Competitive Analysis of Heavy Trucks with Five Types of Fuels under Different Scenarios—A Case Study of China

Abstract

As the country that emits the most carbon in the world, China needs significant and urgent changes in carbon emission control in the transportation sector in order to achieve the goals of reaching peak carbon emissions before 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2060. Therefore, the promotion of new energy vehicles has become the key factor to achieve these two objectives. For the reason that the comprehensive transportation cost directly affects the end customer’s choice of heavy truck models, this work compares the advantages, disadvantages, and economic feasibility of diesel, liquefied natural gas (LNG), electric, hydrogen, and methanol heavy trucks from a total life cycle cost and end-user perspective under various scenarios. The study results show that when the prices of diesel, LNG, electricity, and methanol fuels are at their highest, and the price of hydrogen is 35 CNY/kg, the total life cycle cost of the five types of heavy trucks from highest to lowest are hydrogen heavy trucks (HHT), methanol heavy trucks (MHT), diesel heavy trucks (DHT), electric heavy trucks (EHT), and LNG heavy trucks (LNGHT), ignoring the adverse effects of cold environments on car batteries. When the prices of diesel, LNG, electricity, and methanol fuels are at average or lowest levels, and the price of hydrogen is 30 CNY/kg or 25 CNY/kg, the life cycle cost of the five heavy trucks from highest to lowest are HHT, DHT, MHT, EHT, and LNGHT. When considering the impact of cold environments, even with lower electricity prices, EHT struggle to be economical when LNG prices are low. If the electricity price is above 1 CNY/kWh, regardless of the impact of cold environments, the economic viability of EHT is lower than that of HHT with a purchase cost of 500,000 CNY and a hydrogen price of 25 CNY/kg. Simultaneously, an exhaustive competitiveness analysis of heavy trucks powered by diverse energy sources highlights the specific categories of heavy trucks that ought to be prioritized for development during various periods and the challenges they confront. Finally, based on the analysis results and future development trends, the corresponding policy recommendations are proposed to facilitate high decarbonization in the transportation sector.

1. Introduction

Since the Industrial Revolution, human activities, particularly the extensive consumption of fossil fuels, have resulted in a significant increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, thereby exacerbating global climate change, which is primarily characterized by a warming trend [1]. Presently, China, the world’s largest emitter of carbon, has established ambitious goals to cap CO₂ emissions by 2030 and to attain carbon neutrality by 2060, a strategy referred to as the “dual carbon” objectives [2]. China’s carbon emissions are predominantly derived from sectors including electricity generation, industrial processes, transportation, and construction. In 2022, China’s total carbon emissions were approximately 12.1 billion tons, with the transportation sector accounting for approximately 10.4% of the total, ranking just after the electricity and industrial sectors [3]. The transportation sector’s carbon emissions exhibit three distinctive characteristics when contrasted with emissions from other sectors. Firstly, the proportion of direct emissions in the transportation sector is relatively high. Unlike other sectors, the level of terminal electrification in the transportation sector is relatively low, and its emissions are mainly direct emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels. Secondly, the transportation sector’s carbon emissions have been growing at a relatively rapid pace, with an annual growth rate consistently exceeding 5%, marking it as one of the fastest-growing sectors in terms of carbon emissions. Thirdly, unlike other sectors where emissions are mainly from fixed sources, the transportation sector is characterized by mobile source emissions from vehicles, ships, and airplanes, making monitoring, accounting, and attribution more challenging, and the accuracy of related data statistics needs to be improved. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), carbon emissions from the transport sector increased more than tenfold, from 94 million tons in 1990 to approximately 960 million tons in 2021. As a leading and foundational industry for China’s economic development, the transportation industry is expected to maintain rapid development before 2030, and controlling the total carbon emissions in the transportation sector is an important factor in China’s goal to peak carbon emissions by 2030.

There are significant differences in the total carbon emissions among different modes of transportation. In 2019, CO₂ emissions from China’s transportation industry accounted for 12.42% of the national carbon emissions [4]. As shown in Figure 1, road transport accounts for 86.76% of the total carbon emissions in the transportation sector, making it a key focus of carbon reduction efforts. Among the road transport, the main carbon emissions are concentrated in heavy trucks and passenger cars, accounting for 54% and 33%, respectively. Additionally, heavy trucks are responsible for a substantial portion of other emissions, emitting 74% of the nitrogen oxides and 52.4% of the particulate matter from the transportation sector [5]. It is evident that carbon reduction in heavy trucks is of paramount importance at present.

In 2023, the heavy truck industry in China experienced a shift towards new energy sources, with diesel, gas, electricity, hydrogen, and methanol becoming the primary energy types for heavy truck products. As depicted in Figure 2, the heavy truck industry witnessed a cumulative sales volume of 667,000 units in 2023, marking a year-on-year increase of 25%. In terms of energy types, gas-powered vehicles, specifically the liquefied natural gas heavy trucks (LNGHT) accounted for a sales volume of 152,000 units, representing a substantial year-on-year increase of 300%, and elevating the industry share to 23%. The annual cumulative sales volume of new energy vehicle models approximated 38,000 units, accompanied by a marginal increase in penetration rate from 0.6% to 5.7%. Among them, the sales volume of electric models was 32,000 units, a year-on-year increase of 33%, while the sales volume of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCV) was 3700 units, a year-on-year increase of 38%. The sales of methanol heavy trucks (MHT) were nearly 2000 units, with a year-on-year increase of 400%, which is the highest due to a low base number. However, traditional fuel vehicles, affected by policies such as clean transportation, reported a cumulative sales volume of merely 477,000 units in 2023, reflecting a modest year-on-year increase of only 1.6%, which is basically in a state of growth stagnation.

The five types of heavy truck models, each with different energy sources, have their unique strengths and weaknesses. Traditional diesel models benefit from mature technology and a widespread service network. However, their exhaust emissions contain various pollutants harmful to the environment and health, and diesel prices are subject to significant fluctuations due to international market influences. LNG models, which produce fewer pollutants than diesel models and have relatively stable prices, offer higher safety due to the high ignition point and quick evaporation of LNG in case of leaks. However, the requirement to carry heavier gas cylinders may affect the payload capacity, and the uneven distribution of refueling stations could potentially affect the convenience of fueling [6]. Electric models, which utilize electricity as an energy source and emit no exhaust emissions, are environmentally friendly and meet the requirements for clean transportation [7]. However, the battery performance is significantly affected by temperature and load. Furthermore, the extended charging time and high purchase costs limit the range of electric heavy trucks (EHT) [8]. HFCV have a unique environmental advantage as they emit only water vapor, contributing significantly to their eco-friendliness. Compared to electric vehicles, which may require several hours for charging, hydrogen vehicles can be refueled within 10 to 15 min, a refueling speed comparable to that of traditional fuel vehicles [9]. Additionally, hydrogen vehicles are not affected by temperature variations, which ensures continuous high-load driving and enhances operational efficiency. However, the highly flammable nature of hydrogen and its explosive interaction with oxygen pose risks that have hindered the development of HFCV. At present, the relatively high purchase cost of HFCV and the limited number of refueling stations indicate that the development of HFCV is still in its early stages [10]. Methanol fuel models have attracted attention in recent years due to relatively stable and low fuel costs, high combustion efficiency, cleaner emissions, and safe use. However, the limited adoption of methanol fuel models faces challenges due to the lack of related infrastructure, which makes refueling inconvenient, and concerns about the future stability of fuel prices [11].

Five types of heavy trucks, with different energy sources, are all characterized by their respective advantages and disadvantages. From a carbon reduction perspective, the development of new energy and alcohol-based models is of great significance. However, from the user’s perspective, the comprehensive transportation cost directly affects the choice of vehicle model, where the vehicle purchase costs and fuel costs are key factors affecting the comprehensive transportation cost. Therefore, analyzing the economic viability and competitiveness of heavy trucks with different energy sources, predicting development trends, and formulating corresponding measures to promote the development of low-carbon and environmentally friendly models is of great significance for promoting low-carbon development in the transportation sector. Many countries around the world are conducting competitiveness analyses of different vehicle models from a full lifecycle cost perspective, such as the European Union, the United States, Japan, and China [12,13,14,15]. At the same time, due to differences in market share, policy support, and technological reserves among various vehicle models in different countries, for example, Germany, Sweden, and Italy, although they all enjoy subsidies from the European Union, there are significant differences in government subsidies [13,14,16,17]. Consequently, cost model assumptions and analytical conclusions may also exhibit considerable disparities.

Zhao et al. [18] undertook a comprehensive investigation into the economic and environmental benefits of LNGHT in Shenzhen, China. Employing Monte Carlo simulation, they took into account factors such as subsidies, vehicle types, and fuel prices, enabling them to calculate the differences in the payback periods of LNGHT under various conditions. Conversely, Nina Khanna et al. [19] drew comparisons between LNGHT and their diesel counterparts. Through the modeling analysis, they scrutinized various decarbonization strategies for heavy trucks in China at distinct time points. From the perspective of life-cycle cost, they concluded that LNGHT hold a cost advantage over diesel heavy trucks (DHT), attributable to significant savings in fuel costs.

Mao et al. [20] suggested that EHT could reach cost parity with diesel counterparts by 2025. Moreover, it is projected that the total cost of ownership (TCO) for EHT will attain parity with diesel trucks by 2024. Albatayneh et al. [21] observed that in terms of cost-effectiveness, HFCV are not expected to be economically competitive with electric vehicles in the foreseeable future. The calculation results revealed that, even with megawatt-level charging, the costs associated with hydrogen fuel cell trucks exceed those of battery-powered electric trucks, and the range of use cases for HFCV is more restricted compared to electric vehicles. Mu et al. [22] evaluated the economic viability of hydrogen heavy trucks (HHT) and EHT from the user’s perspective, developing a comprehensive TCO model that includes both the vehicles themselves and the associated energy supply infrastructure. Their findings indicate that given the high purchase costs and hydrogen fuel costs, the TCO of HHT is significantly higher than that of EHT, although a reduction in the cost gap between hydrogen and EHT is anticipated by 2035. While these studies offer profound insights into the economics of hydrogen and EHT, they underscore the crucial role of energy costs and efficiency in the cost disparity, without exploring the sensitivity of different vehicle models to factors such as energy prices. Zhao et al. [18] carried out research to forecast the costs of EHT and HHT from 2020 to 2040. The results indicate that the costs for both electric and HHT significantly decrease between 2020 and 2030, attributable to technological advancements, with a deceleration in the rate of cost reduction observed between 2030 and 2040. Projections suggest that by 2025, most electric trucks will attain cost competitiveness, with the payback period expected to reduce to less than four years.

Rout et al. [23] carried out a comprehensive analysis of the total lifecycle costs for heavy-duty road and off-road vehicles powered by hydrogen, electricity, and diesel. Their findings suggested that under certain conditions, some HHT had already achieved cost competitiveness with diesel trucks by 2021, a status not yet reached by EHT. It is projected that by 2050, the total cost of HHT will be lower than that of DHT across various hydrogen energy scenarios. Luo et al. [24] conducted a comprehensive comparative analysis of methanol, electric, and natural gas vehicles, as well as traditional fuel vehicles, across three dimensions: energy, environment, and economy. The study took into account the entire lifecycle costs, encompassing research and development costs, manufacturing costs, operational and maintenance costs, recycling or disposal costs, and societal costs. From the perspective of a user, natural gas vehicles present the most significant economic advantage among the three alternative fuel vehicles. However, electric vehicles entail the highest user costs. It is noteworthy that the study primarily centered on methanol vehicles based on coal as the raw material and did not investigate cleaner and more environmentally friendly methanol production methods, potentially introducing certain limitations to the analysis.

The research in the field of heavy truck economics not only enriched the theoretical foundations of academia but also provided significant guidance for practical applications. Employing interdisciplinary research methodologies, scholars have analyzed the total lifecycle costs of vehicles with different energy sources while considering a range of factors including policy, technology, and market dynamics. This comprehensive approach has provided a scientific basis and practical pathways for the low-carbon transition in the transportation sector. It is evident from the studies conducted by these researchers that new energy heavy trucks will be competitive in the future as the transportation sector aims for deep decarbonization. However, the current economic challenges limit the pace of their development.

To address this issue, heavy trucks powered by alternative energy sources such as LNG and methanol have been proposed as transitional solutions. While preliminary economic assessments have been conducted for various types of heavy trucks, a comprehensive comparative analysis of LNG trucks, methanol trucks, electric trucks, hydrogen trucks, and traditional diesel trucks is still lacking. Therefore, building upon the existing research findings, this paper focuses on heavy trucks powered by diesel, LNG, electricity, hydrogen fuel cells, and methanol as the primary energy sources. This paper conducts a comparative analysis of the advantages, disadvantages, economic viability, and competitiveness of these five types of heavy trucks under diverse scenarios, forecasts future development trends, and proposes policy recommendations grounded in economic analysis and anticipated future trends.

The primary objectives of this paper are as follows:

(1)

To elucidate the economic disparities among heavy trucks powered by different fuel types, thereby providing pivotal information for ascertaining the market competitiveness of new energy heavy trucks.

(2)

To delve into the economic and competitive aspects of heavy trucks fueled by five distinct types of energy from multiple dimensions, including policy support, fuel pricing, technological advancements, the impact of cold environments, and environmental protection. This analysis aims to determine the conditions under which these heavy trucks can exhibit competitiveness.

(3)

To propose strategic recommendations based on the findings of the research, thereby laying a foundation for the deep decarbonization of the transportation sector.

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 constructs a comprehensive lifecycle cost estimation model for heavy trucks and provides the relevant parameters for such calculations. Section 3 employs the estimation model developed in the preceding section to conduct an economic analysis of heavy trucks powered by five different types of fuels. Based on the results of these calculations, a competitive analysis is performed, followed by a comparative discussion with existing research findings. Section 4 encapsulates the pivotal findings of this study and, leveraging the research outcomes, proffers strategic recommendations with the objective of facilitating substantial decarbonization in the transportation sector.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Total Life Cycle Cost Framework

The life cycle cost refers to the total expenses incurred throughout the entire lifespan of a product, encompassing costs associated with research, design, production, utilization, and disposal phases [25]. As shown in Figure 3, from the user’s perspective, the life cycle cost of a vehicle includes the initial vehicle purchase costs, operational and maintenance costs, and disposal and recycling costs. The initial vehicle acquisition costs encompass the one-time investment costs for vehicle purchase and related expenses such as vehicle acquisition tax. The operational and maintenance costs mainly consist of fuel costs and maintenance costs. The disposal and recycling costs refer to the costs associated with the mandatory disposal phase of the life cycle. Since the vehicle disposal process can generate vehicle residual value recovery funds, the disposal and recycling costs are actually negative values.

2.2. Construction of the Total Life Cycle Cost Model

The formula for calculating the total life cycle costs is shown in Equation (1):

$$T_C=T_{FC}+T_{VC}-T_{REC}$$

(1)

where $T_C$ is the total life cycle cost; $T_{FC}$ is the initial purchase cost; $T_{VC}$ is the operation and maintenance cost; $T_{REC}$ is the disposal and recycling cost. Note that the unit of $T_C$ is Chinese Yuan (CNY).

The initial vehicle purchase cost mainly includes the vehicle purchase price, vehicle acquisition tax, government subsidies, and other costs such as mandatory insurance, as shown in Equation (2)

$$T_{FC}=p_c+t_c-S_c+O_c$$

(2)

where $p_c$ is the vehicle purchase price; $t_c$ is the vehicle acquisition tax; $S_c$ is the government subsidy; $O_c$ is other costs.

Operation and maintenance costs include the cost of fuel consumption and maintenance during operation, which can be expressed as in Equation (3):

$$T_{VC}=\left(f_c+O_{mc}\right)\times N$$

(3)

where $f_c$ is the fuel consumption cost; $O_{mc}$ is the maintenance cost; $N$ is the total number of years that the vehicle is in operation.

The vehicle fuel consumption cost is directly related to the vehicle’s energy consumption and the distance traveled, as shown in Equation (4):

$$f_c={\sum }_{i=1}^t{\displaystyle \frac{L_i\times E_i\times N\times P_i÷100}{{\left(1+r\right)}^i}}$$

(4)

where $L_i$ is the annual mileage of the vehicle in year $i$; $E_i$ denotes the vehicle’s fuel consumption per hundred kilometers, with the respective units of measurement for DHT, LNGHT, EHT, HHT, and MHT being liters (L/100 km), liters (L/100 km), kilowatt-hours (kWh/100 km), kilograms (kg/100 km), and liters (L/100 km); $P_i$ is the unit fuel price in year $i$; $r$ is the discount rate assumed as 5% in this study for China’s context; t is the vehicle usage period.

When calculating vehicle maintenance and repair costs, they are calculated as the sum of various maintenance and repair costs each year. By accumulating the annual maintenance and repair costs over the vehicle’s entire life cycle, the total maintenance cost over the life cycle can be obtained, as shown in Equation (5):

$$O_{mc}={\sum }_{i=1}^t{\displaystyle \frac{V_{cri}}{{\left(1+r\right)}^i}}$$

(5)

where $V_{cri}$ is the maintenance and repair cost in year $i$.

In most areas, vehicle disposal is free of charge, and the residual value of the vehicle at disposal is usually determined by the current market price of steel, regardless of the specific condition of the vehicle. Whether the vehicle can be driven normally or not, it is settled according to the vehicle’s weight and the current scrap vehicle recycling price. The vehicle disposal and recycling cost can be expressed as in Equation (6):

$$T_{REC}={\displaystyle \frac{M_d\times H}{{\left(1+r\right)}^t}}$$

(6)

where $M_d$ is the recycling price per unit weight of the vehicle, with the unit of measurement being CNY/ton; H is the vehicle’s weight, with the unit of measurement being tons.

Furthermore, to provide a clearer comparison of the economic efficiency of different vehicle types, the cost per hundred kilometers of transport is calculated using the total lifecycle cost and the total lifecycle distance traveled. The cost per hundred kilometers of transport can be represented by Equation (7):

$$C_{per}={\displaystyle \frac{T_C}{V_i\times t}}\times 100$$

(7)

where $C_{per}$ is the cost per hundred kilometers of transport; $V_i$ is the average annual mileage.

2.3. Key Data List for Life Cycle Cost

According to market research, in 2023, the most popular brands for diesel trucks, LNG trucks, electric trucks, hydrogen fuel cell trucks, and methanol trucks in the international market were Daimler, Volvo, Volvo, Hyundai Motors, and Volvo, respectively. In China, the leading brands for these types of heavy-duty trucks were Sinotruk, FAW Jiefang, XCMG Trucks, Yutong Group, and Remote Commercial Vehicles. This work, using heavy-duty trucks with a total weight of 49 tons as an example, compiles the purchase cost, vehicle purchase tax, compulsory insurance, average annual mileage, energy consumption per hundred kilometers, and maintenance costs of the best-selling models in China for each type of truck. The key parameters for different models are delineated in

Table 1. Key parameters for heavy trucks with five types of energy sources.

Parameters	Values
Diesel heavy truck price	320,000 CNY
LNG heavy truck price	425,000 CNY
Electric heavy truck price	800,000 CNY
Hydrogen heavy truck price	1,400,000 CNY
Methanol heavy truck price	450,000 CNY
Vehicle acquisition tax	10% of the diesel heavy truck price [26]
Mandatory insurance	First year: 4480 CNY Second year: 4032 CNY Third year and beyond: 3584 CNY
Average annual mileage	10,000 km
Diesel heavy truck energy consumption per 100 km	40 L/100 km
LNG heavy truck energy consumption per 100 km	34 L/100 km
Electric heavy truck energy consumption per 100 km	200 kWh/100 km
Hydrogen f heavy truck energy consumption per 100 km	11 kg/100 km
Methanol heavy truck energy consumption per 100 km	100 L/100 km
Annual maintenance cost for diesel heavy truck	10,000 CNY/year
Annual maintenance cost for LNG heavy truck	16,500 CNY/year
Annual maintenance cost for electric heavy truck	5000 CNY/year
Annual maintenance cost for hydrogen heavy truck	7000 CNY/year
Annual maintenance cost for methanol heavy truck	15,000 CNY/year

.

Fuel costs are contingent upon the unit price of the fuel, where diesel and LNG are subject to significant fluctuations due to international situations, the price of hydrogen is greatly influenced by policy [27], and electricity prices are affected by peak and off-peak rate differences [28]. Methanol prices, on the other hand, are relatively stable. Consequently, this study has examined the price trends of diesel and LNG in certain regions of China over the past three years (from July 2021 to June 2024), as illustrated in Figure 4a,b. The end-user price of hydrogen is depicted in Figure 5. For electricity, the peak, flat, and valley rates are assumed to be 1.5 CNY/kWh, 1 CNY/kWh, and 0.5 CNY/kWh, respectively. Methanol prices are hypothesized to have a maximum price, minimum price, and average price of 2 CNY/L, 2.5 CNY/L, and 4 CNY/L, respectively.

Considering the significant influence of fuel costs on economic performance, to ensure the validity of the dataset, fuel price data from July 2019 to June 2021 were amalgamated with the three-year price figures, resulting in a five-year trend analysis of diesel and LNG prices in selected regions of China (Figure 5). The analysis indicated that the peak diesel price within both the three-year and five-year frames stood at 9 CNY/L, while the lowest price in the three-year period was 6 CNY/L, and in the five-year period, it was 5 CNY/L. This variance can be attributed to the significant decrease in diesel demand due to the COVID-19 pandemic between 2019 and 2020, leading to lower prices. Despite a minor dip during the pandemic, the average diesel price over the three-year and five-year periods remained approximately 7 CNY/L. In contrast, LNG prices demonstrated relative stability, with the highest, lowest, and average prices over these periods consistently hovering around 8 CNY/L, 3 CNY/L, and 5 CNY/L, respectively. Considering the COVID-19 pandemic as an outlier, the three-year price data were selected as the basis for subsequent calculations.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Total Life Cycle Cost Estimation Results for Heavy Trucks with Five Types of Fuel

According to the “Regulations on the Compulsory Scrap Standards for Motor Vehicles” by the Ministry of Commerce of China, the compulsory scrap years for cargo vehicles range from 12 to 15 years, thereby setting the vehicle usage period at 12 years. The fuel costs for diesel and LNG are taken as the average prices of the surveyed regions over a three-year period, which stand at 6 CNY/L and 5 CNY/L respectively. The hydrogen price is set at 35 CNY/kg, and the electricity price is taken as the flat rate. With a discount rate of 5% plugged into the life cycle cost calculation model, and without considering environmental and other impacts, the total life cycle costs for heavy trucks powered by different fuel types are shown in Figure 6.

The total life cycle costs for DHT, LNGHT, EHT, HHT, and MHT are 3,323,200 CNY, 2,257,900 CNY, 275,200 CNY, 5,180,600 CNY, and 3,113,900 CNY respectively. Among them, the total life cycle cost for HHT is the highest, while that for LNGHT is the lowest, with a cost difference of about 2,922,700 CNY. The life cycle costs for DHT and MHT are relatively similar, with a difference of about 209,300 CNY. Simultaneously, the per hundred kilometer transportation costs for DHT, LNGHT, EHT, HHT, and MHT are calculated to be 312.45 CNY, 212.29 CNY, 258.75 CNY, 487.08 CNY, and 292.78 CNY respectively.

The sum of fuel costs and vehicle depreciation for each type of heavy truck among the five fuel types accounts for more than 90% of the total life cycle cost. Due to the relatively low initial purchase cost of DHT and the high volatility and relatively high price of diesel [29], the fuel cost for DHT accounts for 90% of their total cost, while vehicle depreciation accounting for a mere 6%. Given that China’s natural gas supply primarily relies on imports, the price of LNG is greatly affected by international situations. When calculated at a price of 5 CNY/L, the fuel cost for LNGHT accounts for 80% of their total cost, with vehicle depreciation accounting for 12%. Because the initial purchase cost of EHT is relatively higher compared to DHT, LNGHT, and MHT, and the electricity price is lower, the fuel cost for EHT accounts for 77% of their total cost, while vehicle depreciation accounts for 20%. HHT have both high fuel costs and vehicle prices, resulting in fuel costs and vehicle depreciation accounting for 79% and 19% of the total cost, respectively. MHT have a similar initial purchase cost to LNGHT, but their energy consumption is about three times that of LNGHT. Therefore, the fuel cost for MHT represents a larger proportion of the total cost, with vehicle depreciation accounting for a smaller proportion, at 85% and 9%, respectively.

3.2. Discussion on the Competitiveness of Heavy Trucks with Different Types of Fuel

3.2.1. Discussion on the Competitiveness of HHT

Heavy trucks necessitate high power. HHT can not only meet the needs of heavy truck users but also compensate for the shortcomings of EHT in terms of low-temperature endurance capabilities. They also have the potential to replace traditional fuel heavy trucks to fulfill the requirements for clean transportation [30]. They are also regarded as one of the optimal solutions for deep decarbonization in the transportation sector [31].

In an endeavor to promote the development of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, the Chinese government has issued policy documents such as the “Notice on Launching Demonstration Applications of Fuel Cell Vehicles”, which was jointly released by the Ministry of Finance and four other ministries and commissions, commencing from September 2020. These documents clarify goals for industrial development, demonstration applications, and technological innovation, aiming to establish a complete industrial chain within four years and stimulating research and development through a “reward in lieu of subsidy” approach. In 2021, urban clusters in cities such as Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangdong were approved to carry out demonstration application work. In the same year, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council emphasized the development of new energy and clean energy vehicles and ships in the “Opinions on Comprehensively and Accurately Implementing the New Development Concept and Doing a Good Job in Carbon Peaking and Carbon Neutrality”. The State Council’s “Action Plan for Carbon Peaking Before 2030” also frequently mentions hydrogen energy. In 2022, the “Medium and Long-term Plan for the Development of the Hydrogen Energy Industry (2021–2035)” was introduced, further perfecting the policy framework for the hydrogen energy industry.

Currently, propelled by a series of favorable policies, China is committed to promoting the high-quality and large-scale development of the hydrogen energy industry, with the application of hydrogen in transportation serving as a leading field. However, the end users exhibit high sensitivity to the usage costs of various fuel vehicles. The current usage cost of HHT is significantly higher than that of other fuel vehicles, and economic viability has emerged as the key factor that restrict the choices of customers [32].

Based on the above life cycle total cost analysis of the five types of fuel heavy trucks, we aim to explore, assuming that other factors such as vehicle purchase costs remain constant (utilizing the basic data of the life cycle total cost calculation in Section 3.1), the minimum price at which hydrogen would be comparable with the per hundred kilometer transportation cost of other models. The calculation results indicate that when the price of hydrogen is 19.12 CNY/kg, 10.02 CNY/kg, 14.24 CNY/kg, and 17.25 CNY/kg, it can be comparable with the per hundred kilometer transportation costs of DHT, LNGHT, EHT, and MHT, respectively. However, the average price of hydrogen at hydrogen stations across the 20 provinces surveyed nationwide stands at 51 CNY/kg. Even if the price of hydrogen at hydrogen stations in Liaoning is as low as 20 CNY/kg (Figure 7), it is not competitive compared to other fuel heavy truck models.

Due to the high volatility of fuel prices for heavy trucks, these prices significantly impact the economic viability of the corresponding heavy truck models. If the fuel costs for diesel and LNG are taken at the highest surveyed prices over a three-year period of 9 CNY/L and 8 CNY/L, the electricity price is taken at the peak rate, the hydrogen price is taken at 35 CNY/kg, and the methanol price is taken at 4 CNY/L and plugged into the life cycle cost calculation model; the total life cycle cost per hundred kilometers for DHT, LNGHT, EHT, and MHT are calculated to be 392.45 CNY, 314.29 CNY, 358.75 CNY, and 442.78 CNY, respectively. For HHT, it is 487.08 CNY, which is 94.63 CNY, 172.79 CNY, 128.33 CNY, and 44.3 CNY higher than the other four types of heavy trucks. Although the cost differences have been greatly reduced, HHT are still not attractive in the view of customers.

Additionally, the vehicle depreciation of HHT constitutes approximately 19% of the total life cycle cost, and the vehicle purchase cost emerges as a crucial factor influencing economic viability. During the initial stages of development, core materials, such as fuel cell membrane electrodes, were reliant on imports, which proved to be more costly [33]. Through active technological innovation, industrial chain layout, and demonstration applications by upstream and downstream enterprises in China’s hydrogen fuel cell vehicle industry, domestically produced proton exchange membranes and catalyst core materials have essentially achieved independent research and development and possess the capacity for mass supply. Consequently, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have entered a period of rapid cost reduction in application [34]. It is expected that by 2030, the purchase cost of HHT will be reduced to 700,000 CNY, and by 2035, it will be reduced to 500,000 CNY [35]. At the same time, through the establishment of a complete hydrogen storage, transportation, and supply infrastructure network, and breakthroughs in large-scale hydrogen storage and transportation technology, the continuous expansion of the low-cost green hydrogen market is expected to reduce the average hydrogen price at hydrogen stations to 30 CNY/kg by 2030 and to 25 CNY/kg by 2035 [36,37,38,39].

The per hundred kilometer transportation costs are calculated for HHT with purchase costs of 1,400,000 CNY and a hydrogen price of 35 CNY/kg, 700,000 CNY and a hydrogen price of 30 CNY/kg, and a purchase cost of 500,000 CNY with a hydrogen price of 25 CNY/kg. These costs are compared with the per hundred kilometer transportation costs of the four types of vehicles at their highest, lowest, and average prices for diesel (7 CNY/L) and LNG (5 CNY/L), as shown in Figure 8.

In scenarios where the fuel costs of other models are high, the HHT presents a cost-effective alternative. If the purchase cost of the HHT is set at 700,000 CNY and the price of hydrogen is 30 CNY/kg, the per hundred kilometer transportation cost of the HHT is 59.31 CNY lower than that of the MHT and 8.98 CNY lower than that of the DHT. If the purchase cost of HHT is reduced to 500,000 CNY and the price of hydrogen drops to 25 CNY/kg, the per hundred kilometer transportation cost of the HHT is 128.2 CNY lower than the MHT, 77.87 CNY lower than the DHT, and 44.17 CNY lower than the EHT. Notably, under these conditions (purchase cost of HHT at 500,000 CNY, hydrogen price at 25 CNY/kg), the per hundred kilometer transportation costs of the HHT are comparable to those of the DHT and the LNGHT at average fuel prices.

It is evident that disregarding the trend in changes in the purchase costs of other models and considering only the fluctuations in fuel prices, the HHT will achieve economic viability by 2030 and is projected to be competitive by 2035.

3.2.2. Discussion on the Competitiveness of EHT

Given the maturity of the technologies for DHT, LNGHT, and MHT, their purchase costs are not anticipated to undergo significant changes in the short term. Conversely, similar to HHT, the purchase cost of EHT is expected to continue decreasing due to technological advancements in key vehicle components. As research and development in the automated charging technology intensify, EHT are evolving towards enhanced efficiency and reduced operational costs [40]. However, it is important to note that the energy consumption of EHT significantly increases in cold environments, which substantially reduces their range and increases the vehicle failure rate [41]. If EHT are deployed in cold regions such as Northeast China, the increased energy consumption and failure rate due to the cold can be factored into the total life cycle cost. By comparing the average energy consumption data during cold months with that of normal months from the “China New Energy Vehicle Big Data Research Report (2022)”, a cold coefficient is calculated. This coefficient is then utilized to calculate the total life cycle cost and per hundred kilometer transportation cost under different vehicle purchase costs, with the results shown in Figure 9.

Without considering the impact of cold environments, the EHT demonstrates a significant economic advantage in terms of per hundred kilometer transportation cost when the purchase cost is set at 400,000 and 500,000 CNY, with an electricity price of 0.5 CNY/kWh. Specifically, the costs are 13.32 CNY and 6.37 CNY lower, respectively, than that of the LNGHT at the lowest LNG fuel price. When the purchase cost ranges between 600,000 and 800,000 CNY and the electricity price is maintained at 0.5 CNY/kWh, the per hundred kilometer transportation cost of EHT is economically advantageous, being lower than that of the LNGHT at the average LNG fuel price. Furthermore, when the purchase cost varies from 400,000 to 800,000 CNY and the electricity price is 1 CNY/kWh, the per hundred kilometer transportation cost of the EHT is competitive, being lower than that of the LNGHT at the highest LNG fuel price. However, it is important to note that when the electricity price rises to 1.5 CNY/kWh, the EHT does not present an economic advantage compared to the LNGHT.

When the impact of cold environments is taken into account, the per hundred kilometer transportation cost of EHT at different fuel costs (with electricity prices all at 1.5 CNY/kWh) increases by 45 CNY, 30 CNY, and 15 CNY, respectively, compared to scenarios where the impact of cold environments is not considered. Correspondingly, the total life cycle cost increases by 476,000 CNY, 319,000 CNY, and 159,500 CNY, respectively. Under these conditions, when the purchase cost ranges between 400,000 and 800,000 CNY and the electricity price is 0.5 CNY/kWh, the per hundred kilometer transportation cost of the EHT is economically advantageous, being lower than that of LNGHT at the average LNG fuel price. When the electricity price is 1 CNY/kWh, the per hundred kilometer transportation cost of the EHT is competitive, being lower than that of the LNGHT at the highest LNG fuel price. However, when the electricity price rises to 1.5 CNY/kWh, the EHT does not present an economic advantage compared to the LNGHT.

In conclusion, without considering the impact of cold environments and with the advancement of battery technology and the reduction in vehicle purchase costs, the per hundred kilometer transportation cost of EHT is expected to be lower than the most optimistic scenario for the LNGHT, which is when fuel prices are at their lowest. However, when the impact of cold environments is taken into account, even with lower fuel costs, it becomes challenging for the EHT to be economical when LNG fuel prices are low. If the electricity price level is set at 1.5 CNY/kWh, regardless of whether the impact of cold environments is considered, the economic viability of EHT is expected to surpass that of HHT, given a purchase cost of 500,000 CNY and a hydrogen price of 25 CNY/kg.

3.2.3. Discussion on the Competitiveness of LNGHT

In terms of energy efficiency, the engines of LNGHT typically exhibit higher thermal efficiency compared to diesel trucks, owing to the high energy density and superior combustion performance of natural gas. This characteristic enables them to generate more power with less fuel, thereby extending the range of LNGHT. Consequently, this helps to reduce operating costs and improve overall efficiency [42].

With respect to emission cleanliness, although LNG is not as clean as EHT or HHT, its comprehensive emissions are approximately 85% lower than those of traditional diesel trucks. Specifically, emissions of carbon monoxide are reduced by 97%, carbon dioxide by 90%, particulate matter by 40%, and noise by 40%. The LNG does not contain lead, benzene, or other carcinogenic substances, and it virtually lacks sulfur compounds. This significantly contributes to the improvement of urban air quality and better aligns with the “National VI b” emission standards. The specific data are shown in

Table 2. Relative emissions of vehicle exhaust pollutants (%) (Based on gasoline as the benchmark for emission levels) [43,44].

Fuel Type	Carbon Monoxide	Hydrocarbons	Nitrogen Oxides	Particulate Matter	Lead
Gasoline	100	100	100	100	100
Diesel	20–40	10–20	45–60	>1000	None
LNG	1–4	8–18	25–35	None	None

.

From an economic standpoint, Figure 6 and Figure 8 demonstrate that LNGHT have the lowest total life cycle costs and transportation costs per hundred kilometers under the same conditions. In the scenario with the highest fuel prices, LNGHT’s cost per hundred kilometers is 314.29 CNY, which is 172.79 CNY, 128.49 CNY, 78.16 CNY, and 44.46 CNY lower than that of HHT, MHT, DHT, and EHT, respectively. With average fuel prices, the cost for LNGHT is 212.29 CNY, still 171.18 CNY, 100.16 CNY, 80.49 CNY, and 46.46 CNY less than the costs for HHT, MHT, DHT, and EHT, respectively. In the lowest fuel price scenario, LNGHT’s cost per hundred kilometers is 144.29 CNY, which is 170.29 CNY, 128.16 CNY, 98.49 CNY, and 14.46 CNY less than the costs for HHT, MHT, DHT, and EHT, respectively. The transportation cost per hundred kilometers for LNGHT is highly sensitive to fuel costs, showing significant economic benefits when fuel is priced at 3 CNY/L [45]. Additionally, the initial investment for an LNGHT is approximately 425,000 CNY, significantly less than the 1,400,000 CNY for an HHT and the 800,000 CNY for an EHT, making LNGHT a competitive choice in the short term. However, the strict technical requirements and higher construction costs for LNG refueling stations have been obstacles to the expansion of the LNGHT market.

From a policy perspective, the current societal focus on air pollution prevention and control has led to several significant proposals and regulations. The National Development and Reform Commission and the National Energy Administration’s “14th Five-Year Plan for the Modern Energy System” propose the construction of a green and low-carbon transportation system. This includes the optimization and adjustment of the transportation structure, the vigorous development of multimodal transport, and the encouragement of the use of clean fuels such as LNG to replace heavy trucks and ships. Furthermore, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, and other departments have jointly issued the “Announcement on the Implementation of Matters Concerning the National VI Emission Standards for Cars”, This announcement stipulates that from 1 July 2023, the National VI emission standard 6b phase for heavy-duty diesel vehicles will be fully implemented nationwide. The production, import, and sale of cars that do not meet the National VI emission standard 6b phase are prohibited. Additionally, Hebei Province’s “Action Plan for the Control of Pollution from Diesel Trucks” proposes to carry out a clean diesel truck action, promote comprehensive standard emission of vehicles, promote the clean energy of traditional cars, and accelerate the new energy of transportation vehicles. With the encouragement of the government, in the next few years, when the cost advantage of new energy is not prominent, LNGHT will be one of the transitional solutions for the low-carbon transformation of the transportation industry.

3.2.4. Discussion on the Competitiveness of MHT

China boasts abundant coal resources and a well-developed coal chemical industry, leading to a large-scale production of methanol from coal. This not only benefits China’s energy security but also reduces its dependence on external energy sources [46]. Moreover, the current “liquid sunshine” methanol production technology is becoming increasingly mature. This technology involves the reaction of carbon oxides with green hydrogen to produce methanol. The process harnesses electrical energy generated from renewable sources such as wind and solar power to produce green hydrogen through electrolysis of water. The green hydrogen then reacts with carbon dioxide, converting it into liquid methanol. This form of methanol is easy to store and transport, thus circumventing the intermittency and large-scale consumption issues associated with renewable energy, without involving new carbon dioxide emissions [47]. Additionally, the methanol molecule contains oxygen, which allows vehicles using methanol fuel to achieve an energy efficiency increase of approximately 21% [48]. Carbon dioxide emissions can be significantly reduced by approximately 26%, making the market prospects for MHT quite promising.

However, in terms of infrastructure and technology, methanol vehicles, despite having achieved certain promotional effects in pilot cities, face a similar dilemma to traditional gas stations and LNG refueling stations. The issue lies in the fact that the construction scale is still small and the distribution is not extensive enough. This limitation affects the driving range and convenience of methanol vehicles, thereby affecting the purchase intention of end customers. Simultaneously, despite continuous advancements in methanol vehicle technology, there is still a need for further optimization, particularly in terms of engine corrosion resistance, fuel efficiency, and emission control. The technical pathways to be adopted for heavy-duty engines also require additional research and development [49].

Economically, Figure 8 illustrates that the total life cycle cost for MHT is 3,113,900 CNY. This is higher than the costs for EHT at 2,752,000 CNY and LNGHT at 2,257,900 CNY. However, the MHT’s lower initial investment of 450,000 CNY is a significant advantage, especially when compared to the 1,400,000 CNY required for HHT and the 800,000 CNY for EHT. The MHT’s initial investment is also competitive, matching the 425,000 CNY for LNGHT (as shown in Table 1). With relatively stable fuel prices, MHTs emerge as a viable alternative for replacing heavy-duty trucks in the high-carbon transportation sector, particularly in the mid to short term.

In terms of policy, the policy environment for China’s methanol vehicle industry has shown a positive trend in recent years, aiming to accelerate the standardization and marketization process of the industry. Since 2004, the National Development and Reform Commission has clarified the strategic positioning of methanol vehicles through documents such as the “Automotive Industry Development Policy” and the “National Major Industrial Technology Development Special Plan,” laying the foundation for policy support. Subsequently, policies have continued to intensify. For instance, the Shanxi Department of Industry and Information Technology issued several measures to accelerate the promotion and application of methanol vehicles across the province. These measures encourage the updating of the existing gasoline- and diesel-powered urban logistics vehicles, urban construction dump trucks, cement mixers, garbage trucks, and heavy trucks to methanol-powered models. The Handan Municipal People’s Government issued a series of policy measures to promote the production and application of methanol vehicles in the city, aiming to create a hundred-billion-level methanol industry ecosystem. The government has issued a series of guiding documents to encourage the industry to explore the development model of “green methanol + methanol vehicles” to promote high-quality development of the industrial chain. However, due to the national standards and industry specifications for methanol vehicles still being gradually established and improved, there is more uncertainty in market access, quality supervision, and safety assessment. The lack of unified coordination in policies has, to some extent, restrained the healthy development of the industry and the large-scale development of the market.

3.2.5. Discussion with Existing Research

(1)

Comparative Analysis of Economic Benefits

This study conducts a comprehensive analysis of the full lifecycle costs and competitiveness of heavy trucks powered by five different types of fuels. In the economic analysis of LNGHT, the findings align with those of Reference [13], indicating that LNGHT possess significant cost-effectiveness advantages. However, this research further refines the impact of different fuel costs on the full lifecycle costs, offering a more holistic analytical perspective. For instance, when the cost of LNG fuel is high while the costs of other types of fuels are moderate or low, the cost per hundred kilometers for transporting goods by LNGHT may exceed those of DHT, MHT, and EHT. Regarding the economic viability of new energy trucks, References [15,19], from the vehicle owner’s perspective, suggest that EHT have higher economic benefits. This study also adopts a consumer-centric approach but considers the effects of cold environments and varying fuel prices, revealing that when electricity prices exceed 1 CNY/kWh, the competitiveness of EHT may not surpass that of HHT. Moreover, in contrast to the views presented in Reference [22], this study posits that LNGHT have the lowest transportation costs per hundred kilometers, and the TCO of HHT in 2050 will be lower than that of DHT only if the cost of diesel fuel significantly exceeds CNY 7 per liter. Although this research, along with the existing studies, acknowledges the substantial market potential of electric and hydrogen trucks, they still face technological and cost challenges. References [23,24] emphasize the pivotal role of policy and technology in promoting the development of new energy trucks, a viewpoint that this study’s results also support, highlighting that HHT currently have poor economic viability but are expected to become more competitive by 2030 and 2035 as technology and infrastructure advance. Additionally, References [18,21] discuss the environmental potential of electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and this study further analyzes the environmental benefits of heavy trucks powered by different types of fuels, noting that while hydrogen and electric trucks are superior in terms of cleanliness, their initial investment is much higher than that of LNGHT and MHT, making LNGHT and MHT an effective transitional choice in the short term.

(2)

Comparative Analysis of Technology

References [18,19] discuss the technological challenges faced by electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. This study also points out that EHT face high energy consumption and short range in cold environments. However, it further indicates that HHT are not affected by cold environments and can compensate for the shortcomings of EHT. At the same time, this study analyzes how technological advancements and infrastructure development affect the market competitiveness of these heavy trucks. It concludes that despite current technological challenges, the market competitiveness of EHT and HHT will gradually strengthen with technological progress. Reference [24] explores the sustainable development implications of alternative fuel vehicles through a comprehensive evaluation model. This study provides a similar integrated perspective, pointing out the advantages and challenges of LNGHT, MHT, EHT, and HHT, and predicting future development trends. The research indicates that LNGHT stand out in terms of short-term economic viability and market competitiveness, while EHT and HHT show significant potential in environmental protection and long-term sustainable development. MHT, as a potential short-to-medium-term alternative, have broad development prospects in China.

4. Conclusions

4.1. Key Findings

After conducting a comprehensive analysis of the total life cycle costs and competitiveness of five types of heavy trucks with different fuel sources, the results indicate the following:

(1)

If the impact of cold environments is not considered, and when the costs of diesel, LNG, electricity, and methanol are at their highest, with the price of hydrogen being 35 CNY/kg, the total life cycle costs of the five types of heavy trucks from highest to lowest are HHT, MHT, DHT, EHT, and LNGHT. When the costs of diesel, LNG, electricity, and methanol are at average/lowest prices, and the price of hydrogen is either 30 CNY/kg or 25 CNY/kg, the total life cycle costs from highest to lowest are HHT, DHT, MHT, EHT, and LNGHT.

(2)

The sum of fuel costs and vehicle depreciation costs for heavy trucks of the five fuel types accounts for more than 90% of the total life cycle cost.

(3)

Despite China’s strong support for the development of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, their current economic viability is poor, which restricts the choices of end customers. It is calculated that HHT can be competitive with DHT, LNGHT, EHT, and MHT in terms of per hundred kilometer transportation costs (with fuel costs at average prices) when the price of hydrogen is 19.12 CNY/kg, 10.02 CNY/kg, 14.24 CNY/kg, and 17.25 CNY/kg, respectively. However, even when the price of hydrogen is as low as 20 CNY/kg (the lowest refueling price at Chinese hydrogen stations), HHT are not competitive. But it is expected that advancements in technology and infrastructure will reduce the costs of HHT, making them more competitive by 2030 and 2035.

(4)

EHT have lower fuel costs due to lower electricity prices, but they face challenges such as high energy consumption and short range in cold environments, which affect their economic viability. With advancements in battery technology and a reduction in vehicle purchase costs, the per hundred kilometer transportation cost of EHT is expected to be lower than that of LNGHT when fuel prices are at their lowest. However, if the impact of cold environments is considered, even with lower fuel costs, it is difficult for EHT to be economical when LNG fuel prices are low. Moreover, if the electricity price level is higher than 1 CNY/kWh, regardless of whether the impact of cold environments is considered, the economic viability of EHT will be lower than that of HHT with a purchase cost of 500,000 CNY and a hydrogen price of 25 CNY/kg.

(5)

LNGHT have good economic viability. Although they are not as clean as electric and HHT, they have higher energy efficiency and lower emissions compared to traditional diesel trucks, making them a strong transitional choice in the shift towards clean transportation.

(6)

China’s abundant coal resources and the progress in “liquid sunshine” methanol production provide a good foundation for the development of MHT, offering a potential alternative for the low-carbon transformation of the transportation industry. However, current challenges in infrastructure development and technological optimization affect their market competitiveness.

4.2. Strategies and Recommendations

Indeed, environmental protection and low-carbon initiatives are pivotal to the evolution of the heavy truck industry. Currently, heavy trucks, despite comprising less than 10% of the total vehicle population, account for nearly 50% of the fuel consumption. This underscores their significance as a primary target for environmental and low-carbon upgrades within the transportation sector [50]. Each fuel type utilized by heavy trucks possesses its own unique advantages and limitations. As awareness of environmental protection heightens and advancements in new energy technologies continue, a transition is anticipated in the types of heavy trucks. The shift will likely progress from traditional fuel-heavy trucks to low-emission LNGHT or MHT. Ultimately, a comprehensive transformation to new energy heavy trucks, such as electric or hydrogen-powered vehicles, is expected.

LNGHT have outstanding competitiveness in the short term within the heavy truck industry. Their markets are primarily focused on urban logistics distribution and port transportation. In recent years, while the number of LNG refueling stations has been increasing, there is still a pressing need to further bolster management and construction. Enhancing service capabilities and quality is crucial to better cater to the operational needs of LNGHT. This will not only enhance their convenience of use but also lay a solid foundation for promoting the low-carbon transformation of the transportation sector.

EHT have relatively mature technology and infrastructure, making them a promising direction for short-term development and a viable option for long-term growth. Their primary applications are in short-distance and fixed-area transportation scenarios. This dual focus not only facilitates the construction and efficient utilization of urban supporting infrastructure but also circumvents potential disadvantages of chemical batteries in terms of energy density and range. Addressing the impact of low temperatures on battery range, it is important to note that the effect of low temperatures on batteries is mainly a change in physical properties, not a permanent chemical damage. Therefore, as temperature rises, the chemical reaction rate within the battery naturally recovers, the internal resistance of the battery returns to normal levels, and the battery’s range is restored. In response to this phenomenon, it is advisable to employ solid-state batteries. Given that solid-state electrolytes are less sensitive to temperature fluctuations, the performance of solid-state batteries will not significantly decrease in low-temperature environments. Alternatively, installing a battery temperature management system on EHT could maintain the optimal working temperature of the battery and reduce range loss.

Methanol, in terms of both raw material supply and technological maturity, does not face significant constraints in China. In fact, China holds a leading position globally in the synthesis and production of renewable methanol. Consequently, MHT will become one of the development directions in the medium and short term. It is recommended to include methanol as an emerging energy source into the national energy system and to include methanol vehicles within the purview of new energy vehicle management. However, promoting and applying methanol fuel and MHT is a systematic project. It necessitates the construction of a comprehensive ecological chain encompassing methanol energy preparation, transportation, and a refueling guarantee system. This endeavor requires collaboration across all parties in the industrial chain to leverage the economic advantages of MHT fully and collectively surmount the key challenges in promoting and applying MHT.

HHT indeed offer numerous advantages, including being pollution-free, having zero emissions, high energy utilization rate, strong endurance, and faster energy replenishment speed. These attributes position them as an important direction for medium- and long-term development. However, they currently face the problems of high purchase cost and fuel cost, and a limited number of hydrogen refueling station layouts, which result in low willingness to use among end customers. It is recommended that national and provincial or municipal subsidies work in tandem to reduce the cost of HHT. Given that provincial and municipal subsidies cannot be sustained indefinitely to promote HHT, it is suggested to collaborate with surrounding cities to apply for a fuel cell vehicle demonstration city group to obtain national subsidies. Local governments should improve special subsidies and provide subsidies for the purchase, operation, and use of hydrogen of terminal customers who purchase HHT [51]. At the same time, it is crucial to formulate strict operating mileage requirements and fully recover the rewards for customers who do not meet the standard to encourage the continuous operation of HHT. In addition, it is advisable to encourage and support leading enterprises to carry out business model innovation through financing leasing, joint operation routes, and co-construction and co-operation [52]. This would help build a cooperative mechanism of complementary advantages, shared interests, and shared risks. Furthermore, it is recommended to learn from provinces like Hebei and Guangdong, break through the restrictions on hydrogen production in non-chemical industrial parks, and build hydrogen production and hydrogen refueling stations based on existing refueling stations. This approach could reduce the construction cost of hydrogen refueling stations and help reduce the end price of hydrogen.

Absolutely, the continuous maturation of technology and strong policy support indeed pave the way for a smooth and determined transition from LNGHT, MHT, to long-range EHT, and HHT. The promotion and application of each new energy heavy truck is a profound innovation of traditional transportation methods. Collectively, they sketch a blueprint for a clean, efficient, and sustainable transportation future. Through continuous technological innovation, infrastructure construction, and policy guidance, we are indeed progressing towards a greener and smarter new era of transportation. This is not merely a responsibility to the environment but also a steadfast commitment to the future.