Tesla Listed As Big Freight Shake Up Company, Nikola Fares Well, Too

Tesla Semi


Despite doubters, research puts the Tesla Semi and Nikola Motor Company in top list of innovators that may disrupt the trucking industry.

FreightWaves Research Institute recently studied a whopping 500 companies to determine which will lead the way in the future of freight. Regardless of naysayers, it turns out that Tesla (with its upcoming all-electric Semi truck) and startup Nikola both secured a spot in the top 25.

According to an article by Teslarati:

From 500 companies, a panel of experts selected by the institute narrowed down the list to 25. These 25 companies represented the best that the freight and logistics industry has to offer, in terms of innovation, tech, and potential disruption.

The research company’s list is referred to as Freight.Tech25. It honors top companies in the segment, including J.B. Hunt, FedEx, UPS, Daimler, and Amazon. Surprisingly, while Amazon took the No. 1 spot, Tesla ranked No. 3, and the automaker hasn’t even launched its upcoming semi. Nikola grabbed the 24th position on the list, which is still highly impressive.

Vice President of NFI Industries fleet services James O’Leary talked up freight electrification in a recent speech. More specifically, he called it the “Tesla effect.” O’Leary shared (via Teslarati):

Nobody in North America was talking about electric vehicles until your local news outlets picked up the rollout of the Tesla Semi. That led basically to what we call the Tesla effect. Now shippers are asking their carriers where you are with electric vehicles.

In regards to Nikola, InsideEVs is excited to disclose that we’ll be able to see the company’s trucks firsthand at its official unveiling event in April 2019.

The company tweeted out the recent top 25 list:

Do you think all-electric and/or hydrogen-powered semi trucks are the way of the future? Share your insight with us in the comment section below.

Source: Teslarati


12 photos
Tesla Semi Tesla Semi Tesla Semi Tesla Semi Inside The Tesla Semi Inside The Tesla Semi Inside The Tesla Semi


Nikola Tre
12 photos
Nikola Tre Nikola Tre Tesla Semi Rendering Alongside Nikola One Nikola Two Nikola Two Nikola Two Nikola Two Nikola Two Nikola Two Nikola One Nikola One Electric Truck

Categories: Tesla, Trucks

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

77 Comments on "Tesla Listed As Big Freight Shake Up Company, Nikola Fares Well, Too"

newest oldest most voted

Bring it on, and best of luck to both of them. Hope they will sell all the can manufacture (and that the quality is superior, so other EV trucks will have goodwill among truck customers).

Tesla Semi’s will become another product who’s demand outstrips supply for the next 5 years at least. With EV’s, Storage and Semi’s by 2024 revenue will be over 100 billion. Also the 2nd quarter of 2018 was the last quarter in lost money.

Better financial analysis here than on CNBC.

Both may have a place. But only one will be first.
I’m curious to know the weight of Tesla’s truck, because that will determine the load it can carry.

@Pet said: “…I’m curious to know the weight of Tesla’s truck, because that will determine the load it can carry.”

Good point… supposedly Tesla intends to have the same cargo capacity for Tesla Semi as a semi diesel truck.

I’m curious about the weight of both of them! It initially surprised me that Nikola have said they will have a pretty large battery in the Nikola One, but from what I gather it’s necessary to even out the load – cope with both large inputs from regenerative braking, and give power for acceleration and when the truck is going up a long steep hill. A fuel cell is best for a steady output, and especially for a heavy truck needs such to average out the load. I’m still a bit surprised by how big they are talking about (about 350kWh?), or does anybody know any other reasons. What it does mean is that for battery weight alone, the Nikola is likely to have such as 1/3 the battery weight of the Tesla Semi. Given that in many other ways they are likely to be comparable (drive train etc), then the big question is how the other 2/3 of the Teslas battery weight will compare versus the weight of the fuel cell, and the weight of the hydrogen tank? An assumed advantage for the Nikola has been lighter weight – and hence greater payload – but I’m just not certain… Read more »

Model 3 is lighter than Mirai, while being roomier, more powerful, and more efficient. With the class 8 trucks it will be even worse, the battery truck will dominate in a big way. The biggest truck manufacturers, like Daimler for example, are not going fuel cell, after decades of fuel cell vehicle exploration.

Jerome Guillen, head of Semi development, stated they’re targeting same payload capacity as a diesel Semi.

considering that the battery is supposed to weigh close to diesel engine/transmission/fuel, I would guess that they will haul the same.

A 100 kwh weighs a tad under 600 kg. A MWH should be well under 6 tonnes and close to 5.
A semi diesel engine weighs 2-2.5 tonnes. A semi transmission is ~1 tonne. and 250 gal of deisel will be around .9 tonne. So, we are looking at 4-4.5 tonnes for diesel vs around 5-5.5 tonnes for EV. Considering the weight of the tractor, this is really a none issue.

some more for you:

To Windbourne – worth looking at these estimates, if you haven’t already seen them: https://insideevs.com/tesla-semi-truck-battery-lighter/

Estimated yes, makes assumptions yes, but the best estimate I’ve seen with reasoning. Brings the weight of the longer range Semi battery pack to about 9,500lbs – about 4.3 tonnes.

Guess we have to wait and see what the figures actually are! 😀

From article: “…Do you think all-electric and/or hydrogen-powered semi trucks are the way of the future? …”

Answer: All-electric.

All-electric-big-battery semi will win over hydrogen semi simply because a convenient and reliable semi fast charge network will scale *much* faster (Tesla will accelerate trend-set that as they did with consumer EVs) than a convenient and reliable semi hydrogen re-fueling network.

The transition to EV semi will likely be much quicker than traditional semi truck makers are currently thinking/planning and may be quicker than EV consumer cars because commercial trucking operators are very TCO sensitive and are willing/able to pay a higher upfront investment cost for lower long term TCO.

Tesla will likely initially dominate electric semi same as Tesla currently dominates EV consumer cars.

Well hydrogen is still production from Natural Gas using Fuel Cells so while it produces more electricity more efficiently and can produce hydrogen it’s not entirely clean. It can however produce power 24/7 which seems to make it a candidate for an all of the above strategy.

Except that commercial customers can install solar on their roofs and store the energy in batteries yielding quicker charge and lower fuel cost, even vs. the local utility.
$$$ Money = Profit $$$

The area of solar panels required to make even a small dent in the cost of the huge amount of electrical energy required to charge just one tractor would be far beyond the roof area of any truck stop.

Yeah, anyone who thinks a hydrogen fuel truck stop could possibly generate enough electricity to generate all the H2 on-site… well, they haven’t done the math to find the acreage required for that. Most good locations for a truck stop would be where land is far too expensive for that. There may be a few exceptions, but certainly not enough sufficient for the continent-wide (U.S. and Canada) network of 700 H2 truck stops in Nikola’s business plan.

Any on-site hydrogen storage (usable quantities) would require permits (money and time) and clearance (money, space, and time). Any on-site hydrogen production would add way more of these. Of course the hydrogen purity must be very high or it is worthless.

It would be far more efficient to use methane to power vehicles than hydrogen stripped from methane.

Yup. But there are no Big Oil propagandists or “think tanks” promoting the idea of using methane (either natural gas or synthetic methane) to power road vehicles. They only promote the “hydrogen economy” hoax.

Yes, but renewable methane is even less efficient than renewable H2 (electrolysis).

Fossil methane may be cheap but since it produces CO2, it must go as soon as possible (if we want to have a habitable planet in the 22nd century).

All the current truck manufacturers are coming with electric trucks, or sell them all ready.

Not class 8.

Including class 8.

Most of them seem to be regular trucks with electric motors powering regular drive trains – not particularly innovative and, therefore not realising the maximum potential of the switch to electric. Tesla and (perhaps to a lesser extent) Nikola have both taken advantage of the opportunity to rethink the whole concept.

Agree overall, but especially on the TCO point. This is why I keep saying here that fleet operators will drive a LOT of EV sales. As soon as package delivery companies, local tradespeople, school districts, etc. see that converting even part of their fleet from liquid fuel to EVs will work with their existing usage scenarios and will save them money, watch out — sales will take off.

Your neighbors and co-workers and your goofy brother in law will have to get over some very serious psychological hurdles before they buy their first EV. Fleet operators are much more inclined (but not entirely so) to make decisions based on spreadsheets.

Why no headline mention of Daimler, who is #11 on the list (well ahead of Nikola)?
They have the most electrified offerings in trucking (eActros, eCanter, eFUSO, eCascadia, eM2 and smaller local delivery vans) and are the world leader in trucking, hence have plenty of opportunity to drive change, appear to have a solid vision and have already put trucks into service.
Telsa and Nikola have one each. Neither in service yet.

“Why no headline mention of Daimler…?…”

Daimler commercial truck EVs are not currently a priority for Daimler and lack any meaningful innovation. Only after Tesla semi starts eating at Daimler commercial trucking market share will Daimler make EV semi a higher priority… same as has been for Daimler’s consumer cars.

Daimler commercial trucking sales/service franchise network are anti-EV because a transition to all-electric semi will result in a big hit to the cash-cow service department… that in turn presents a problem for Daimler because going EV will require the sales/services franchise relationships to be adjusted for that sales/service network to survive… exact same issue for traditional car makers facing as with consumer EVs.

There’s a simple solution to the dealer’s stopping EV rollout claim. Just increase the sales profit for the dealer. That way they make any loss from the service department up in up front sales income.

The service department is still going to be there afterall, there will still be just as many non engine related service requirements, as well as (an admittedly smaller) engine/battery related service requirements.

Andy said: “There’s a simple solution to the dealer’s stopping EV rollout claim. Just increase the sales profit for the dealer…”

Agreed… but not easily done because the current sales franchise dealer network is heavily entrenched on selling cars at near cost to capture related high margin business (biggest being ICE service dept).

Breaking out of a that long entrenched cycle will likely be a baby-steps process… thus gives new car maker entrants (such as Tesla) an advantage on that point.

The direct sales method has it’s own major negatives though, especially (as Tesla have found out) when ramping up to much larger numbers. There’s a reason most manufacturers (in general, not just in the auto industry) sell most of their products through third party sellers, even if they started up by doing that.

There are positive and negative parts of both sales methods.

Daimler was #11 on the list and far more relevant than Nicola Fossil Fuel Cell Vehicles.

Nikola are not planning on using natural gas to make their hydrogen…

Yah, Andy, and pigs can fly.

Read up on what they plan on doing…

I have done! And get more sceptical the more I hear……

Electrolysis stations, supposedly powered by green electricity, and mainly solar from what they say…..

But….. dig a little deeper, and the cost of the electrolysis stations is huge. And since hydrogen versus battery storage needs about 3x the power, then we’re talking about a huge cost for solar farms compared to battery trucks (all else equal). Plus maintenance and staffing costs.

And…… to get best returns, an electrolysis station is most cost effective is used as close to 24 hours a day as possible as the capital cost is so high. Which matches very badly with the output from solar. It will need to either run idle during the night, and reduced capacity during the hours nearer sunset/sunrise or not be able to utilise all the solar power during peaks. Or use huge battery storage to average out the solar so the station can run optimally.

Or more likely, they’ll be forced to use hydrogen from reforming, or at the very least electricity from the grid.

yes. they ORIGINALLY planned on doing batteries. Then got talked out of it. By whom?

Nikola is not building the H2 production means. They are counting on others to do so. And they will ALL use nat gas.

This is one area where hydrogen may make sense. Planes and space craft as well. All of these have localized fueling that is a boost for H2 having a use-case.

Although NG reforming and electrolysis have high energy losses, when electricity is near-zero dollars (or maybe even negative in some cases) H2 storage may make sense for over-production of wind and solar assets. Why turn them down/off? Run at full tilt and save the excess as H2. Use fuel cells to level the grid during low-production or peak-use times.

@Loboc said: “Although NG reforming and electrolysis have high energy losses, when electricity is near-zero dollars (or maybe even negative in some cases) H2 storage may make sense for over-production of wind and solar assets.”

Even if electricity today was “near-zero” (which won’t happen anytime soon) then there is the issue of building the distribution network which is a much higher cost and logistics hurdle than building-out a convenient and reliable fast battery charge network.

Aviation is a special use case that hydrogen has best use argument but even there hydrogen is not currently viable.

They are already having near zero cost (and income) on special days in Denmark – when a wind generator owner actually have to pay money to deliver electricity to the grid. They have to shut down production. Why not use that energy to make hydrogen? They already have a test system going (for 2-3 years now).

@John Doe said: “They are already having near zero cost (and income) on special days in Denmark – when a wind generator owner actually have to pay money to deliver electricity to the grid…”

That zero income from occasional excess energy from those windmills still have attached to it a proportional windmill operating $/kWh cost component (which would ultimately need to be passed on to end user) then add to that the equipment install & operating cost of converting electricity to hydrogen… so reality is no such thing anytime soon of hydrogen generation and distribution being more economical than big-battery and fast charge network.

Lastly big thing seems to often be overlooked by hydrogen supporters… if electricity does become a near zero cost proposition that lower cost also applies to big battery EV.

Most cars and at least many shorter distance trucks will of course be pure EVs with varying size batteries. Running cost will always be lower then a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle due to loss in production, compression and convertion.
I’m just saying there will be a market for hydrogen vehicles too. It will be smaller, but it will be there. They are testing hydrogen trains in Norway now, to replace a diesel train on a non electrified track. They are about to start test production of hydrogen gas from wind generators too.
As for wind generators, there are periods where there is more profit to be made by making hydrogen gas, then selling the electricity as sub cost prices. It’s not like they can reduce or stop production when the price is low, like they can with hydro. They have to produce energy when the wind blows.

This writing of yours is quite optimistic, but yeah there are non-fuel cell hydrogen applications, which also don’t need high pressure filling stations, these are production of ammonia/urea, steel making, some power cooling, some special chemicals… when you see these sourcing green h2 made from cheap excessive renewable energy, we can have a conversation. Still this pathway does not help FCEV on the contrary, can easily steal the cheap inputs.

That is always a possibility.
NEL (the company that will supply the hydrogen for Nikola) and Yara are work7ng together with huge support to manufacture fertiliser with NELs equipment.
I’ll stay positive though, until I’m proven wrong.. since all the new technology can make a huge impact.

You hit the nail on the head. The ONLY way hydrogen will ever make sense, efficiency wise, is if we generate so much excess renewable electricity that using it to inefficiently produce H2 through electrolysis is better than wasting said excess electricity.

why not pump water uphill? It is far more efficient and cheaper than H2.

In some cases, such as Germany, electricity pricing has already hit negative territory.

Check out Abundance 360. The AI industrial revolution will either render humans insignificant or create a utopia unseen before. Could go either way. What if your ‘job’ was doing everything you love to do instead of soul-sucking traffic every day?

Not if you do the math. Heavy trucks move 1 pound 1 mile using much less energy than cars take to move a pound a mile. This means a semi can go further on a charge with a smaller percentage of its mass in batteries. The trucking industry is also much more sensitive to fuel costs, giving an edge to battery electric and putting hydrogen at a disadvantage.

Trucks will sell in both forms. There are huge investments in hydrogen too, but any kind of volume will not come until the next generation.
Hydrogen is kind of 4-7 years behind electric vehicles when it comes to technical and production maturity.
Cost will come down, and hydrogen gas will be cheaper too.
For hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to be good, they need to use hydrogen generated with wind or solar energy.

The price of H2 dispensed at a fueling station won’t ever come down substantially, because so much of the price is due to basic physics and the pernicious nature of the H2 molecule.

How a fuel as impractical, expensive, wasteful, and hard to manage as compressed hydrogen ever became the basis for popular ideas of how to replace fossil fuels… well, all I can say is I gotta hand it to Big Oil’s propaganda machine. They have done very well at putting their “hydrogen economy” hoax over on the public, and especially on those who want to reduce their carbon footprint.


Maybe I’m colored by my experience at the university.
We made hydrogen gas with solar panels, and stored it in an underground tank.
Then we converted a tiny older Peugeot, installed an electric motor and a hydrogen fuel cell and a medium pressure tank.
Dangerous as f***, with poor crash safety to begin with, and a hack job construction. . but we used it for at least 3 years with no problems.. and for us, it was free fuel – which is utopia for a Norwegian.

Hydrogen prices will come down, by how much I don’t know. It is a better solution then ICE, and we all know a normal EV will always be cheaper to use. It is for a niche market, but it is all for a better future.

what niche market will H2 be better at than batteries?

If you do the math, then you have to factor in the weight of the truck. Laws and regulations limit the gross weight (truck and trailer weight plus cargo weight) of trucks that drive on roads. A Class 8 truck (semi truck) has a maximum weight limit of 80,000 lbs. If the semi truck weighs more due to a large, heavy battery pack, then the max weight of cargo it can haul is less to fall within the 80,000 lb weight limit.

Conventional wisdom says that the Tesla Semi with it’s very large battery will weigh significantly more than an ICE semi truck, limiting the weight of cargo it can haul, and thus lowering its revenue potential. The Nikola semi is expected to weigh significantly less than the Tesla semi and also weigh 1,000 to 2,000 lbs. less than a Diesel semi, allowing it to haul more/heavier freight and make more revenue per trip.

From Impartial Observer, quote: ” The Nikola semi is expected to weigh significantly less than the Tesla semi …….” ———- The key word there is “expected”, and current details about weights seem to mainly rely on supposition. I’ve questioned earlier about why the Nikola One is specified to have a battery about 1/3 the size of the Tesla Semi – the best explanation I’ve heard is to cope with peaks of power output (acceleration and – especially climbing a long hill) and to enable decent regenerative braking. But – such is likely to be at least therefore a third the weight of the Tesla Semi battery alone. The question therefore is how the remaining 2/3 weight of the Tesla battery stacks up against the weight of the Nikola fuel cell and hydrogen storage tank? I’m hearing stories that the difference may not be as much as has been speculated in the past – and even that the shorter range Tesla Semi may even have the weight advantage. I confess I was a little sceptical at first – but then the weight of such as the Toyota Mirai was pointed out as a comparison. All I will say is that any… Read more »

Tunny said:
“I’ve questioned earlier about why the Nikola One is specified to have a battery about 1/3 the size of the Tesla Semi…”

Perhaps you should question the size of the Tesla Semi battery. I’d take whatever Elon says about the Tesla Semi’s battery size with a huge grain of salt. A battery-powered skate was supposed to carry cars at 150 mph through The Boring Company’s tunnels. But when Elon unveiled the tunnel yesterday, he ditched the whole idea of the batter-powered skate. Now cars (EVs) will have retractable guide wheels and drive themselves down the tunnels at 150 mph using their own batteries, motors, and tires. That’s a BIG CHANGE!!! Elon left out the small details like what’s a car’s battery range at 150mph, can normal car tires handle speeds of 150 mph, how to ensure that tires are maintained, not worn, and balanced, etc…

It seems like Elon is just figuring stuff out as he goes along. So I wouldn’t put much stock into how big Elon says the Tesla Semi battery will be.


@ImpartialO- commercial H2 is almost all from steam reformed methane and just creating H2 produces 5kg of CO2 for each 1kg of H2.

Using old tech. .
Study NEL hydrogen.

The problem is that NEL uses hydrolysis, which uses electricity, which is in general far more expensive than steam reforming. There is also the question of where the electricity comes from.

I don’t dispute that such as NELs equipment may be the best solution when hydrogen is absolutely necessary for some industrial process – it overcomes the very real problems around hydrogen transport for bulk. That’s very different to arguing for a new use for hydrogen, when there are better alternatives. (And when it doesn’t even seem to give any cost advantage over such anyway.)

nice. What is the costs of it and how much is currently installed?

Here, let me help you with America’s fill up.

Show us how do you get from CA to NY.

And if you want to go around the globe:

From Impartial Observer, quote: ” Perhaps you should question the size of the Tesla Semi battery. I’d take whatever Elon says about the Tesla Semi’s battery size with a huge grain of salt. ” —————- I don’t think I’ve seen any direct quote from Elon Musk or Tesla about the size of the Semi battery? Can you provide the link? I was basing the above on estimates made by others, such as at https://insideevs.com/tesla-semi-truck-battery-lighter . That predicts 900kWh for the Tesla (longer range version), other figures say 1,000kWh or even a little higher. Estimates, yes, but I can’t dispute the ballpark basis behind them. So we get the capacity of the Nikola battery about 1/3 that of the Tesla. The question then is how this transfers to weight, and Tesla does seem to be ahead of the competition in battery technology. So I just don’t see Nikolas battery being any less than 1/3 the weight. So, Impartial Observer. You spoke about “doing the maths” – what is your estimate for the weight of the Nikola fuel cell, hydrogen tank, and ancillary hydrogen piping, valves etc? You seem very confident the Nikola will be vastly lighter than the Semi or indeed current… Read more »

The production version of the Nikola One semi will certainly weigh less. Imaginary vehicles weigh nothing! 😉

I don’t know if Tesla will manage to produce a Semi tractor that weighs no more than a diesel tractor of similar power, as they are claiming, but I don’t think it matters much. About 90% of semi trailer loads are limited by space, not weight. If Tesla loses some sales to trucking fleets which specialize in heavy loads, well I doubt that would limit their market significantly. As I’ve pointed out many times, Tesla doesn’t have to capture the entire semi truck market with their first vehicle. They just have to be able to sell every one they make.

Model 3 is lighter than Mirai while being roomier, way more performant, and way more efficient. The weight penalty is pretty significant for any hydrogen tanks which need to contain some decent amount of hydrogen, with plenty of safeguards on top. Then, the hydrogen piping, pumps, valves, venting ducts would require more materials, mass. Then you realize, the bulky and heavy fuel cell does not perform, and requires dedicated ice condition prevention subsystem.

conventional wisdom says that you ASSUme too much.
First off, electric will be within 1-2 tonnes of class 8.

Secondly, turns out that rarely do trucks hit the max in terms of loads.

yeah, yeah. It is seeking alpha, but this is just data. It is not some a-hole.

Loboc – quote: “H2 storage may make sense for over-production of wind and solar assets. Why turn them down/off? Run at full tilt and save the excess as H2.”

Lovely idea in principle, but very uneconomic.

Flaw in the argument is that the capital cost of the electrolysis stations is very high and consequently really need to be utilised as close to 24 hours each day as possible. So very unsuitable (financially) for soaking up the odd bits of renewable generation.

Instead of stripping H2 from methane, why not simply use methane to power a vehicle?

The point of using hydrogen to power a road vehicle is two fold – to reduce exhaust emissions and give cleaner air in cities, and secondly to reduce CO2 emissions overall.

Hydrogen achieves the first – just water out of the exhaust. It’s the second where it falls short, and using methane may give cleaner exhausts, but likely give carbon dioxide. The third factor is sheer cost. A relatively short time ago batteries simply weren’t seen as remotely viable due to their cost – it’s simply astonishing how that has come down in a relatively short space of time.

It’s worth reading the Bossel and Eliasson Report, and summarised quite well at https://www.planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html . (Especially the paragraph “How do you transport hydrogen?”) Quite an old report now, and written in the period when batteries were still seen as non viable economically, but still very good in terms of summarising much of the fundamental physics to do with hydrogen.

Sorry, your physics are a bit off. How will stripping H2 from natural gas to use in a hydrogen vehicle be more efficient, and thus “reduce CO2 emissions overall”, compared to simply using said natural gas in a natural gas powered vehicle? Can you break that one down for me?

Hydrogen is just swapping one expensive fuel for another and it’s a tremendous waste of energy.

But it’s a much more energy dense (per weight) than any battery technology now. That means it could be a better bet for some logistics companies and owners. Everyone/company has it’s own specific requirements.

@Andy said: “But it’s [hydrogen] a much more energy dense (per weight) than any battery technology now…”

So is compressed air but that does not make powering cars with compressed air more economically viable than recharging a big-battery.

“Hydrogen” may indeed be energy dense – but hydrogen **plus the weight of containing it** is not!!!

With hydrogen compressed to 700bar (as Nikola are proposing) the weight of the pressure vessel will be many, many times the weight of the hydrogen it contains.

This should be familiar to anyone who goes scuba diving – the weight (more strictly, mass) of air taken underwater is around 1.5 kg – the tank is around 20kg. And that’s air compressed to 200bar – hydrogen is less dense at 1 bar, and to contain 700 bar you need a much sturdier tank. (So the mass of gas/tank will be much worse than in the scuba tank example.)

To put a few more (ballpark) numbers to this, then hydrogen has roughly 1/15 the density of air, so the same diving cylinder, at the same pressure, would hold only about 0.1kg. All else equal, the weight of the cylinder would be approximately 200x the weight of the hydrogen it contained!

Yes, in current practice, the hydrogen would likely be compressed to 700 bar, which is likely to mean a same size cylinder now holding 0.25-0.3kg (not 0.35kg as Boyle’s law would predict – the law breaks down at higher pressure). But the much higher pressure will put greater demands on the cylinder so expect it to be heavier as well.

This is the weight that needs to be compared with battery weight for road transport calculations – not the hydrogen alone.

“But it’s a much more energy dense (per weight) than any battery technology now.”

So is diesel. The issue isn’t whether or not hydrogen-powered trucks can compete with BEV trucks; the issue is whether they can compete with diesel trucks. Spoiler alert: They can’t.

So, people could vote for their own company..
I question how correct this list is, and I think major companies are missing. I really don’t see what they really measure, and how they grade companies.
What have #1 on the list done, except ordered a lot of shipping services from a bunch of freight companies?

They have known routes and costs, it is not hard to figure out the savings these will create.

Any so-called research which gives any credence at all to Nikola’s obviously impossible claims, is without any value whatsoever.

I don’t know if Nikola is an outright scam or an example of a business plan based on wishful thinking (like Better Place, but worse in this case), but any business plan that depends on making a profit by selling hydrogen fuel at $2/kg, or even twice that, is not even going to get out of the starting gate. And that’s not even considering the tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars it would take to construct each and every H2 fueling station capable of servicing multiple H2-powered semi trucks in a single day.

It’s a scam. Milk investors for all you can, enrich yourself, then fold. Rinse and repeat.

Fool cell me once, shame on you