This value was chosen as a reference to simplify the scalability of the results and to represent the energy requirements of a middle-sized town. In fact, the value corresponds to The FCEV instead demonstrate advantages for higher duty vehicles, where the weight of the battery can become impractical . To remain as general as possible, this study considers the operation on both fuels, with the target of understanding the effects of various parameters on both supply chains. As a comparison, figure shows also the energy requirements for mobility based on methane and methanol consumed in an internal combustion engine, which are approximately 620 and 540 GWh for 10 9 km. These requirements are significantly higher than the consumption of BEV and FCEV. Additionally, if these molecules are synthesised as e-fuels (i.e., from renewable electricity), the synthesis efficiency would be lower than H2 production, due to the additional synthesis step. For these reasons, the direct use of these fuels will not be considered further in this study. We assume that e-fuels could play a role in the decarbonisation in the near future, thanks to the possible extension in the use of standard internal combustion engines, but in the long term the advantages of BEV and FCEV should become decisive to favour a complete technological switch towards these latter technologies . However, methane and methanol can still play an important role as H2 storage molecules, thanks to their higher volumetric energy density. Hence, the study will focus on utilising these fuels to foster the electrification of mobility, ensuring the stability of supply via energy storage in methane or methanol.