Letter: Does Hydrogen Offer a Less Road Damaging Option?

Published on: 31 Aug, 2026
Updated on: 31 Aug, 2026

From Jim Allen

In response to: Transfer to Electric Vans and Alternative Fuel Part of Guildford’s Fleet Modernisation

I would advise caution regarding the proposed transition to electric refuse trucks. Lord Bamford (JCB) has opted for hydrogen technology due to its weight considerations and the need for recharging capabilities in remote global locations.

The substantial weight of a 4-tonne battery, coupled with the inherent risks of lithium runaway events, necessitates a complete retraining of technical personnel from mechanical to high-voltage electrical systems, as with the local fire service.

Hydrogen technology offers a viable mechanical alternative, positioning itself as a strong third option alongside conventional petrol and diesel-power.

Furthermore, we must evaluate the impact of the additional 4 tonnes on road infrastructure. When fully loaded, this weight is distributed across 10 tires, each covering an area less than a square foot.

Has an assessment been conducted on the actual road damage, including manhole settings, repaired service trenches, and the recurrence of potholes, similar to potential observations which could be made on electric bus routes?

While ‘A’ roads are designed for loads exceeding 30+ tons and often exceed a foot in thickness, many side roads and estate roads are only four inches thick and are not engineered to withstand such regular heavy loads. For example: Bowers Lane – twenty 20tonnes+ HGVs in three weeks on a sand based side road.

Therefore, the fundamental question is: what is the theoretical environmental cost associated with repairing damaged roads and recycling lithium batteries? This should be compared to hydrogen vehicles, particularly given that JCB already produces commercially available hydrogen engines. There is a compelling reason to explore this option.

Share This Post