Nikola, producer of fuel cell and battery electric semi trucks, held a grand opening for the first of its HYLA refueling stations. The goal is to build a hydrogen refueling network that can be rolled out quickly, and built up over time as fuel cell trucks become more common.
There’s a big push for zero emission trucks in California right now, in response to California’s new truck regulations. That push is particularly focused on the trucking routes between the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and the distribution centers of the Inland Empire – which Ontario lies at the heart of.
For a zero emission truck, you’ve got basically two choices: batteries, or hydrogen fuel cells.
Nikola sells both of these, but the problem with hydrogen is that the electrical grid is already built out, and there’s relative ease to add new chargers, whereas hydrogen fueling stations are a more involved effort.
So Nikola created its HYLA concept, which allows it to roll out temporary refueling stations in targeted areas under more simplistic permitting and construction schemes, with the potential to build these stations into a larger permanent construction later on.
As of now, the refueling station is… basically just an asphalt-and-gravel lot, with a building for 24/7 support on-site, across the street from the Ontario Airport. But it only took a few months for Nikola to set this up, which is key given the rapid rollout of electric trucks in California, especially for drayage (moving goods from port to distribution centers).
The station consists of two large liquid hydrogen tanks on trailers, each holding over 800 kilograms of hydrogen stored in liquid form. This is enough hydrogen for about 20-25 fillups. The Nikola Tre FCEV holds about 70kg of hydrogen in a tank, but fillups won’t always fill the entire tank.
Filling up takes about 20 minutes, with technicians on hand to manage the process. Fueling with highly compressed hydrogen (700 bar) is a little more complicated than uncompressed diesel or high-powered DC chargers. The equipment onboard the tank trailer also includes motors and pumps to turn the liquid hydrogen into compressed gaseous hydrogen before putting it into the Tre’s tank.
The process is also quite noisy due to the pumps onboard the trailer unit, and there is some loss of hydrogen during the pumping process – hydrogen molecules are tiny, and really hard to keep in place.
Nikola says it has been filling these tanks once every day or two so far, but wants to scale up to filling about 50-70 trucks a day, which will require daily deliveries of liquid hydrogen. Currently, that liquid hydrogen is “gray” hydrogen, which means it was produced by methane, a fossil fuel. FCEVs are still more efficient than diesel vehicles when run on hydrogen made from methane, but not as efficient as battery EVs charged from methane-generated electricity.
But just like with BEVs – it’s even better if the fuel comes from a better source. Hydrogen could theoretically be generated by electrolysis of water, powered by clean energy. This is called “green hydrogen,” and Ole Hofelmann, President of Nikola Energy, told us that Nikola would like to set up a green energy hydrogen electrolysis plant in order to produce its own liquid hydrogen and then deliver it to its own stations in its own trucks, making the whole loop have zero emissions. But that’s some ways off.
While this is only a temporary station for now, Nikola plans to make it more permanent in the future – paving the lot, building permanent pumps and so on. As that happens, the trailers can be sent to the next site, as an “advance team” to set up the site before permanent construction (and lots of permitting) begins. Nikola says it wants to have 9 stations set up in California by the end of Q2 and 14 this year – which seems ambitious. Today was the grand opening for this station, but it has been in operation for about a month and a half now.
The truck – the Nikola Tre Fuel Cell semi
The higher energy density of the hydrogen – stored at 10,000psi in four 450lb tanks behind the cab – means that the Tre FCEV has longer range (500mi) than competing electric trucks. This doesn’t matter all that much for drayage, but Nikola told us that one driver does a weekly loop filling up in Oakland, CA, driving down to Long Beach, then out to Ontario, then filling up and heading back to Oakland. This is too long a trip for most BEV trucks (except one, at least – we’ve seen the Tesla Semi do similar mileage).
We spoke with a driver, Edward from 4 Gen Logistics, who’s been driving the Tre FCEV for about 6,000 miles. He said that he he was initially intimidated by the new technology (and by the climb to get in the truck in the first place – it sits VERY HIGH), but now he likes the Tre more than other BEV trucks he’s driven like the Volvo VNR, Kenworth, and Daimler eCascadia. He says this is because the longer range means he can do 2-3 trips to the port and back in one shift, which he hasn’t been able to do with the BEV trucks. And it comes with a features to make his life easier, like automatic tire pressure and load sensing.
He also likes the performance. Similar to other electric trucks, it has a ton of torque, but Edward said the FCEV is even better at climbing hills with a full load than the BEVs he’s driven are.
I’ve driven the Daimler and Volvo myself, and both were super impressive in their drivability. I’ve ridden in the Tre FCEV tractor (with no trailer) on two occasions, and the ride is extremely quiet for a 26,200lb, 536hp tractor (about 3,000lbs lighter than the BEV – both get an extra 2,000lb weight limit, though the FCEV’s extra 2k lbs only applies in 5 states, while the BEV’s is federal). I’m also impressed with the strength of its regenerative braking – though that’s particularly hard to judge without a trailer attached.
The FCEV does have similar horsepower to the Kenworth and about 100 more horsepower than the Volvo and Daimler, but it has a much smaller battery that it’s pulling that power from. Nikola’s fuel cell stack is large, but it mainly works to charge the 164kWh onboard battery, which then goes on to power the wheels. Most hydrogen vehicles have a battery to buffer the power coming from the fuel cell stack, but this is a particularly large one, even for a semi truck.
Electrek’s Take
We at Electrek were skeptical of Nikola from early on. There are a lot of EV startups out there, and we try to cover as many of them as we can. But it’s a difficult business, and many of them are likely to fail. Everyone should always keep on guard about untested claims from new companies.
And now we’ve ridden in the FCEV twice, and it worked rather well – it ran under its own power, not just downhill like Milton’s “Nikola One”. And drivers seem to like it. That’s good progress.
As for the feasibility of fuel cells in general – many of our readers question its application and whether it’s better than BEV. We share those questions, particularly given that ~95% of hydrogen is currently produced from methane, which means it’s a lot dirtier to fill up on hydrogen than on CA grid electricity (which is generated from ~54% non-polluting sources).
California is working on adding requirements to its Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) which would require a certain percentage of “green” hydrogen to earn credits, so that might be cleaning up if progress is made on offering commercial green hydrogen credits. And if Nikola manages to build those electrolysis plants, that could solve the problem too (we also remember Tesla saying every Supercharger would have solar panels way back in 2012, and several hundred billion dollars in revenue later, that, uh, hasn’t happened).
But all of that is a long way off. However, we say similar things with EVs – even if an EV is charged with full coal power, it’s still cleaner than a gas car, and as the grid cleans up, the EV cleans up too. Same with FCEVs – if green hydrogen makes its way onto the market (or if governments finally implement carbon pricing as they should have done 100 years ago) an FCEV suddenly becomes much cleaner as well.
And if you don’t have trucks out there, then there’s no reason, or capital, for investment into building up infrastructure to generate green hydrogen. So you have to put some trucks on the road so there’s a reason to do it.
We’ve heard a lot of the same arguments from the light duty side of things – see our drive in the Honda CR-V e:FCEV earlier this week – but for those, BEV is already much more practical than FCEV. For heavy duty, especially long haul, hydrogen does have real advantages, at least in the short or medium term. So it’s good to see someone working on it – and it’s good to see Nikola working to put the specters of its past behind it.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
The electric box van experts at Harbinger announced a new, EREV version of their medium-duty van that pairs a big battery with a small, gas-powered ICE engine to offer fleets that are hesitant to electrify a massive 500 miles of autonomy on a single charge + tank.
The American truck brand is putting its latest $100 million raise to good use, developing a cost-competitive EREV chassis that marries a low-emissions 1.4L inline four-cylinder gas engine with a close coupled 800V generator sending power to a 140 or 175 kW battery for up to 500 miles of fully loaded range. More than enough, in other words, to meet the needs of just about any fleet you can think of.
That’s a good thing, too, because medium-duty trucks are put to work in just about any circumstance you can think of, as well – a fact that’s not lost on Harbinger.
“Medium-duty vehicles serve an incredibly diverse range of applications, just like the fleets and operators that rely on them, ” explains John Harris, Co-founder and CEO, Harbinger. “There are some fleets whose needs simply can’t be met with a purely electric vehicle—and we recognize that. Our hybrid is designed for use cases and routes that go beyond what an all-electric system typically supports. The series hybrid delivers the benefits of an electric drivetrain, along with the added confidence of a range extender when needed.”
Advertisement – scroll for more content
In addition an up-front cost that should make it an attractive prospect for fleet buyers, the new Harbinger EREV pack performance that should made it attractive for its drivers, too. The new chassis’ electric powertrain delivers 440 hp and 1,140 lb-ft of tq for quick acceleration into traffic and smooth running, even under load. Charging performance is also quick, with the ability to get the big battery from 10-80% charge in just under an hour on a 150 kW port.
You’ve heard all this before
Thor hybrid RV concept; via Thor.
If that sounds familiar, that’s because it is. This medium-duty chassis was first shown last year, making its debut under a Thor Class A motorhome concept that we covered in September. That vehicle promised the same great EREV range and capability to a market that values independence and spontaneity more than most, and bringing those values to a medium-duty commercial market that’s lapping up “messy middle” propaganda from Shell NACFE is just smart business.
The new Harbinger chassis’ batteries are manufactured by Panasonic. No word on who is making the 1.4L ICE generator, but my money’s on the GM SGE four-cylinder last seen in the gas-powered Chevy Spark. You guys are smart, though – if you have a better guess who the supplier might be, let us know in the comments.
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
President Donald Trump wants to revive the struggling coal industry in the U.S. by deploying plants to power the data centers that the Big Tech companies are building to train artificial intelligence.
Trump issued an executive order in April that directed his Cabinet to find areas of the U.S. where coal-powered infrastructure is available to support AI data centers and determine whether the infrastructure can be expanded to meet the growing electricity demand from the nation’s tech sector.
Trump has repeatedly promoted coal as power source for data centers. The president told the World Economic Forum in January that he would approve power plants for AI through emergency declaration, calling on the tech companies to use coal as a backup power source.
“They can fuel it with anything they want, and they may have coal as a backup — good, clean coal,” the president said.
Trump’s push to deploy coal runs afoul of the tech companies’ environmental goals. In the short-term, the industry’s power needs may inadvertently be extending the life of existing coal plants.
Coal produces more carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt hour of power than any other energy source in the U.S. with the exception of oil, according to the Energy Information Administration. The tech industry has invested billions of dollars to expand renewable energy and is increasingly turning to nuclear power as a way to meet its growing electricity demand while trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that fuel climate change.
For coal miners, Trump’s push is a potential lifeline. The industry has been in decline as coal plants are being retired in the U.S. About 16% of U.S. electricity generation came from burning coal in 2023, down from 51% in 2001, according to EIA data.
Peabody Energy CEO James Grech, who attended Trump’s executive order ceremony at the White House, said “coal plants can shoulder a heavier load of meeting U.S. generation demands, including multiple years of data center growth.” Peabody is one of the largest coal producers in the U.S.
Grech said coal plants should ramp up how much power they dispatch. The nation’s coal fleet is dispatching about 42% of its maximum capacity right now, compared to a historical average of 72%, the CEO told analysts on the company’s May 6 earnings call.
“We believe that all coal-powered generators need to defer U.S. coal plant retirements as the situation on the ground has clearly changed,” Grech said. “We believe generators should un-retire coal plants that have recently been mothballed.”
Tech sector reaction
There is a growing acknowledgment within the tech industry that fossil fuel generation will be needed to help meet the electricity demand from AI. But the focus is on natural gas, which emits less half the CO2 of coal per kilowatt hour of power, according the the EIA.
“To have the energy we need for the grid, it’s going to take an all of the above approach for a period of time,” Kevin Miller, Amazon’s vice president of global data centers, said during a panel discussion at conference of tech and oil and gas executives in Oklahoma City last month.
“We’re not surprised by the fact that we’re going to need to add some thermal generation to meet the needs in the short term,” Miller said.
Thermal generation is a code word for gas, said Nat Sahlstrom, chief energy officer at Tract, a Denver-based company that secures land, infrastructure and power resources for data centers. Sahlstrom previously led Amazon’s energy, water and sustainability teams.
Executives at Amazon, Nvidia and Anthropic would not commit to using coal, mostly dodging the question when asked during the panel at the Oklahoma City conference.
“It’s never a simple answer,” Amazon’s Miller said. “It is a combination of where’s the energy available, what are other alternatives.”
Nvidia is able to be agnostic about what type of power is used because of the position the chipmaker occupies on the AI value chain, said Josh Parker, the company’s senior director of corporate sustainability. “Thankfully, we leave most of those decisions up to our customers.”
Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark said there are a broader set of options available than just coal. “We would certainly consider it but I don’t know if I’d say it’s at the top of our list.”
Sahlstrom said Trump’s executive order seems like a “dog whistle” to coal mining constituents. There is a big difference between looking at existing infrastructure and “actually building new power plants that are cost competitive and are going to be existing 30 to 40 years from now,” the Tract executive said.
Coal is being displaced by renewables, natural gas and existing nuclear as coal plants face increasingly difficult economics, Sahlstrom said. “Coal has kind of found itself without a job,” he said.
“I do not see the hyperscale community going out and signing long term commitments for new coal plants,” the former Amazon executive said. (The tech companies ramping up AI are frequently referred to as “hyperscalers.”)
“I would be shocked if I saw something like that happen,” Sahlstrom said.
Coal retirements strain grid
But coal plant retirements are creating a real challenge for the grid as electricity demand is increasing due to data centers, re-industrialization and the broader electrification of the economy.
The largest grid in the nation, the PJM Interconnection, has forecast electricity demand could surge 40% by 2039. PJM warned in 2023 that 40 gigawatts of existing power generation, mostly coal, is at risk of retirement by 2030, which represents about 21% of PJM’s installed capacity.
Data centers will temporarily prolong coal demand as utilities scramble to maintain grid reliability, delaying their decarbonization goals, according to a Moody’s report from last October. Utilities have already postponed the retirement of coal plants totaling about 39 gigawatts of power, according to data from the National Mining Association.
“If we want to grow America’s electricity production meaningfully over the next five or ten years, we [have] got to stop closing coal plants,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright told CNBC’s “Money Movers” last month.
But natural gas and renewables are the future, Sahlstrom said. Some 60% of the power sector’s emissions reductions over the past 20 years are due to gas displacing coal, with the remainder coming from renewables, Sahlstrom said.
“That’s a pretty powerful combination, and it’s hard for me to see people going backwards by putting more coal into the mix, particularly if you’re a hyperscale customer who has net-zero carbon goals,” he said.
A federal court judge in Michigan has placed the once-promising electric truck brand Bollinger Motors’ assets into receivership following claims that the company’s owners still owe its founder, Robert Bollinger, more than $10 million.
Now, Automotive News is reporting on some of the more convoluted details of the Mullen purchase deal, with Robert (for ease of distinguishing the man from the brand) claiming that Mullen Automotive owes him more than $10 million for a loan he made to the company in 2024.
Just how Robert ended up giving Mullen Automotive $10 million to take his eponymous truck brand off his hands is probably one of those capitalistic mysteries that I’ll never understand, but Mullen’s response was perfectly clear: they didn’t even bother to show up to court.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Bollinger claims that at least two suppliers are also suing Mullen for unpaid debts. As such, the Honorable Terrence G. Berg has put the Bollinger brand into receivership, and its assets have been frozen in preparation for everything being liquidated. Worse, for Bollinger, the official court filings reveal a company that is really very much doing not awesome:
The testimony and evidence—which Defendant’s counsel conceded accurately reflected Defendant’s finances—showed that Defendant is in crisis. For months Defendant has owed more than twenty million dollars to suppliers, contractors, service providers, and owners of physical space. These debts are owed to parties who are critical for Defendant’s functioning. CEO Bryan Chambers testified that Defendant was locked out of its production facilities on May 5, 2025, and that the owner of the production facilities was seeking to permanently evict Defendant. The Court heard that Defendant had been prevented from accessing its critical manufacturing accounting system for a short time at the end of April 2025, before making a partial payment to restart services.
You can read the full court decision, which I’ve embedded here, below. Once you’ve taken it all in, feel free to rush into the comments to say you told me so, since I really thought hoped the Bollinger B1 had a shot. Silly me.