4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

The effects of driving patterns and PEM fuel cell degradation on the lifecycle assessment of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 45, 期 5, 页码 3595-3608

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.01.165

关键词

Fuel cell vehicles; Fuel cell degradation; Driving patterns; Fuel economy; Life cycle emission

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research paper mainly deals with the realistic simulation of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and the development of a lifecycle assessment (LCA) tool to calculate and compare the environmental impacts of hydrogen fuel cell passenger vehicles with conventional vehicles. Since fuel cell vehicles are equipped with regenerative braking, they have strong potential to recover an ample portion of the energy being wasted in the braking system. Thus, the driving cycle can significantly affect the performance of fuel cell vehicles. In order to investigate the effect of driving patterns, several driving patterns are considered, and both vehicle fuel economy and lifecycle emissions are calculated and compared. Fuel cell degradation, on the other hand, is another major problem fuel cell vehicles face. This is mainly caused by the starts/stops, acceleration/deceleration, membrane humidity variation and a high load of the engine. When the vehicle operates on various driving patterns, the fuel cell will degrade which eventually affects the fuel economy. The effect of fuel cell degradation is also investigated for these driving patterns, and the results are compared. The results showed that the highway driving cycle has the lowest total lifecycle emission compared to New York city driving cycle, the city of Surrey (CoS) driving cycle, and the UDDS driving cycles. The results also indicate that fuel cell degradation undesirably affected the average fuel economy of the vehicle for about 23%. (C) 2019 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据