France & Germany’s Economic Councils Endorse Electric Trucks…

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!

Last Updated on: 6th April 2025, 05:53 pm

The best news in freight decarbonization this year didn’t come from a truck manufacturer, a startup accelerator, or a press release festooned with EU flags. It came from a bunch of European economists. That’s right—after years of letting hydrogen hype men and fossil PR firms monopolize the freight emissions debate, the French Conseil d’Analyse Économique (CAE) and the German Council of Economic Experts (GCEE) finally weighed in. And, gloriously, they didn’t fall for the hydrogen fantasy. Instead, they did what economists do best: they looked at the numbers, ran the models, and calmly declared that battery-electric trucks are not just viable—they’re the smart bet. In a joint Franco-German report that should be laminated and mailed to every transport ministry in Europe, they recommended a full-throated pivot to electrification and stopping with the hydrogen illusions.

It’s about time. Freight transport, particularly road freight, is the diesel-soaked elephant in Europe’s climate room. Despite bold headlines about electric cars and net-zero targets, road freight emissions have barely budged in decades. In the EU, transport accounts for nearly 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Within that, freight—specifically, the legions of trucks barreling down highways—is responsible for more than 30 percent. And it’s growing. As the economy expands and consumers continue their addiction to next-day delivery, freight demand is rising inexorably. Without a serious intervention, emissions from the sector will do the opposite of declining. They’ll surge. Which is why the economists’ entrance is such a breath of fresh, carbon-filtered air.

The scale of road freight in Europe is staggering. In Germany, nearly 2.9 billion tonnes of goods were hauled by road in 2023. That’s roughly 74 percent of all inland freight, with rail and water fighting over the scraps. France moves about 1.6 billion tonnes by road, comprising an even more lopsided 87 percent of its inland freight. Freight rail in France is more historical romance than functioning alternative; inland waterways are lovely for postcards but not for logistics. The pattern is repeated EU-wide: roughly 13.2 billion tonnes were moved by truck last year, generating nearly 1.9 trillion tonne-kilometers. It’s trucks all the way down. Even in Germany, home of a reasonably functioning rail network, the heavy lifting is being done by semis, rigids, and a small army of Sprinter vans. And the journey lengths? Shockingly short. The average German truck trip clocks in at just 96 kilometers. In France, it’s a bit longer, but the trend is unmistakable—regional and short-haul freight dominate. Endless transcontinental long-hauls is a niche within a niche. Most trucks aren’t gliding across borders. They’re schlepping gravel and groceries around the block. That said, the big trucks driving long distances do carry a large percentage of the freight.

Now, into this diesel-drenched reality wade the economists, armed with spreadsheets and common sense. Their conclusion? Battery-electric trucks (BETs, to use their preferred acronym) are not only ready for prime time, they’re already winning on cost. Total cost of ownership, the holy grail of fleet decision-making, is hitting parity with diesel for BETs in France and Germany today. Not in 2030. Not in a green utopia. Now. And the farther you look into the future, the better it gets. BETs will be cheaper to run, easier to maintain, and drastically cleaner than any hydrogen-powered alternative. The economists don’t mince words: electrification is the only rational path forward.

And then, wonderfully, they get specific. Their report doesn’t just toss out the word “electrify” and call it a day. It lays out six clear recommendations—each one a sharp rebuke to the wandering hydrogen narrative that’s soaked up so much policy bandwidth. First, internalize the external costs of freight. That’s economist-speak for making diesel trucks pay for the mess they cause. Through harmonized carbon pricing and clear toll modulation, let the market reflect reality. If a truck spews more carbon, it should pay more to be on the road. No more hiding behind fuel tax exemptions and quiet subsidies. Second, double down on battery-electric trucks. Make them the focus, not one option among many in a never-ending technology buffet. Public policy should stop pretending every drivetrain is equally viable. It’s not. To that point, biofuels for road freight get no love either. BETs are the clear frontrunner, and it’s time to back them like it.

Third, accelerate the rollout of megawatt charging infrastructure. This means real public investment—yes, subsidies—along highways and in private depots. But, and here’s the kicker, only for the ramp-up phase. Once the market catches up, support can wind down. Fourth, support the European truck manufacturing sector—not in a “buy European” protectionist way, but by funding R&D in areas that matter: battery density, supply chain resilience, and rapid charging protocols. Europe can’t afford to let China corner the battery truck market the way it did with passenger EVs, in the economists’ opinion. Fifth, take a hard look at the AFIR regulation—the EU’s roadmap for alternative fuels infrastructure—and loosen it where needed. If hydrogen doesn’t pan out for freight, there’s no point in mandating H2 stations every 150 kilometers. Build what the market actually needs, not what the lobbyists promised would be needed. And finally, be realistic about rail. It’s not coming to save the day. Modal shift is a political fantasy in most countries, so focus rail investment on high-volume corridors and cross-border links, and stop pretending that rail can absorb significant volumes of short-haul or last-mile freight.

This is not an abstract wishlist. It’s a strategic plan grounded in empirical reality. And it lands like a cold splash of water on the hydrogen lobby’s overheated narrative. For the past five years, groups like France Hydrogène, the Hydrogen Council, and a rotating cast of gas companies and vehicle OEMs have peddled the notion that fuel-cell trucks are just around the corner. Any day now, they promise, we’ll see hydrogen rigs roaring down the autobahn, clean, efficient, and economically bulletproof. Except they’re not. They’re expensive, inefficient, and infrastructure-constrained. And the green hydrogen they require? Scarce, costly, and still mostly hypothetical. Meanwhile, battery trucks are already on the road, already hitting cost targets, and already winning fleet conversions. The gap between hype and reality has never been wider.

And yet, the hydrogen lobby remains astonishingly well-funded and well-connected. France and Germany have poured billions into national hydrogen strategies. EU funds have subsidized refueling stations, vehicle trials, and endless studies. Truck makers happily cash both hydrogen and battery R&D checks. And for a while, it worked. The media was full of shiny concept trucks and ribbon-cuttings. But now, the economists have shown up, and they’re calling time on the illusion. Hydrogen has its niche as an industrial feedstock, but not as a freight fuel. Not in a sector where efficiency is king, infrastructure is tight, and margins are thin.

The real significance of the CAE and GCEE intervention isn’t just the recommendations. It’s the timing. Europe is at a fork in the freight road and at the beginning of a new five year Parliamentary mandate. Policymakers can either keep hedging their bets, throwing euros at every drivetrain imaginable, or they can focus on the one that’s actually scaling. The economists, in their buttoned-up way, are pleading for focus. They’re saying: follow the data, not the daydreams. Back the technology that works. And don’t let another five years go by chasing hydrogen fantasies while BETs do the heavy lifting.

Sadly, the study of 2035 decarbonization of European road freight I participated in 18 months didn’t make the bibliography, but I recognize many of the studies and authors, having dug through them at one point or another. Our study found the same thing, of course.

In the end, this report is more than a policy document. It’s a sanity check. It’s a reminder that decarbonization doesn’t have to be mystical or experimental. It can be boring, effective, and already underway. Battery-electric trucks aren’t glamorous. They don’t promise to revolutionize everything. They just work. And sometimes, that’s enough. Especially when the economists agree.