Search

Many countries and regions of the world are pursuing aggressive decarbonization policies in the transportation sector aiming to sharply reduce the sales of conventional gasoline and diesel-powered internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). Zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), such as battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs), have zero tailpipe emissions, but still can be considerably more expensive than ICEVs, which is one key factor hampering their wide-scale adoption. Still, many decarbonization roadmaps and plans call for a large ramp up of ZEVs in coming years. For example, the International Energy Agency's aggressive 2DS high H 2 scenario estimates 11 M BEVs and 4 M FCEVs sold in 2030 and California has also set aggressive sales targets under its ZEV Mandate. This paper provides a detailed life cycle cost analysis comparison for FCEV versus other vehicle technologies, assuming these international adoption scenarios are implemented using a learning rate approach. Results show that the fuel cell system is the key factor in making FCEV life cycle costs comparable to ICEV costs. With an 18% learning rate, FCEVs are estimated to be cost competitive with ICEVs by 2025, but with an 8% learning rate, this cost-competitive point is pushed out almost 25 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Technology learning rates can be dynamic quantities as a technology moves from early development to piloting and from low volume manufacturing to high volume manufacturing. This work describes a generalizable technology analysis approach for disaggregating observed technology cost reductions and presents results of this approach for one specific case study (micro-combined heat and power fuel cell systems in Japan). We build upon earlier reports that combine discussion of fuel cell experience curves and qualitative discussion of cost components by providing greater detail on the contributing mechanisms to observed cost reductions, which were not quantified in earlier reports. Greater standardization is added to the analysis approach, which can be applied to other technologies. This paper thus provides a key linkage that has been missing from earlier literature on energy-related technologies by integrating the output of earlier manufacturing cost studies with observed learning rates to quantitatively estimate the different components of cost reduction including economies of scale and cost reductions due to product performance and product design improvements. This work also provides updated fuel cell technology price versus volume trends from the California Self-Generation Incentive Program, including extensive data for solid-oxide fuel cells (SOFC) reported here for the first time. The Japanese micro-CHP market is found to have a learning rate of 18% from 2005 to 2015, while larger SOFC fuel cell systems (200 kW and above) in the California market are found to have a flat (near-zero) learning rate, and these are attributed to a combination of exogenous, market, and policy factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Long-distance road-freight transport emits a large share of Germany's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A potential solution for reducing GHG emissions in this sector is to use green hydrogen in fuel cell electric vehicles (FC-HDV) and establish an accompanying hydrogen refueling station (HRS) network. In this paper, we apply an existing refueling network design model to a HDV-HRS network for Germany until 2050 based on German traffic data for heavy-duty trucks and estimate its costs. Comparing different fuel supply scenarios (pipeline vs. on-site), The on-site scenario results show a network consisting of 137 stations at a cost of 8.38 billion € per year in 2050 (0.40 € per vehicle km), while the centralized scenario with the same amount of stations shows a cheaper cost with 7.25 billion euros per year (0.35 € per vehicle km). The hydrogen cost (LCOH) varies from 5.59 €/kg (pipeline) to 6.47 €/kg (on-site) in 2050. • Assessment of new refueling network design model and its cost for Germany in 2050. • Results show a network consisting of 137 stations. • Cost of an HDV-HRS network for on-site production is 8.38 bn€/a (6.47 €/kgH 2). • Cost of an HDV-HRS network for centralized production is 7.25 bn€/a (5.59 €/kg H 2). • Centralized production needs H 2 pipeline of 5381 km with 0.23 m average diameter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Simulated hydrogen (H 2) demand from 2030 California fuel cell vehicle deployment. • Simulated electrolysis H 2 production using PLEXOS power system model of Western US. • Flexible electrolysis operation can reduce system costs, carbon dioxide emissions. Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) have been proposed as an option for lowering carbon dioxide (CO 2) and pollutants emissions from the transportation sector, when implemented in combination with green hydrogen production methods such as water electrolysis powered by renewable electricity. FCEVs also have the added advantages of high specific energy density and rapid refueling, two important challenges that battery electric vehicles have not yet fully overcome. Moreover, flexible operation of electrolysis could support the grid and lower electricity costs. In this paper, we simulate time-varying FCEV hydrogen refueling demand for light, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles met using electrolysis systems distributed throughout the Western U.S. power system. We find that by oversizing electrolyzers the resulting load flexibility results in different hydrogen generation temporal profiles, average electricity costs, renewable curtailment levels, and CO 2 emissions. Our results indicate that increasing hydrogen production flexibility lowers hydrogen and electricity generation cost and CO 2 emissions, but there is a tradeoff between lowering operational cost and increasing electrolyzer capital cost, yielding a minimum total system cost at a size corresponding to between 80% and 90% annual capacity factor assuming a future electrolyzer cost of $300/kW. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]