4.6 Article

Fuel-Cell Electric Vehicles: Plotting a Scientific and Technological Knowledge Map

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 12, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su12062334

Keywords

fuel cell electric vehicle; bibliometric analysis; patent analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The fuel-cell electric vehicle (FCEV) has been defined as a promising way to avoid road transport greenhouse emissions, but nowadays, they are not commercially available. However, few studies have attempted to monitor the global scientific research and technological profile of FCEVs. For this reason, scientific research and technological development in the field of FCEV from 1999 to 2019 have been researched using bibliometric and patent data analysis, including network analysis. Based on reports, the current status indicates that FCEV research topics have reached maturity. In addition, the analysis reveals other important findings: (1) The USA is the most productive in science and patent jurisdiction; (2) both Chinese universities and their authors are the most productive in science; however, technological development is led by Japanese car manufacturers; (3) in scientific research, collaboration is located within the tri-polar world (North America-Europe-Asia-Pacific); nonetheless, technological development is isolated to collaborations between companies of the same automotive group; (4) science is currently directing its efforts towards hydrogen production and storage, energy management systems related to battery and hydrogen energy, Life Cycle Assessment, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The technological development focuses on technologies related to electrically propelled vehicles; (5) the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy and SAE Technical Papers are the two most important sources of knowledge diffusion. This study concludes by outlining the knowledge map and directions for further research.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available