-H2 for FCH Ultimate, and
USD 6.31/kg-H2 for FCBC Ultimate.
Finally, Figure 10 summarizes the results from a sensitivity analysis on the H2 breakeven
cost as a function of FCS cost. Currently, fuel cells are produced at a low manufacturing
volume and may cost upward of USD 1000/kWe . At this FCS price and an ESS cost of
USD 157/kWh, the breakeven H2 cost for TCO parity with diesel is USD 4.88–5.64/kg.
Ramping up the production volume to 100,000 units/year and with certain improvements
in stack technology may help in reaching the ultimate FCS cost target of USD 60/kWe . In
this case, the breakeven H2 cost relaxes to USD 6.31–6.85/kg if the ESS cost also decreases
to its ultimate target of USD 80/kWh.
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 20

Energies 2023, 16, 286 14 of 17

7.0

Breakeven H2 Price, $/kg

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5
0 200 400 600 800 1000
FCS Specific Cost, $/kWe

Figure 10.
Figure 10. Sensitivity
Sensitivity of
of breakeven
breakevenH H22 price
price to
to FCS-specific
FCS-specificcost
costrelative
relativeto
toUSD
USD3.25/gal
3.25/gal diesel
diesel and
and
an ESS
an ESS cost
cost of
of USD
USD 157/kWh
157/kWh (solid
(solid lines)
lines) and
and USD
USD 80/kWh
80/kWh(dashed
(dashedlines).
lines).

4.
4. Discussion
Our
Our technoeconomic
technoeconomicanalysis analysisindicates
indicatesthatthatfuel
fuel cells
cells can
can compete
compete with with diesel
diesel gensets
gensets
in MW-class mining
in MW-class mining trucks. trucks. A total cost of ownership
ownership analysis that only
only extends
extends the the
powertrain
powertrain components
components and and fuel
fuel storage
storage system
system shows
shows that
that fuel
fuel cost
cost dominates
dominates the the TCO.
TCO.
This
Thisisisadvantageous
advantageousfor forfuel
fuelcell hybrids
cell hybrids since they
since can can
they havehave
54–87%54–87%higher efficiency
higher than
efficiency
the
thandiesel engines
the diesel on theon
engines representative
the representative mining truck duty
mining truckcycle
dutyconsidered
cycle consideredin this instudy.
this
The FCH is the lowest cost option; its TCO is USD 27/h less
study. The FCH is the lowest cost option; its TCO is USD 27/h less than the diesel option than the diesel option with
status technology
with status technologyand USDand 146/h
USD 146/hless with the ultimate
less with the ultimatetechnology.
technology.The FCBC
The FCBC platform
plat-
has a slightly higher TCO than the FCH platform but has
form has a slightly higher TCO than the FCH platform but has the advantage of lowerthe advantage of lower operating
temperatures
operating temperaturesthat can mitigate
that canelectrode and membrane
mitigate electrode degradation.
and membrane For TCO
degradation. Forparity,
TCO
breakeven H
parity, breakeven 2 costs relative to diesel at USD 3.25/gal are USD 5.79–6.85/kg
H2 costs relative to diesel at USD 3.25/gal are USD 5.79–6.85/kg for for the FCHthe
and FCBC status and ultimate technologies.
FCH and FCBC status and ultimate technologies.
Fuel
Fuel cell
cell stack
stack lifetime,
lifetime, thermal
thermal management,
management, FCS FCS cost,
cost, and
and vehicle
vehicle driving
driving range
range areare
the
the major impediments to deploying fuel cells in off-road applications, including mining
major impediments to deploying fuel cells in off-road applications, including mining
trucks.
trucks. As As investigated
investigatedelsewhere
elsewherefor forheavy-duty
heavy-dutyclass class8 8trucks
trucks[36],
[36],approaches
approaches totoreach
reacha
25,000 h lifetime may entail voltage clipping to mitigate electrode and PFSA membrane
a 25,000 h lifetime may entail voltage clipping to mitigate electrode and PFSA membrane
degradation, membrane-active area oversizing to compensate for performance losses, and
degradation, membrane-active area oversizing to compensate for performance losses, and
catalyst overloading. The 175–275 kWe fuel cell systems for class 8 trucks are arranged
catalyst overloading. The 175–275 kWe fuel cell systems for class 8 trucks are arranged as
as racks and modules in this study to build MW-class propulsion engines for ultraclass
racks and modules in this study to build MW-class propulsion engines for ultraclass min-
mining trucks.
ing trucks.
Despite higher efficiency, the fuel cells have a unique thermal management problem
Despite higher efficiency, the fuel cells have a unique thermal management problem
because they operate at lower temperatures than diesel engines, and a smaller fraction of
because they operate at lower temperatures than diesel engines, and a smaller fraction of
the fuel heating value is rejected through exhaust gases. One approach for dealing with
the fuel heating value is rejected through exhaust gases. One approach for dealing with
this issue is to downsize the fuel cell system by 47% with the help of a battery to supply the
this issue is to downsize the fuel cell system by 47% with the help of a battery to supply
make-up power during the ascent phase of the duty cycle while essentially maintaining the
the make-up power during the ascent phase of the duty cycle while essentially maintain-
same radiator frontal area and fan power. The FCS can be further downsized by 55% and
ing the
still samethe
operate radiator
batteryfrontal area and fan power.
in a charge-sustaining mode.TheThisFCSwork
can be further that
indicates downsized
a 3500 hp by
diesel engine can be replaced with a hybrid platform of 1387-kWe FCS and 1405-kWh ESSa
55% and still operate the battery in a charge-sustaining mode. This work indicates that
3500FCH
(the hp diesel engine can
configuration) orbe replacedFCS
1172-kW with a hybrid
and 1468-kWh platform of 1387-kW
ESS (the e FCS and 1405-
FCBC configuration).
e
kWhThe ESSbaseline
(the FCH configuration) or 1172-kW e FCS and 1468-kWh ESS (the FCBC config-
3500 hp diesel genset with tier-4 modifications has a specific cost of about
uration).
USD 250/kW. Fuel cell systems must be manufactured at a high volume for comparable
costs.The baseline 3500 and
Standardization hp diesel genset with
proliferation across tier-4 modifications
multiple platformshas may a specific cost of
be a plausible
about USD 250/kW. Fuel cell systems must be manufactured
approach to increase the FCS manufacturing volume. This study assumes that fuel cell at a high volume for compa-
rable costs.
systems Standardization
for class 8 trucks are and proliferation
manufactured across
at 1000 multiple or
units/year platforms
a highermay rate,be a plausi-
find use in
ble approach to increase the FCS manufacturing volume.
many off-road applications and can be arranged as racks and modules to reach a ~1500 This study assumes that fuelkWcell
e
systems for class 8 trucks are manufactured at 1000 units/year
rated power. Considering the hybrid system, the weighted cost of FCS and ESS is USD or a higher rate, find use in
many off-road
256/kW e for theapplications
FCH platform andandcanUSD be arranged
233/kWeas forracks and modules
the FCBC to reach a ~1500
configuration.
kWe Time
ratedbetween
power. Considering
refueling (TBR) the ishybrid system,
a suitable the for
metric weighted cost of
the driving rangeFCSofand ESS is
a mining
USD 256/kW
truck. The FCS e for the FCHneeds
platform platform and USD
to store 947 kg 233/kW
of H2e forfor FCH
the FCBC configuration.
and 1003 kg for FCBC to
equal a 19.1 h TBR for the diesel truck. Storing such large quantities of H2 onboard a truck
probably renders LH2 the only viable option. Even then, based on the stored fuel volume
 Time between refueling (TBR) is a suitable metric for the driving range of a mining
truck. The FCS platform needs to store 947 kg of H2 for FCH and 1003 kg for FCBC to
Energies 2023, 16, 286 equal a 19.1 h TBR for the diesel truck. Storing such large quantities of H2 onboard a15truck of 17
probably renders LH2 the only viable option. Even then, based on the stored fuel volume
alone, the packaging is a challenge since LH2 occupies 13,153–13,931 L in the FCH and
FCBC platforms,
alone, the packagingwhichis ais challenge
2.7–2.8 times theLH
since 4962 L for diesel.
2 occupies VolumetricLinefficiencies
13,153–13,931 in the FCH and due
to vacuum-insulated
FCBC platforms, which double-walled
is 2.7–2.8 times tanks
the and
4962the ancillary
L for diesel. components required for due
Volumetric inefficiencies LH2
storage
to further add todouble-walled
vacuum-insulated the challenge.tanks and the ancillary components required for LH2
storageFurther
furtherwork
add and
to theactual field data are needed to assess the durability and mainte-
challenge.
nance and operating
Further work andcosts
actual offield
fuel data
cellsare
in mining
needed applications, particularly
to assess the durability andthe impacts of
maintenance
highoperating
and ambient temperatures
costs of fuel cellsandindustyminingenvironments.
applications,Vastly disparate
particularly the duty
impactscycles and
of high
haul routes
ambient to those modeled
temperatures and dustyin this work may require
environments. trucks
Vastly with different
disparate duty cyclesfuel and
cell sizes,
haul
routes
thermalto management
those modeled in this work
systems, may require
hybridization trucks with
strategies, different
and/or operatingfuel strategies.
cell sizes,
thermal management
Mines themselves aresystems,
dynamic, hybridization
albeit on thestrategies,
timescaleand/or operating
of years strategies.
or decades. Optimal Mines
fuel
themselves are dynamic,
cell hybrid vehicle designalbeit on the timescale
may account of years
for not only or decades.
a specific haul routeOptimal
but alsofuel
thecell
an-
hybrid vehicle
ticipated design
changes overmay
theaccount for not only
mine’s lifetime. Theapossible
specific salvage
haul route but also
values thebatteries
of the anticipated
and
changes
fuel cellsover
needthe
to mine’s lifetime.
be addressed in The possible
the future salvage
once values of
the markets the batteries
mature and fuel
and generate cells
reliable
need
data. to be addressed in the future once the markets mature and generate reliable data.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization,

AuthorContributions: Conceptualization, R.K.A.;
R.K.A.; methodology,
methodology, R.K.A.,
R.K.A., X.W.
X.W. and
and A.G.S.;
A.G.S.; software,
software,
X.W. and A.G.S.; validation, R.K.A., X.W. and A.G.S.; formal analysis, X.W. and A.G.S.;
X.W. and A.G.S.; validation, R.K.A., X.W. and A.G.S.; formal analysis, X.W. and A.G.S.; investigation,
investiga-
R.K.A., X.W., X.W.,
tion, R.K.A., A.G.S.A.G.S.
and D.D.P.; data curation,
and D.D.P.; X.W. and
data curation, A.G.S.;
X.W. writing—original
and A.G.S.; draft preparation,
writing—original draft prep-
A.G.S.;
aration,writing—review and editing,
A.G.S.; writing—review and R.K.A.;
editing, visualization, X.W. andX.W.
R.K.A.; visualization, A.G.S.;
andsupervision, R.K.A.;
A.G.S.; supervision,
project
R.K.A.;administration, R.K.A.; funding
project administration, acquisition,
R.K.A.; funding R.K.A. All
acquisition, authors
R.K.A. have read
All authors and
have agreed
read to the
and agreed
published versionversion
to the published of the manuscript.
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research
Funding: research was
wasfunded
fundedby bythe
theU.S.
U.S.Department
Department ofof Energy
Energy (DOE),
(DOE), Office
Office of Energy
of Energy Ef-
Efficiency
ficiency andandRenewable
RenewableEnergy
Energy(EERE),
(EERE),Hydrogen
Hydrogenand andFuel
Fuelcell
cellTechnologies
Technologies Office (HFTO),
(HFTO), under
under
contract
contract DE-AC02: 06CH11357.
06CH11357.The TheU.S.
U.S.Government
Government retains
retains forfor itself,
itself, andand others
others acting
acting on on its
its be-
behalf,
half, a apaid-up
paid-upnonexclusive,
nonexclusive,irrevocable,
irrevocable,worldwide
worldwidelicense
licensein
in said
said article
article to reproduce, prepare
prepare
derivativeworks,
derivative works,distribute
distributecopies
copiestotothe
thepublic,
public, and
and perform
perform publicly
publicly and and display
display publicly,
publicly, byon
by or or
on behalf
behalf of the
of the Government.
Government.
Data Availability
Data AvailabilityStatement:
Statement:Not
Notapplicable.
applicable.
Acknowledgments:.Peter
Acknowledgments: PeterDevlin
DevlinofofDOE/EERE/HFTO
DOE/EERE/HFTO was the Technology Development
Development Manager
Manager
forthis
for thisstudy.
study.Argonne
ArgonneNational
NationalLaboratory,
Laboratory, a U.S.
a U.S. Department
Department of Energy
of Energy Office
Office of Science
of Science labora-
laboratory,
tory,
is is operated
operated by UChicago
by UChicago Argonne,
Argonne, LLC. LLC.
Conflictsof
Conflicts ofInterest:
Interest:The
Theauthors
authorsdeclare
declareno
noconflict
conflictof
ofinterest.
interest.

Appendix A
Appendix A

500 2.0
Circles: Rated Payload
Nominal Rated Payload, t

Fuel Tank Capacify, x1000 gal

400 Triangles: Tank Capacity 1.6

300 1.2

200 0.8

100 0.4

0 0.0
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Gross Engine Power, hp

Figure A1.
Figure A1. Nominal
Nominal engine
engine size,
size, payload
payload (filled
(filled circles),
circles), and
and fuel
fuel tank
tank capacities
capacities (filled
(filled triangles)
triangles) of
of
commerciallyavailable
commercially availableMW-class
MW-classhaulhaultrucks.
trucks. The
The data
data areare color-coded
color-coded (green,
(green, blue,
blue, red red
andand yel-
yellow)
low)
to to distinguish
distinguish the equipment
the equipment manufacturers
manufacturers (Caterpillar,
(Caterpillar, Komatsu,
Komatsu, Liebherr
Liebherr and Terex)
and Terex) and
and were
were gathered from the websites maintained by them. It was only used in this work
gathered from the websites maintained by them. It was only used in this work for selecting the for selecting
the baseline engine size and guiding discussions.
baseline engine size and guiding discussions.
Energies 2023, 16,
Energies 2023, 16, 286
x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of
18 of 17
20

20 14
0 12
-20 10

Speed, m/s
Depth, m
-40 8
-60 6
-80 4
-100 (a) 2 (b)
-120 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Time, s Time, s
15 3000
10 2500 Propulsion

Power at Wheel, kW
5 Braking
2000
Grade, %

0 1500
-5 1000
-10 500
(c) (d)
-15 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Time, s Time, s

Figure A2. Vehicle duty cycle: depth in the pit mine, grade, speed, and power demand at the
Vehicle duty the wheel.
wheel.
Truck speed and power demand are calculated during the duty cycle,
Truck speed and power demand are calculated during the duty cycle, including including the segments for
segments
truck loaded up the hill, loaded down the hill, empty up the hill, empty down
truck loaded up the hill, loaded down the hill, empty up the hill, empty down the hill,the hill, andand
on aon
flat
a
surface. The hybrid fuel cell system has been sized to satisfy the power demand for
flat surface. The hybrid fuel cell system has been sized to satisfy the power demand for the speed the speed
achieved by the diesel platform: (a) Depth; (b) Speed; (c) Grade and (d) Power at wheel
achieved by the diesel platform: (a) Depth; (b) Speed; (c) Grade and (d) Power at wheel.

References
References
1.
1. Cox, B.;
Cox, B.; Innis,
Innis, S.;
S.; Kunz,
Kunz, N.C.;
N.C.; Steen,
Steen, J.
J. The
The Mining
Mining Industry
Industry as as aa Net
Net Beneficiary
Beneficiary of of aa Global
Global Tax
Tax on
on Carbon
Carbon Emissions.
Emissions. Commun.
Commun.
Earth Environ.
Earth Environ 2022,
2022, 3,3, 17.
17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00346-4.
[CrossRef]
2.
2. Muralidharan, R.;
Muralidharan, R.; Kirk,
Kirk, T.;
T.; Blank,
Blank, T.K.
T.K. Pulling
Pulling thethe Weight
Weight of of Heavy
Heavy Truck
TruckDecarbonization:
Decarbonization: Exploring
Exploring Pathways
Pathways toto Decarbonize
Decarbonize Bulk
Bulk
Material Hauling
Material Hauling ininMining;
Mining;Rocky RockyMountain
MountainInstitute:
Institute:Basalt,
Basalt,CO, CO,USA,
USA,2019.
2019.Available
Available online:
online: https://rmi.org/insight/pulling-
https://rmi.org/insight/pulling-
theweight-of-heavy-truck-decarbonization (accessed
theweight-of-heavy-truck-decarbonization (accessed on on 1515 June
June 2022).
2022).
3.
3. Cullen, D.A.; Neyerlin, K.C.; Ahluwalia, R.K.; Mukundan, R.;R.;
Cullen, D.A.; Neyerlin, K.C.; Ahluwalia, R.K.; Mukundan, More,
More, K.L.;
K.L.; Borup,
Borup, R.L.;R.L.; Weber,
Weber, A.Z.;A.Z.; Myers,
Myers, D.J.; Kusoglu,
D.J.; Kusoglu, A.
A. New
New Roads and Challenges for Fuel Cells in Heavy-Duty Transportation.
Roads and Challenges for Fuel Cells in Heavy-Duty Transportation. Nat. Energy 2021, 6, 462–474. [CrossRef] Nat. Energy 2021, 6, 462–474.
4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-021-00775-z.
Morrison, G.; Stevens, J.; Joseck, F. Relative Economic Competitiveness of Light-Duty Battery Electric and Fuel Cell Electric
4. Morrison,Transp.
Vehicles. G.; Stevens,
Res. PartJ.; CJoseck,
Emerg.F.Technol.
Relative2018,Economic Competitiveness
87, 183–196. [CrossRef] of Light-Duty Battery Electric and Fuel Cell Electric
5. Vehicles. Transp.
Marcinkoski, Res. Part C Emerg.
J.; Vijayagopal, Technol.
R.; Adams, 2018, B.;
J.; James, 87, Kopasz,
183–196.J.;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.01.005.
Ahluwalia, R.K. DOE Advanced Truck Technologies Subsection
5. Marcinkoski,
of J.; Vijayagopal,
the Electrified R.; Adams,
Powertrain Roadmap J.; James,Targets
Technical B.; Kopasz, J.; Ahluwalia, R.K.
for Hydrogen-Fueled DOE Advanced
Long-Haul Truck Technologies
Tractor-Trailer Trucks. 2019.Subsection
Available
of the Electrified
online: Powertrain Roadmap Technical Targets for Hydrogen-Fueled Long-Haul Tractor-Trailer
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/19006_hydrogen_class8_long_haul_truck_targets.pdf Trucks.
(accessed on 152019.
JuneAvail-
2022).
6. able online: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/19006_hydrogen_class8_long_haul_truck_targets.pdf
Reyes-Valenzuela, M.; Sanchez-Squella, A.; Barraza, R.; Osses, M.; Valdivia-Lefort, P. Economic Evaluation of(accessed Fuel Cellon 15 June
Powered
2022). Machinery Using Stochastic Analysis. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 2771–2782. [CrossRef]
Offroad
6.
7. Reyes-Valenzuela,
Koellner, W.G.; Brown,M.; Sanchez-Squella,
G.M.; Rodríguez,A.; Barraza,
J.; Pontt, R.; Osses,
J.; Cortés, P.; M.; Valdivia-Lefort,
Miranda, P. Economic
H. Recent Advances in Evaluation
Mining Haul ofTrucks.
Fuel Cell Powered
IEEE Trans.
Offroad Machinery Using
Ind. Electron. 2004, 51, 321–329. [CrossRef] Stochastic Analysis. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 2771–2782.
8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.10.247.
Vega, C.A. Study of Hydrogen Global Market and Technical and Economic Prefeasibility of Using the Proton Exchange Mem-
7. Koellner,
brane FuelW.G.; Brown,Fueled
Cell (Pem) G.M.; with
Rodríguez,
Hydrogen J.; Pontt, J.; Cortés,
in Chilean Mining P.; Miranda,
Mobility. H. Recent
Ph.D Advances
Thesis, in Mining
University Haul
of Chile, Trucks.Chile,
Santiago, IEEE
Trans.Available
2020. Ind. Electron. 2004,
online: 51, 321–329. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2004.825263.
https://repositorio.uchile.cl/bitstream/handle/2250/178550/Study-of-hydrogen-global-market-and-
8. Vega, C.A. Study of Hydrogen Global Market and Technical and Economic Prefeasibility of Using
technical-and-economic-prefeasibility-of-using-the-proton-exchange-membrane-fuel-cell.pdf the Proton
(accessed Exchange
on 15 June 2022).Mem-
9. brane Fuel R.K.;
Ahluwalia, Cell (Pem) Fueled
Papadias, with Hydrogen
D.; Wang, X. Rail andinMaritime
Chilean Metrics.
Mining Mobility.
U.S. DOE Ph.D Thesis,
Hydrogen andUniversity
Fuel Cellsof Chile, Santiago,
Program. Chile,
In Proceedings
2020. Available online: https://repositorio.uchile.cl/bitstream/handle/2250/178550/Study-of-hydrogen-global-market-and-tech-
of the Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 10–21 May 2020. Available online: https:
nical-and-economic-prefeasibility-of-using-the-proton-exchange-membrane-fuel-cell.pdf
//www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review20/ta034_ahluwalia_2020_o.pdf (accessed on 6(accessed on 15 June 2022).
June 2021).
9. Ahluwalia, R.K.; Papadias, D.; Wang, X. Rail and Maritime Metrics. U.S. DOE Hydrogen
10. Ahluwalia, R.K.; Wang, X.; Star, A.G.; Papadias, D. Performance and Cost of Fuel Cells for Off-road Heavy-duty and Fuel Cells Program. In Proceedings
Vehicles. Int. J.
of the Annual Merit Review and Peer
Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 10990–11006. [CrossRef] Evaluation Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 10–21 May 2020. Available online:
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review20/ta034_ahluwalia_2020_o.pdf
11. Feng, Y.; Dong, Z. Integrated Design and Control Optimization of Fuel Cell Hybrid (accessed on 6 June
Mining Truck with2021).
Minimized Lifecycle Cost.
10. Appl.
Ahluwalia,
EnergyR.K.;
2020,Wang, X.; Star,
15, 115164. A.G.; Papadias, D. Performance and Cost of Fuel Cells for Off-road Heavy-duty Vehicles. Int.
[CrossRef]
J. Hydrogen
12. Feng, Energy
Y.; Dong, 2022, 47,Energy
Z. Optimal 10990–11006.
Managementhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.01.144.
with Balanced Fuel Economy and Battery Life for Large Hybrid Electric Mining
11. Truck.
Feng, Y.; Dong,Sources
J. Power Z. Integrated
2020, 454, Design
227948.and Control Optimization of Fuel Cell Hybrid Mining Truck with Minimized Lifecycle
[CrossRef]
Cost. Appl. Energy 2020, 15, 115164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115164.
Energies 2023, 16, 286 17 of 17

13. Zhang, W.; Yang, J.; Zhang, W.; Ma, F. Research on Regenerative Braking of Pure Electric Mining Dump Truck. World Electr. Veh. J.
2019, 10, 39. [CrossRef]
14. Lindgren, L.; Grauers, A.; Ranggård, J.; Mäki, R. Drive-Cycle Simulations of Battery-Electric Large Haul Trucks for Open-Pit
Mining with Electric Roads. Energies 2022, 15, 4871. [CrossRef]
15. Anglo American Unveils a Prototype of the World’s Largest Hydrogen-Powered Mine Haul Truck—A Vital Step Towards
Reducing Carbon Emissions over Time. 2022. Available online: https://www.angloamerican.com/media/press-releases/2022/0
6-05-2022 (accessed on 15 June 2022).
16. Komatsu 930E-4SE Electric Drive Truck, Technical Paper AESS921(01); Komatsu America Corp: Chicago, IL, USA, 2019. Available
online: https://www.komatsu.jp/en/worldwide/PDF/KAC_930E-4SE.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2022).
17. Caterpillar Performance Handbook, 45th ed.; SEBD0351-45; Caterpillar: Peoria, IL, USA, 2015. Available online: https://wheelercat.
com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/SEBD0351-45-2.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2022).
18. Terblanche, P.J. Technical and Economic Potential of Energy Recovery and Re-Use on Board Surface Mining Haul Trucks. Ph.D
Thesis, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Austria, 2018.
19. Ahluwalia, R.K.; Papadias, D.D.; Peng, J.-K.; Roh, H.S. System Level Analysis of Hydrogen Storage Options. DOE Hydrogen and
Fuel Cells Program. 2020. Available online: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review20/st001_ahluwalia_2020_o.pdf
(accessed on 6 June 2021).
20. Ahluwalia, R.K.; Wang, X.; Steinbach, A.J. Performance of Advanced Automotive Fuel Cell Systems with Heat Rejection
Constraint. J. Power Sources 2016, 309, 178–191. [CrossRef]
21. Ahluwalia, R.K.; Wang, X.; Peng, J.-K.; Cetinbas, C.F.; Papadias, D.D. Fuel Cell System Modeling and Analysis. DOE Hydrogen
and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review. 2019. Available online: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review19/fc017
_ahluwalia_2019_o.pdf (accessed on 6 June 2020).
22. Ahluwalia, R.K.; Wang, X.; Peng, J.-K.; Cetinbas, C.F.; Papadias, D.D. Fuel Cell System Modeling and Analysis. DOE Hydrogen
and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review. 2020. Available online: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review20/fc017
_ahluwalia_2020_o.pdf (accessed on 6 June 2021).
23. Terblanche, P.; Kearney, M.P.; Nehring, M.; Knights, P.F. Potential of On-Board Energy Recovery Systems to Reduce Haulage
Costs over the Life of a Deep Surface Mine. Min. Technol. 2019, 128, 51–64. [CrossRef]
24. US Dept. of Labor; MSHA. Haul Road Inspection Handbook; PH99-I-4; U. S. Department of Labor: Washington, DC, USA; MSHA:
Arlington, VA, USA, 1999.
25. Mazumdar, J. All Electric Operation of Ultra class Mining Haul Trucks. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Industry Applications
Society Annual Meeting, 2013-MIC-409, Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA, 6–11 October 2013.
26. Guzzella, L.; Sciarretta, A. Vehicle Propulsion Systems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013. [CrossRef]
27. Zhang, T.; Chen, X.; Yu, Z.; Zhu, X.; Shi, D. A Monte Carlo Simulation Approach to Evaluate Service Capacities of EV Charging
and Battery Swapping Stations. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2018, 14, 1551–3203. [CrossRef]
28. Bach, T.; Schuster, S.F.; Fleder, E.; Müller, J.; Brand, M.J.; Lorrmann, H.; Jossen, A.; Sextl, G. Nonlinear Aging of Cylindrical
Lithium-Ion Cells Linked to Heterogeneous Compression. J. Energy Storage 2016, 5, 212–223. [CrossRef]
29. Olmos, J.; Gandiaga, I.; Saez-de-Ibarra, A.; Larrea, X.; Nieva, T. Modelling the Cycling Degradation of Li-Ion Batteries: Chemistry
Influenced Stress Factors. J. Energy Storage 2021, 40, 102765. [CrossRef]
30. Sui, X.; Swierczynski, M.; Teodorescu, R.; Stroe, D.-I. The Degradation Behavior of LiFePO4/C Batteries during Long-Term
Calendar Aging. Energies 2021, 14, 1732. [CrossRef]
31. Tran, M.-K.; Mathew, M.; Janhunen, S.; Panchal, S.; Raahemifar, K.; Fraser, R.; Fowler, M. A Comprehensive Equivalent Circuit
Model for Lithium-Ion Batteries, Incorporating the Effects of State of Health, State of Charge, and Temperature on Model
Parameters. J. Energy Storage 2021, 43, 103252. [CrossRef]
32. Hasselby, F. Dynamic Modelling of Battery Cooling Systems for Automotive Applications. Master’s Thesis, Chalmers University of
Technology, Göteborg, Sweden, 2013. Available online: https://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/195310/195310.pdf
(accessed on 15 June 2022).
33. Caterpillar C175-16 Diesel Generator Set Product Data. Available online: https://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/power-
systems/electric-power/diesel-generator-sets/1000028916.html (accessed on 15 June 2022).
34. Perry, R.H.; Green, D.W. Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, 7th ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1997.
35. Dallmann, T.; Posada, F.; Bandivadekar, A. Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Diesel Engines Used in Non-Road
Vehicles and Equipment. The ICCT Working Paper. 2018. Available online: https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/
Non_Road_Emission_Control_20180711.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2022).
36. Borup, R.; Weber, A.; Ahluwalia, R.K.; Mukundan, R.; Myers, D.; Neyerlin, K.C. M2FCT: Million Mile Fuel Cell Truck Consortium.
DOE Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technologies Office. In Proceedings of the Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting, Virtual,
6–8 June 2022. Available online: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review22/fc339_weber_borup_2022_o.pdf (accessed
on 15 June 2022).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.