4.7 Article

Comparison of well-to-wheels energy use and emissions of a hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle relative to a conventional gasoline-powered internal combustion engine vehicle

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
Volume 45, Issue 1, Pages 972-983

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.10.192

Keywords

Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle; Well-to-Wheels; Life cycle analysis; Energy use; Emissions; Toyota Mirai

Funding

  1. Fuel Cell Technologies Office of the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy [DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  2. DOE's Fuel Cell Technologies Office

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The operation of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (HFCEVs) is more efficient than that of gasoline conventional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), and produces zero tailpipe pollutant emissions. However, the production, transportation, and refueling of hydrogen are more energy- and emissions-intensive compared to gasoline. A well-to-wheels (WTW) energy use and emissions analysis was conducted to compare a HFCEV (Toyota Mirai) with a gasoline conventional ICEV (Mazda 3). Two sets of specific fuel consumption data were used for each vehicle: (1) fuel consumption derived from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) window-sticker fuel economy figure, and (2) weight-averaged fuel consumption based on physical vehicle testing with a chassis dynamometer on EPA's five standard driving cycles. The WTW results show that a HFCEV, even fueled by hydrogen from a fossil-based production pathway (via steam methane reforming of natural gas), uses 5%-33% less WTW fossil energy and has 15%-45% lower WTW greenhouse gas emissions compared to a gasoline conventional ICEV. The WTW results are sensitive to the source of electricity used for hydrogen compression or liquefaction. (C) 2019 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available