The deployment of hydrogen-powered public transport requires operators to decide not only whether to adopt fuel-cell buses, but also how hydrogen should be supplied. This study compares two sourcing strategies, as follows: on-site hydrogen production (Make) and external procurement (Buy). An operator-centered framework combining Levelized Cost of Hydrogen (LCOH) and Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is applied to two Italian cases, using project-specific procurement and technical data from Monfalcone/Gorizia and Ferrara together with explicit modeling assumptions. Under base-case assumptions, Make yields an LCOH of €13.67/kg H2 and a fleet TCO of €2.34/km, compared with €2.51/km for Buy at a delivered green hydrogen price of €12/kg. The deterministic break-even price is €10.25/kg, while both hydrogen configurations remain more expensive than diesel (€1.24/km). A probabilistic analysis based on 10,000 Latin Hypercube simulations and six uncertain parameters shows that Make is less costly in 78.8% of cases and Buy in 21.2%. The median probabilistic break-even price is €10.38/kg, with a 5th–95th percentile range of €8.79–12.38/kg. Delivered hydrogen price is the main driver, followed by Make CAPEX, fleet utilization, and financing conditions. Hydrogen sourcing therefore remains a strategic investment choice, with implications for capital exposure, renewable-energy integration, economic sustainability, and supply resilience.

Make or Buy? Implications of On-Site Renewable Hydrogen Production Versus Market Procurement for the Total Cost of Ownership of a Fuel Cell Bus Fleet / Danielis, R., Masutti, M., Scorrano, M., Niazi, M.A.K.. - In: SUSTAINABILITY. - ISSN 2071-1050. - STAMPA. - 18:17(2026), pp. 9112.1-9112.23. [10.3390/su18179112]

Make or Buy? Implications of On-Site Renewable Hydrogen Production Versus Market Procurement for the Total Cost of Ownership of a Fuel Cell Bus Fleet

Romeo Danielis
;
Manuela Masutti;Mariangela Scorrano;Arsalan Muhammad Khan Niazi
2026-01-01

Abstract

The deployment of hydrogen-powered public transport requires operators to decide not only whether to adopt fuel-cell buses, but also how hydrogen should be supplied. This study compares two sourcing strategies, as follows: on-site hydrogen production (Make) and external procurement (Buy). An operator-centered framework combining Levelized Cost of Hydrogen (LCOH) and Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is applied to two Italian cases, using project-specific procurement and technical data from Monfalcone/Gorizia and Ferrara together with explicit modeling assumptions. Under base-case assumptions, Make yields an LCOH of €13.67/kg H2 and a fleet TCO of €2.34/km, compared with €2.51/km for Buy at a delivered green hydrogen price of €12/kg. The deterministic break-even price is €10.25/kg, while both hydrogen configurations remain more expensive than diesel (€1.24/km). A probabilistic analysis based on 10,000 Latin Hypercube simulations and six uncertain parameters shows that Make is less costly in 78.8% of cases and Buy in 21.2%. The median probabilistic break-even price is €10.38/kg, with a 5th–95th percentile range of €8.79–12.38/kg. Delivered hydrogen price is the main driver, followed by Make CAPEX, fleet utilization, and financing conditions. Hydrogen sourcing therefore remains a strategic investment choice, with implications for capital exposure, renewable-energy integration, economic sustainability, and supply resilience.
2026
4-set-2026
Pubblicato
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2026 - Danielis et al. - Make or Buy Implications of On-Site Renewable Hydrogen Production Versus Market Procurement for the TCO of a Fuel Cell Bus Fleet.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: Articolo di rivista
Tipologia: Documento in Versione Editoriale
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 8.36 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
8.36 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11368/3146719
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact