Battery Electric Vehicles and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Rita Xu and Version 1 by Lucian Ioan Dulău.

During the last few years, electric and hydrogen vehicles have become an alternative to cars that use internal combustion engines. The number of electric and hydrogen vehicles sold has increased due to support from local governments and because car manufacturers will stop the production of internal combustion engines in the near future. The emissions of these vehicles while being driven are zero, but they still have an impact on the environment due to their fuel.

  • battery electric vehicles
  • fuel cell electric vehicles
  • hydrogen
  • hydrogen production
  • fuel consumption
  • CO2 emissions

1. Introduction

The transport sector makes an important contribution to climate change in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2) and greenhouse gas emissions due to the dependency on fossil fuels for vehicles that rely on internal combustion engines. Therefore, it is important to adopt more environmentally friendly vehicles, such as battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) powered by hydrogen [1].
All BEVs comprise an electric motor and a battery that powers the electric motor. The BEVs can be charged at home (outlet) or at a charging station.
FCEVs are powered by the chemical reaction of oxygen and hydrogen in the fuel cell, storing electricity and driving the motor with this energy. FCEVs have the advantage of longer travel distances and shorter charging times compared to BEVs [2].
Considering the fact that the number of BEVs and FCEVs sold has increased in recent years due to support from local governments and because car manufacturers focused their attention on these ecofriendly vehicles, it is important to determine the impact on the environment regarding CO2 emissions due to their fuel [3,4,5,6,7][3][4][5][6][7].
The toxic emissions of these vehicles while driven are zero. However, the ecofriendliness of a BEV depends on the power mix, which refers to the composition ratio of the electricity generation sources powering it [2]. The ecofriendliness of an FCEV depends on the production of its fuel, hydrogen. Most of the total hydrogen production is performed via the steam reforming of natural gas and other fossil primary energy, and only a small amount is based on renewable energies [3,4,5][3][4][5].

2. Battery Electric Vehicles and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles

A comparison between electric and hydrogen vehicles by considering their life cycle assessment was performed in [1]. In [2], the CO2 emission reduction potential of BEVs in China was investigated. The results show that in 2030, the emission in the transportation sector will be lower. In [3], the CO2 emissions associated with the deployment of EVs in Saudi Arabia (considering the energy mix) were investigated. The results showed that the replacement of 1% of petrol cars with EVs reduces emissions by 0.5%. A study was performed in [4] that investigated if the target for reducing emissions in 2050 in the United Kingdom is achievable. The results showed that plug-in hybrid electric vehicles should not be used by 2050 in order to comply with the target. A comparison of the CO2 emissions between internal combustion engines and EVs was performed in [5] for the Canary Islands. The results were similar, with the emissions being lower for the EVs only if the renewable energy sources had a high share in the power mix. Another study performed in [6] estimated that the CO2 emissions are 56% lower for BEVs when compared with internal combustion engines. In [7[7][8],8], the total life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced by passenger cars were investigated. The results showed that combustion engine vehicles emit the highest amount of GHG emissions, while BEVs can reduce these emissions by 89%. In [9[9][10][11],10,11], the impact of EVs on the emissions inside the European Union was investigated. The results showed that these emissions will not be reduced if fossil fuels still have a significant share in the power mix. The emissions of BEVs in Poland were investigated in [12,13,14][12][13][14]. The results show that the emissions are comparable with those of conventional combustion vehicles due to the high share of fossil fuel power plants in the power mix. A comparison of the CO2 emissions for PHEVs and BEVs was performed in [15]. In [16], the charging infrastructure, technology, and issues related to charging station identification were reviewed. The losses during charging were investigated in [17], with the losses being higher for single-phase charging (20.42%) when compared to three-phase charging (12.79%). In [18], the consumer preferences for electric vehicles and FCEVs were estimated; then, the greenhouse gas emissions were determined considering the power mix in South Korea. The results show that the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions was 4.7% when compared with the target for 2030. In [19], different hydrogen production methods were compared by considering environmental and economic aspects, with the results being better for electrolysis associated with renewable energy sources. The consumer preferences for electric and hydrogen vehicles were also investigated in [20,21][20][21]. The total cost of ownership of hydrogen vehicles was analyzed in [22]. A vehicle de-sign and total cost analysis for three types of fuel cell vehicles (simple fuel cell, hybrid fuel cell with regenerative brakes, and hybrid fuel cell with rooftop photovoltaics) were presented in [23]. Vehicles with an internal combustion engine, BEVs, and FCEVs were compared in [24] by considering uncertainties such as user and acceptance behavior, the security of the supply, and transport requirements. The fuels used in transport, namely, electricity and hydrogen, were analyzed and compared in [25]. The simulation and lifecycle assessment of electric vehicles and FCEVs was performed in [26,27][26][27] by considering different hydrogen production methods. The barriers to the acceptance and use of hydrogen vehicles were analyzed in [28]. The development and possible challenges regarding adopting hydrogen vehicles, such as infrastructure and ownership cost, were investigated in [29,30][29][30]. In [31], the potential hydrogen demand was determined, and an optimization model was determined in order to achieve the best production/demand cost for hydrogen. The demand for hydrogen in 2030 and the flexible electrolysis production that lowered the operating costs and CO2 emissions were simulated in [32]. The design for a hydrogen fueling station that integrated an ejector was presented in [33], and the proposed model was evaluated, with the results showing an improvement in energy efficiency. The fueling infrastructure of FCEVs was analyzed in [34[34][35],35], while in [36], a planning model was developed for a hydrogen supply infrastructure combined with renewable energy sources. In [37], the production cost and emissions for hydrogen from fossil fuels (coal and gas) and renewable energy sources were determined. In [38], a comparison of the emissions for hydrogen vehicles was performed by considering different scenarios between 2010 and 2050. The lowest total emissions were for FCEVs that used gaseous hydrogen. A comparison of two sampling methods for a 70 MPa hydrogen refueling station was presented in [39]. The types of fuel cells for a hydrogen vehicle were presented in [40], while in [41,42[41][42][43],43], the ways in which hydrogen is produced and the emissions in the hydrogen production process were analyzed. Control strategies were developed in [44,45][44][45] for fuel saving in FCEVs. In [46], the power consumption of refueling stations was optimized by considering the number of tanks and the volume and pressure in the tanks. In [47], the possible advantages and disadvantages of the use of hydrogen vehicles in an urban environment were investigated. An off-grid charging station was designed in [48,49][48][49] for electric and hydrogen vehicles using solar power. In [50], a stochastic model was designed in order to determine the unit commitment of the power sources and storage of an energy hub that included parking lots for hydrogen vehicles. The operation cost of the energy hub was reduced by 27.58% by considering demand response, by 12.68% when storage systems were used, and by 2.9% when hydrogen vehicles were used. The optimal planning of an islanded microgrid that comprised electric vehicles, hydrogen vehicles, and storage was studied in [51] for different weather conditions. The planning of an integrated power, hydrogen, and gas network that included hydrogen vehicles was optimized in [52,53][52][53]. The optimal scheduling of microgrids that comprised hydrogen vehicles in real-time and day-ahead power markets was determined in [54]. The operating cost of an integrated electricity and gas network for electric and hydrogen vehicles was minimized in [55] by considering different availability and capability scenarios. The optimization of biomass-based hybrid hydrogen/thermal energy storage system operation for a building and hydrogen vehicles was analyzed in [56] by considering two strategies: power demand with hydrogen load and thermal demand with hydrogen load. Power demand with hydrogen load obtained better results by considering the primary energy consumption saving ratio, annual total expenditure reduction ratio, and CO2 emission reduction ratio. A multi-objective optimization was performed in [57] for hybrid renewable energy systems that included BEVs and hydrogen vehicles. The supply performance results were better when only the hydrogen vehicles were connected, while the grid integration, economic, and environmental aspects were better when only the BEVs were connected. The urban heat island intensity and CO2 emissions in an urban city, considering different mobility concepts (conventional, electric, and hydrogen vehicles), regular power mixture, and power supplied only by wind turbines, was analyzed in [58]. The hydrogen vehicles fueled from a regular power mix had higher heat island intensity and CO2 emissions. The CO2 emissions were lower when the electric and hydrogen vehicles were powered with electricity generated from wind turbines. A management scheme was developed in [59] for a building that included solar, wind, and battery storage units, as well as electric and hydrogen vehicles, such that the cost of energy consumption was minimized. The air quality impact of FCEVs that were supplied in a considerable manner by renewable energy sources was investigated in [60], while in [61], the challenges regarding measurement were identified for the hydrogen industry, such as sampling, metering, quality control, and assurance.

References

  1. Bartolozzi, I.; Rizzi, F.; Frey, M. Comparison between hydrogen and electric vehicles by life cycle assessment: A case study in Tuscany, Italy. Appl. Energy 2013, 101, 103–111.
  2. Xiong, S.; Wang, Y.; Bai, B.; Ma, X. A hybrid life cycle assessment of the large-scale application of electric vehicles. Energy 2021, 216, 119314.
  3. Elshurafa, A.M.; Peerbocus, N. Electric vehicle deployment and carbon emissions in Saudi Arabia: A power system perspective. Electr. J. 2020, 33, 106774.
  4. Küfeoğlu, S.; Hong, D.K.K. Emissions performance of electric vehicles: A case study from the United Kingdom. Appl. Energy 2020, 260, 114241.
  5. Nuez, I.; Ruiz-García, A.; Osorio, J. A comparative evaluation of CO2 emissions between internal combustion and electric vehicles in small isolated electrical power systems—Case study of the Canary Islands. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 369, 133252.
  6. Armenta-Déu, C.; Cattin, E. Real Driving Range in Electric Vehicles: Influence on Fuel Consumption and Carbon Emissions. World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 166.
  7. Buberger, J.; Kersten, A.; Kuder, M.; Eckerle, R.; Weyh, T.; Thiringer, T. Total CO2-equivalent life-cycle emissions from commercially available passenger cars. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 159, 112158.
  8. Xia, X.; Li, P.; Xia, Z.; Wu, R.; Cheng, Y. Life cycle carbon footprint of electric vehicles in different countries: A review. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2022, 301, 122063.
  9. Gryparis, E.; Papadopoulos, P.; Leligou, H.C.; Psomopoulos, C.S. Electricity demand and carbon emission in power generation under high penetration of electric vehicles. A European Union perspective. Energy Rep. 2020, 6, 475–486.
  10. Fuinhas, J.A.; Koengkan, M.; Leitão, N.C.; Nwani, C.; Uzuner, G.; Dehdar, F.; Relva, S.; Peyerl, D. Effect of Battery Electric Vehicles on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 29 European Union Countries. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13611.
  11. Koengkan, M.; Fuinhas, J.A.; Teixeira, M.; Kazemzadeh, E.; Auza, A.; Dehdar, F.; Osmani, F. The Capacity of Battery-Electric and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles to Mitigate CO2 Emissions: Macroeconomic Evidence from European Union Countries. World Electr. Veh. J. 2022, 13, 58.
  12. Zimakowska-Laskowska, M.; Laskowski, P. Emission from Internal Combustion Engines and Battery Electric Vehicles: Case Study for Poland. Atmosphere 2022, 13, 401.
  13. Sobol, Ł.; Dyjakon, A. The Influence of Power Sources for Charging the Batteries of Electric Cars on CO2 Emissions during Daily Driving: A Case Study from Poland. Energies 2020, 13, 4267.
  14. Neugebauer, M.; Żebrowski, A.; Esmer, O. Cumulative Emissions of CO2 for Electric and Combustion Cars: A Case Study on Specific Models. Energies 2022, 15, 2703.
  15. Boretti, A. Supply of abundant and low-cost total primary energy to a growing world needs nuclear energy and hydrogen energy storage. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 46, 20136–20145.
  16. Savari, G.R.; Sathik, M.J.; Raman, L.A.; El-Shahat, A.; Hasanien, H.M.; Almakhles, D.; Abdel Aleem, S.H.E.; Omar, A.I. Assessment of charging technologies, infrastructure and charging station recommendation schemes of electric vehicles: A review. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2023, 14, 101938.
  17. Reick, B.; Konzept, A.; Kaufmann, A.; Stetter, R.; Engelmann, D. Influence of Charging Losses on Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions of Battery-Electric Vehicles. Vehicles 2021, 3, 736–748.
  18. Kim, I.; Kim, J.; Lee, J. Dynamic analysis of well-to-wheel electric and hydrogen vehicles greenhouse gas emissions: Focusing on consumer preferences and power mix changes in South Korea. Appl. Energy 2020, 260, 114281.
  19. Kothari, R.; Buddhi, D.; Sawhney, R.L. Comparison of environmental and economic aspects of various hydrogen production methods. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2008, 12, 553–563.
  20. Shina, J.; Hwang, W.S.; Choi, H. Can hydrogen fuel vehicles be a sustainable alternative on vehicle market?: Comparison of electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 143, 239–248.
  21. Khan, U.; Yamamoto, T.; Sato, H. Consumer preferences for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Japan. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 87, 102542.
  22. Jones, J.; Genovese, A.; Tob-Ogu, A. Hydrogen vehicles in urban logistics: A total cost of ownership analysis and some policy implications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 119, 109595.
  23. Tsuchiya, H. Innovative renewable energy solutions for hydrogen vehicles. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008, 32, 427–435.
  24. Wanitschke, A.; Hoffmann, S. Are battery electric vehicles the future? An uncertainty comparison with hydrogen and combustion engines. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2020, 35, 509–523.
  25. Jorgensen, K. Technologies for electric, hybrid and hydrogen vehicles: Electricity from renewable energy sources in transport. Util. Policy 2008, 16, 72–79.
  26. Wong, E.Y.C.; Ho, D.C.K.; So, S.; Tsang, C.-W.; Chan, E.M.H. Life Cycle Assessment of Electric Vehicles and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles Using the GREET Model—A Comparative Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4872.
  27. Ahmadi, P.; Khoshnevisan, A. Dynamic simulation and lifecycle assessment of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles considering various hydrogen production methods. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 26758–26769.
  28. Ajanovic, A.; Haas, R. Prospects and impediments for hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles in the transport sector. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 10049–10058.
  29. Tollefson, J. Hydrogen vehicles: Fuel of the future? Nature 2010, 464, 1262–1264.
  30. Hosseini, S.E.; Butler, B. An overview of development and challenges in hydrogen powered vehicles. Int. J. Green Energy 2020, 17, 13–37.
  31. Nagasawa, K.; Davidson, F.T.; Lloyd, A.C.; Webber, M.E. Impacts of renewable hydrogen production from wind energy in electricity markets on potential hydrogen demand for light-duty vehicles. Appl. Energy 2019, 235, 1001–1016.
  32. Zhang, C.; Greenblatt, J.B.; Wei, M.; Eichman, J.; Saxena, S.; Muratori, M.; Guerra, O.J. Flexible grid-based electrolysis hydrogen production for fuel cell vehicles reduces costs and greenhouse gas emissions. Appl. Energy 2020, 278, 115651.
  33. Wen, C.; Rogie, B.; Kærn, R.M.; Rothuizen, E. A first study of the potential of integrating an ejector in hydrogen fuelling stations for fuelling high pressure hydrogen vehicles. Appl. Energy 2020, 260, 113958.
  34. Bethoux, O. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Road Vehicles and Their Infrastructure: An Option towards an Environmentally Friendly Energy Transition. Energies 2020, 13, 6132.
  35. Robinius, M.; Linßen, J.; Grube, T.; Reuß, M.; Stenzel, P.; Syranidis, K.; Kuckertz, P.; Stolten, D. Comparative Analysis of Infrastructures: Hydrogen Fueling and Electric Charging of Vehicles. Energy Environ. 2018, 408, 1–108.
  36. Gan, W.; Yan, M.; Yao, W.; Guo, J.; Fang, J.; Ai, X.; Wen, J. Multi-Network Coordinated Hydrogen Supply Infrastructure Planning for the Integration of Hydrogen Vehicles and Renewable Energy. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2022, 58, 2875–2886.
  37. Longden, T.; Beck, F.J.; Jotzo, F.; Andrews, R.; Prasad, M. ‘Clean’ hydrogen?—Comparing the emissions and costs of fossil fuel versus renewable electricity based hydrogen. Appl. Energy 2022, 306, 118145.
  38. Ugurlu, A. An emission analysis study of hydrogen powered vehicles. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 26522–26535.
  39. Bacquart, T.; Moore, N.; Storms, W.; Chramosta, N.; Morris, A.; Murugan, A.; Gozlan, B.; Lescornez, Y.; Férat, S.; Pinte, G.; et al. Hydrogen fuel quality for transport—First sampling and analysis comparison in Europe on hydrogen refuelling station (70 MPa) according to ISO 14687 and EN 17124. Fuel Commun. 2021, 6, 100008.
  40. Manoharan, Y.; Hosseini, S.E.; Butler, B.; Alzhahrani, H.; Senior, B.T.F.; Ashuri, T.; Krohn, J. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles; Current Status and Future Prospect. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2296.
  41. Howarth, R.W.; Jacobson, M.Z. How green is blue hydrogen? Energy Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 1676–1687.
  42. Chakraborty, S.; Dash, S.K.; Elavarasan, R.M.; Kaur, A.; Elangovan, D.; Meraj, S.T.; Kasinathan, P.; Said, Z. Hydrogen Energy as Future of Sustainable Mobility. Front. Energy Res. 2022, 10, 893475.
  43. Rostrup-Nielsen, J.R.; Rostrup-Nielsen, T. Large-Scale Hydrogen Production. Cattech 2002, 6, 150–159.
  44. Hames, Y.; Kaya, K.; Baltacioglu, E.; Turksoy, A. Analysis of the control strategies for fuel saving in the hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2018, 43, 10810–10821.
  45. Kaya, K.; Hames, Y. Two new control strategies: For hydrogen fuel saving and extend the life cycle in the hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44, 18967–18980.
  46. Rothuizen, E.; Rokni, M. Optimization of the overall energy consumption in cascade fueling stations for hydrogen vehicles. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 582–592.
  47. Turoń, K. Hydrogen-powered vehicles in urban transport systems—Current state and development. Transp. Res. Procedia 2020, 45, 835–841.
  48. Mehrjerdi, H. Off-grid solar powered charging station for electric and hydrogen vehicles including fuel cell and hydrogen storage. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44, 11574–11583.
  49. Wang, Y.; Kazemi, M.; Nojavan, S.; Jermsittiparsert, K. Robust design of off-grid solar-powered charging station for hydrogen and electric vehicles via robust optimization approach. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 18995–19006.
  50. Nasir, M.; Jordehi, A.R.; Matin, S.A.A.; Tabar, V.S.; Tostado-Véliz, M.; Mansouri, S.A. Optimal operation of energy hubs including parking lots for hydrogen vehicles and responsive demands. J. Energy Storage 2022, 50, 104630.
  51. Aslani, M.; Imanloozadeh, A.; Hashemi-Dezaki, H.; Hejazi, M.A.; Nazififard, M.; Ketabi, A. Optimal probabilistic reliability-oriented planning of islanded microgrids considering hydrogen-based storage systems, hydrogen vehicles, and electric vehicles under various climatic conditions. J. Power Sources 2022, 52, 231100.
  52. Wei, X.; Zhang, X.; Sun, Y.; Qiu, J. Carbon Emission Flow Oriented Tri-Level Planning of Integrated Electricity–Hydrogen–Gas System with Hydrogen Vehicles. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2022, 58, 2607–2618.
  53. Tao, Y.; Qiu, J.; Lai, S.; Zhang, X.; Wang, G. Collaborative Planning for Electricity Distribution Network and Transportation System Considering Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles. IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrif. 2020, 6, 1211–1225.
  54. Lakouraj, M.M.; Niaz, H.; Liu, J.J.; Siano, P.; Anvari-Moghaddam, A. Optimal risk-constrained stochastic scheduling of microgrids with hydrogen vehicles in real-time and day-ahead markets. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 318, 128452.
  55. AlHajri, I.; Ahmadian, A.; Elkamel, A. Techno-economic-environmental assessment of an integrated electricity and gas network in the presence of electric and hydrogen vehicles: A mixed-integer linear programming approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 319, 128578.
  56. Zhang, X.; Yan, R.; Zeng, R.; Zhu, R.; Kong, X.; He, Y.; Li, H. Integrated performance optimization of a biomass-based hybrid hydrogen/thermal energy storage system for building and hydrogen vehicles. Renew. Energy 2022, 187, 801–818.
  57. Liu, J.; Yang, H.; Zhou, Y. Peer-to-peer trading optimizations on net-zero energy communities with energy storage of hydrogen and battery vehicles. Appl. Energy 2021, 302, 117578.
  58. Kolbe, K. Mitigating urban heat island effect and carbon dioxide emissions through different mobility concepts: Comparison of conventional vehicles with electric vehicles, hydrogen vehicles and public transportation. Transp. Policy 2019, 80, 1–11.
  59. Mehrjerdi, H.; Bornapour, M.; Hemmati, R.; Ghiasi, S.M.S. Unified energy management and load control in building equipped with wind-solar-battery incorporating electric and hydrogen vehicles under both connected to the grid and islanding modes. Energy 2019, 168, 919–930.
  60. Kinnon, M.M.; Shaffer, B.; Carreras-Sospedra, M.; Dabdub, D.; Samuelsen, G.S.; Brouwer, J. Air quality impacts of fuel cell electric hydrogen vehicles with high levels of renewable power generation. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 16592–16603.
  61. Murugan, A.; de Huu, M.; Bacquart, T.; van Wijk, J.; Arrhenius, K.; Ronde, I.; Hemfrey, D. Measurement challenges for hydrogen vehicles. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44, 19326–19333.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback