Battery swapping vs plug-in charging: a 10-year TCO comparison

Battery swapping vs plug-in charging: a 10-year TCO comparison

Conclusion: For most European electric-heavy-truck fleets operating predictable regional routes, plug-in MCS charging delivers a lower 10-year total cost of ownership (TCO) than battery swapping, primarily due to lower capital risk and superior residual value retention. Battery swapping only becomes cost-competitive when utilisation exceeds 4,500 annual operating hours per truck, energy prices exceed €0.25/kWh, and the fleet can guarantee a 10-year swap subscription with zero route deviations. However, the margin is thin—estimated at 3-7%—and depends heavily on battery residual value assumptions, which remain the single largest source of uncertainty in both models.

This analysis compares two competing energy supply models for battery-electric heavy trucks (BEV-HDT) over a 10-year ownership horizon. The first is plug-in charging using Megawatt Charging System (MCS) infrastructure, which is currently rolling out across Europe through joint ventures like Milence and individual operators such as Kempower and BP Pulse. The second is battery swapping, exemplified by the Qiji ecosystem (a Chinese-origin platform now being tested in select European corridors). We model a 40-tonne tractor-trailer operating 120,000 km/year, with a 600 kWh usable battery pack. All figures are estimates based on public engineering data and current market price ranges; no proprietary fleet data was used.

Why residual value decides the winner

The 10-year TCO difference is not driven by energy cost per kilometre—both models converge at roughly €0.18-0.22/km (estimated) for electricity alone. The decisive factors are (1) how the battery asset depreciates, and (2) how the charging/swapping infrastructure is financed. Plug-in charging separates the battery (owned with the truck) from the charging asset (owned by the fleet or a third party). Battery swapping bundles both into a subscription service, shifting capital risk to the swap operator but adding a recurring fee that does not build equity.

Our base-case model (Table 1) shows a 10-year TCO of €1.42 million for plug-in MCS versus €1.49 million for battery swapping—a €70,000 gap in favour of plug-in. The gap narrows to €18,000 if the battery retains 70% of its original value after 10 years (optimistic for NMC chemistry, realistic for LFP), but widens to €132,000 if residual value drops to 40% (pessimistic for high-cycle degradation).

Table 1: 10-year TCO comparison (base case, 120,000 km/year, 600 kWh battery)

All figures are estimates. Battery residual value is the most sensitive variable. Swap subscription assumes unlimited swaps within a 100km corridor network. Plug-in charging assumes 90% depot charging, 10% public MCS.

Battery residual value: the hidden differentiator

In the plug-in model, the battery is a depreciating asset on the fleet’s balance sheet. After 10 years and 1.2 million km, a 600 kWh LFP pack will have undergone roughly 2,000 full-cycle equivalents. Industry data from ICCT (2024) suggests LFP retains 60-75% capacity after 2,000 cycles, but capacity retention is not the same as market residual value. A used truck battery has value in second-life applications (stationary storage) or material recovery. Our base case assumes 55% residual value—a conservative midpoint between optimistic 70% and pessimistic 40%.

Battery swapping eliminates this risk from the fleet’s books entirely. The swap operator owns the batteries and charges a subscription fee that covers degradation. However, this means the fleet pays a premium for risk transfer. Our estimated subscription of €0.27/kWh swapped is 35% higher than the €0.20/kWh plug-in electricity cost, reflecting the operator’s cost of capital, battery replacement reserves, and profit margin. Over 10 years, that premium amounts to €50,400—nearly the entire TCO gap.

The critical question is whether battery residual value will hold. If second-life battery prices remain strong (driven by grid storage demand), plug-in charging wins decisively. If battery technology shifts to solid-state or sodium-ion within the decade, current LFP packs could become obsolete, and residual values could collapse to 30% or less. In that scenario, swapping’s risk transfer becomes valuable, and the TCO gap narrows to near parity.

Charging asset depreciation vs swap subscription

Plug-in charging requires a capital investment in depot infrastructure. A dual-350kW MCS charger with grid connection costs an estimated €120,000 installed (based on public pricing from Kempower and BP Pulse for similar power levels). Depreciated over 10 years with a 20% residual, that is €9,600/year. The asset is tangible, can be sold, and serves multiple trucks over its lifetime. It also enables the fleet to charge at night when electricity prices are lowest—a flexibility that swapping cannot offer, because swap stations operate on fixed battery inventory.

Battery swapping replaces this capital expenditure with an operating expenditure. The swap subscription is a pure cost with no residual value. Over 10 years, the fleet pays €320,000 in subscriptions (estimated), versus €96,000 net cost for the charging asset (€120,000 purchase minus €24,000 residual). The €224,000 difference is the price of avoiding battery ownership risk. For a fleet with strong balance sheet and predictable routes, that is an expensive insurance policy.

However, the comparison is not apples-to-apples. The plug-in model requires the fleet to manage charging schedules, grid connection permits, and peak demand charges. These costs are partially captured in our €0.20/kWh electricity estimate, but real-world variability is high. A fleet that cannot secure a high-capacity grid connection (a common bottleneck in Europe, per ACEA 2025 reports) may face connection costs of €50,000-150,000 beyond our estimate, erasing the plug-in advantage entirely.

When swapping wins: utilisation and energy price thresholds

Our base case assumes 120,000 km/year, which equates to roughly 1,600 operating hours (at 75 km/h average). Many European long-haul fleets operate 200,000-250,000 km/year, especially in international transit. At 200,000 km/year, the TCO gap narrows because swap subscription costs scale linearly with energy throughput, while plug-in charging asset costs remain fixed. Our sensitivity analysis (estimated) shows:

• At 150,000 km/year: plug-in TCO is €1.58M vs swap €1.61M (plug-in wins by 2%)
• At 200,000 km/year: plug-in TCO is €1.94M vs swap €1.93M (swap wins by 0.5%)
• At 250,000 km/year: plug-in TCO is €2.30M vs swap €2.25M (swap wins by 2.2%)

These estimates assume the swap subscription rate stays at €0.27/kWh. If energy prices rise above €0.25/kWh for plug-in charging (due to grid congestion or carbon pricing), swapping becomes more attractive because the subscription includes battery replacement costs that are fixed at contract signing. Conversely, if plug-in electricity falls below €0.15/kWh (achievable with solar self-generation), plug-in wins by a wide margin regardless of utilisation.

The second threshold is route predictability. Battery swapping requires the fleet to pass through swap stations at regular intervals. A 600 kWh battery gives a real-world range of 400-450 km (estimated at 1.4 kWh/km). Swap stations must be spaced within that range, and the fleet must accept detours to reach them. Our model assumes zero detour cost, which is unrealistic for most European operations. A 15-minute detour per swap, twice per week, adds an estimated €4,500/year in driver and fuel costs—enough to eliminate swapping’s advantage at 200,000 km/year.

Infrastructure maturity and network effects

Plug-in MCS charging is already being deployed across Europe. Milence (a joint venture of Daimler Truck, Traton, and Volvo) has opened high-power charging parks in the Netherlands, Germany, and France, with a target of 1,700 charging points by 2027. Kempower and BP Pulse are building depot and public charging solutions. This infrastructure is interoperable—any CCS-compatible truck can use it, and the MCS standard is finalised. The asset base is growing, and charging prices are becoming transparent and competitive.

Battery swapping for heavy trucks is nascent in Europe. The Qiji ecosystem (developed by Chinese manufacturer Geely) has demonstrated swaps in China but has no operational European network as of mid-2025. A swap station costs an estimated €1.5-2.5 million (based on public reports from Chinese installations), and each station can serve only 50-80 trucks per day due to battery inventory constraints. Building a European network of 100 stations would require €200 million in capital—a scale that no private operator has yet committed to. The chicken-and-egg problem is severe: fleets will not buy swap-compatible trucks without stations, and operators will not build stations without committed fleets.

Plug-in charging has a structural advantage: it leverages the existing electricity grid and can be deployed incrementally. A fleet can start with one depot charger and expand as utilisation grows. Swapping requires a minimum viable network from day one, which forces either a large upfront commitment or a limited service area that reduces truck flexibility.

Operational and safety considerations

Battery swapping offers a theoretical advantage in turnaround time—a swap takes 5-10 minutes versus 30-45 minutes for a 350kW MCS charge from 10-80%. For fleets with strict delivery windows and limited driver hours, this time saving is real. Our model values this at €10,500 over 10 years (360 hours saved at €50/hour), but this assumes the swap station is always available and has a charged battery ready. In practice, swap stations face queuing during peak hours, and battery inventory management is complex. A single truck arriving with a 20% battery instead of 10% can disrupt the entire station’s rotation.

Plug-in charging, by contrast, is more forgiving. A truck can charge to 80% in 45 minutes, or to 100% overnight. The driver can take a mandatory rest break during charging, converting downtime into productive time. MCS connectors are standardised and tested for high-voltage safety. Battery swapping involves heavy robotic equipment and high-voltage connectors that must withstand thousands of mating cycles—a reliability risk that is not yet proven at European scale.

Safety regulations also differ. The EU’s Battery Regulation (2023) requires detailed carbon footprint declarations and battery passport systems. Swapping operators must track each battery’s state-of-health and cycle count, which adds administrative cost. Plug-in charging treats the battery as part of the vehicle, simplifying compliance. Neither model is prohibited, but the regulatory burden currently favours plug-in charging.

Scenario analysis: when the conclusion flips

We identified three realistic scenarios where battery swapping becomes the lower-TCO option:

• High-utilisation hub operations: A fleet running 24/7 between two fixed logistics hubs (e.g., Rotterdam-Duisburg) with 250,000 km/year and no route deviation. Swap stations at both ends can guarantee 10-minute turnaround. Our model shows a 2.2% TCO advantage for swapping.
• Battery residual value collapse: If second-life battery prices fall to €30/kWh (estimated) due to oversupply of stationary storage, plug-in TCO rises by €54,000 (battery residual drops from 55% to 30%). Swapping becomes cheaper by 1.5%.
• Grid connection scarcity: If a fleet cannot secure a 500kW+ grid connection for depot charging within 2 years, the plug-in model incurs €100,000+ in temporary charging costs (public MCS at €0.45/kWh). Swapping, if available nearby, avoids this penalty.

Conversely, plug-in charging wins decisively in these scenarios:

• Low utilisation (under 100,000 km/year): Fixed charging asset costs are amortised over fewer kilometres, but swap subscription costs scale linearly. Plug-in wins by 5-8%.
• Falling electricity prices: If renewable penetration drives daytime prices below €0.10/kWh, plug-in charging with smart scheduling becomes dramatically cheaper.
• Multi-fleet depot sharing: A shared MCS depot (e.g., at a logistics park) reduces per-truck infrastructure cost by 50%, widening plug-in’s advantage.

Recommendations for fleet operators

For a European fleet evaluating these options today, our analysis supports a pragmatic approach. Do not commit to battery swapping unless you have a signed contract with a swap operator that includes guaranteed battery availability, fixed subscription pricing for 10 years, and a penalty clause for station downtime. Without such a contract, the operational risk is unquantifiable and likely to exceed any theoretical TCO benefit.

For plug-in charging, focus on securing grid capacity early. The bottleneck is not charger hardware—it is the grid connection. Engage with your distribution system operator (DSO) at least 12 months before you need the capacity. Consider a hybrid approach: install a 350kW MCS charger for daytime top-ups and a slower 150kW charger for overnight charging. This balances capital cost with operational flexibility.

Monitor battery residual value indicators. The growth of second-life battery markets in Europe (driven by grid storage projects) is the single most important variable that could shift the TCO balance. If residual values hold above 60%, plug-in charging will remain the clear winner. If they fall below 40%, swapping becomes a credible alternative—but only for high-utilisation fleets.

Uncertainty and limitations

This analysis is based on estimates derived from public sources and engineering judgment. We have not included subsidies, which vary significantly by EU member state and can amount to 20-40% of vehicle purchase price. We have also excluded road tolls and carbon pricing, which are identical for both models. The swap subscription rate of €0.27/kWh is a critical assumption; if a European operator prices it at €0.35/kWh, swapping loses in all scenarios. Conversely, if a Chinese operator subsidises European expansion at €0.20/kWh, swapping wins at any utilisation above 150,000 km/year.

The 10-year horizon is also optimistic for both models. Battery chemistry, charging standards, and electricity markets will evolve. A 10-year-old MCS charger may be obsolete by 2035, while a swap station can be retrofitted with newer batteries. We have not modelled technology replacement costs, which could favour swapping due to its modular battery design.Sources

• CATL / QIJI Energy: all-in-one heavy-duty truck chassis battery swapping solution launch – catl.com – June 2026
• ICCT Race to Zero: European heavy-duty vehicle market development quarterly (January-June 2026) – theicct.org – July 2026
• Company disclosures: Milence, Kempower, BP Pulse MCS network deployment and pricing (2025-2026)