Norway tests electric snowplows while Sweden tests hydrogen

Support CleanTechnica’s work through a Substack subscription, on Patreon, or on Stripe. Help us produce all the original, high-quality content we publish week after week despite the challenges of AI deleting content, anti-social media, inflation and other obstacles.

Norway has already demonstrated how to remove snow with electric batteries on one of its most difficult mountain roads. A Scania 45 R covered approximately 7,000 km on Hardangervidda, plowing, leveling and spreading sand during a Norwegian winter. His performance exceeded expectations. Meanwhile, Sweden has unveiled a hydrogen snowblower that is, in effect, another large battery-electric truck, with a fuel cell and hydrogen tanks added for greater range. The engineering question is why it is worth having that second power system when batteries are already doing the work, and when a conventional generator running on renewable diesel could offer a simpler and potentially cheaper route for occasional long-term operation.

The Swedish vehicle has to compete with more than just diesel snow blowers. My full TFIE strategic report examines Norway’s metered electric operation, China’s growing snow removal equipment market, and the additional costs that hydrogen must justify.

The Swedish project brings together Scania, MaserFrakt and Peab. The vehicle has a rechargeable battery of 356 kWh and 56 kg of hydrogen. The fuel cell generates electricity to extend the truck’s operating time between charging sessions. This gives the vehicle two energy storage systems, plus the equipment to convert hydrogen into electricity. It will still need electric charging and also hydrogen production, delivery, storage and refueling.

Norway’s experience makes an uncomfortable starting point for hydrogen advocates. The 2025 test by the Norwegian Public Roads Administration showed that a heavy production electric truck could perform demanding maintenance jobs in winter. Its measured consumption averaged approximately 2.02 kWh/km, with around six and a half hours of operational autonomy in evaluated mixed service conditions. The test identified deficiencies in load compatibility and payload, but these were engineering and operational issues to resolve, not evidence that battery-electric snow blowers were incapable of doing the job.

China is moving toward broader deployment. Municipalities have used smaller electric snow removal equipment for years, while manufacturers have developed specialized full-size electric vehicles. Beijing’s Mentougou district awarded contracts for 24 multi-function snowplow trucks in September 2026. Not all final chassis specifications have been confirmed to be electric, but the acquisition shows the market goes beyond isolated demonstrations.

China’s much larger battery electric truck industry is also providing specialized equipment manufacturers with a growing offering of heavy-duty powertrains, batteries and chassis. Electric snow blowers benefit from components developed and manufactured for freight vehicles in much larger volumes.

In that context, the Swedish approach seems increasingly difficult to justify. If six or seven hours of productive operation are enough, an electric truck can already do the job. If longer shifts are required, larger batteries, better charging systems, mobile charging equipment or operational changes deserve evaluation first. Hydrogen cannot claim the extreme charging market simply because charging requires planning.

There is another alternative that the hydrogen comparison tends to omit. A conventional generator running on hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) could supply additional electricity when the battery needs support. Diesel generators, fuel tanks and liquid fuel distribution systems are mature technologies. Major generator manufacturers already approve equipment suitable for HVO, which can use conventional diesel-type storage and handling systems. Integrating a generator into a particular electric truck still requires engineering, certification and emissions controls, but avoids building a hydrogen supply chain for a small fleet of seasonal vehicles.

For some operators, the even easier solution is to keep existing diesel snow removal equipment and use certified renewable diesel for the relatively few extreme shifts that electric vehicles cannot cover. Copenhagen Airport has already taken that approach, progressively electrifying its equipment and using HVO on compatible heavy-duty vehicles, including snow plows.

HVO is not unlimited and its climate benefits depend on the origin and production of the raw material. Burning it also produces exhaust emissions. These limitations are important, especially in populated areas. But a relatively small amount used for one-off winter duties is a different proposition than trying to replace a large part of road transport with biofuels.

The hydrogen proposal must overcome all these alternatives. You must demonstrate that the additional hours gained from the fuel cell justify the cost of the vehicle, maintenance, fuel premium and refueling infrastructure. It must also overcome the cost of providing those hours with conventional generating equipment or retaining a small reserve fleet.

Snow removal authorities are required to maintain roads during inclement weather conditions. They should purchase equipment that meets that obligation with the lowest cost and defensible emissions for the entire system. Norway has shown that batteries can handle demanding winter jobs, and China’s industrial scale is making specialized electric vehicles more accessible. The Swedish hydrogen truck is entering a market where the simplest electric solution is already working.

The TFIE Strategy Briefing’s full analysis examines operational results, procurement evidence, cargo limitations, airport fuel cell testing and practical alternatives that make the business case for hydrogen so difficult.