Comparison of Battery Electric Vehicles and Fuel Cell Vehicles
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Electric cars using hydrogen to power a fuel cell vehicle (called FCEV for Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles);
- Electric vehicles using electricity from a battery (called BEV for Battery Electric Vehicles).
- The autonomy of the vehicle;
- Refueling time;
- The cost of use;
- The purchase cost;
- The carbon emissions;
- Safety;
- The lifetime.
2. Advantages/Constraints of the Two Car Propulsion Modes
- Concerning the BEV, the Nissan Leaf will be offered on the European market at a price of €32,640 including taxes. The manufacturer announces an autonomy of 250 km in the standard cycle, an autonomy in real situation of 140 km. A full charge on a domestic socket takes 13 h. It is also possible to recharge up to 80% of the nominal capacity on a fast charger in 30 min.
- As for the FCEV, the Toyota Mirai will be offered on the European market at a price of €79,200 including taxes. The manufacturer claims an autonomy of 500 km. A full charge takes 3 min.
2.1. The Fuel Cel Electric Cars
- The Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) process, in which natural gas is reacted with steam to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide. As indicated by Singh et al. [10], about half of the world’s hydrogen supply in 2015 was produced by reforming natural gas (48%). This mode is not suitable for the development of a hydrogen economy for two reasons: reforming natural gas produces as much pollution and CO2 as burning the natural gas directly, and if this mode is used when the hydrogen economy is fully developed, the increased demand for natural gas to produce hydrogen would deplete natural gas reserves. At present, Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) is the cheapest method of producing hydrogen.
- The Partial Oxidation of Oil (POX) is the process where the hydrocarbons are subjected to partial oxidation at a temperature of 1300–1550 °C. This oil gasification process is currently the second most used method to produce hydrogen (30%).
- The Coal Gasification (CG) is the process by which coal is subjected to partial oxidation at a temperature of 1200–1350 °C to produce a mixture of Carbon Monoxide and Hydrogen. This gasification process is currently the third most used method to produce hydrogen (18%).
- The electrolysis of water is the process of splitting water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen using an electrolyzer. Electrolysis is preferred in industry where high purity hydrogen is required, but is more expensive. The great advantage of this method of production, as pointed out by Singh et al. [10], is the fact that hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis of water from electricity produced by solar photovoltaic (PV), wind power, hydroelectric power and thus electrolysis produces only pure oxygen and pure hydrogen. Electrolysis accounts for 4% of current hydrogen production.
2.2. The Battery Electric Vehicules
3. Studies on the Development of Hydrogen Distribution Networks
3.1. Forecast for the Development of Hydrogen Infrastructure in Norway
- The decentralised production, especially electrolysis, will play a central role due to the sparse population in Norway. This shift towards on-site electrolysis is also achieved by considering a high CO2 taxation of €100/t CO2.
- The cost of hydrogen will be competitive with other propulsion modes from a penetration rate of 5% expected in 2025.
- From a penetration of 25%, transport by gaseous hydrogen trucks will be replaced by pipelines.
3.2. Development of a Large-Scale Hydrogen Infrastructure for the Transport Sector in the Netherlands
- The Dutch case study shows that the transition to a large-scale H2-based transport is economically feasible for the three penetration scenarios for HFCV in the Netherlands in 2050 (pessimistic with 12% market share, base case with 25% and optimistic case with 50%).
- The achievable CO2 reduction potential is limited to 30% due to the use of hydrocarbon resources (natural gas, coal and biomass). With the use of carbon capture and storage, 85% of gas emissions can be avoided.
- It can be seen that the Rotterdam area plays a major role and that the H2 supply network is similar to the current Dutch petrol network.
3.3. Optimal Design and Time Deployment of a New Hydrogen Transmission Network for France
- The two stage approach generally used (which first looks for a topology of minimal length and then optimizes the diameters) is not the best one: increasing the length of the network can help to decrease the network cost by using smaller diameters.
- The network layout follows some natural corridors (Rhone’s valley, Paris-Bordeaux, French riviera, …) and looks like the natural gas network.
- The investment costs in the network are reduced by 18% with respect to the minimal spanning tree (from €2.868 to 2.347 billion) by reducing the average diameter by 30% (from 440 mm to 300 mm) and by increasing the total length by 5% (from 5035 km to 5274 km).
- A high scenario hydrogen market share for fuels for individual cars ending with 74.5% market share;
- A low scenario for hydrogen market share ending with 20% market share.
- For the medium term (before 2025) and low market share (less than 10%), trucks are the most economical options for delivering hydrogen to refueling stations.
- In the long term, the pipeline option is considered an economically viable option once the market share of hydrogen energy for car refueling reaches 10%.
4. A Comparison of the Costs of New Distribution Infrastructures
- They show that at low market penetration levels of a few hundred thousand vehicles, the costs of the two infrastructures (hydrogen refuelling stations and battery charging networks) are essentially the same.
- Hydrogen is then more expensive during the transition period to electricity generation from electrolysis and geological storage, both of which are needed to access renewable hydrogen from surplus electricity.
- If vehicle penetration increases to 20 million vehicles, a battery charging infrastructure would cost around €51 billion, making it more expensive than a hydrogen infrastructure, which would cost around €40 billion.
5. Future Research
- The CO2 emissions per kilometer for the two alternative powertrains: BEV and FCEV;
- The total cost of the two alternative distribution infrastructures.
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Cuenot, F. Do Not Breathe Here: Tackling Air Pollution from Vehicles; Final Report; Transport & Environment: Paris, France, 2015; Available online: https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/dont-breathe-here-tackling-air-pollution-from-vehicles/ (accessed on 1 September 2023).
- Baxter, J. Energy from Gas: Taking a Whole System Approach; Institution of Mechanical Engineers: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Bicer, Y.; Dincer, I. Comparative life cycle assessment of hydrogen, methanol and electric vehicles from well to wheel. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 3767–3777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Energy Agency. Global EV Outlook 2023, Catching up with Climate Ambitions; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Saber, C.; Rouhana, N. Chargeurs de batteries de véhicule électrique. Cult. Sci. L’Ingénieur 2020, 99. Available online: https://eduscol.education.fr/sti/sites/eduscol.education.fr.sti/files/ressources/pedagogiques/12099/12099-chargeurs-de-batteries-pour-ve-ensps.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2023).
- De Wolf, D.; Kilani, M.; Diop, N. Environmental impacts of enlarging electric vehicles market share. Environ. Econ. Policy Stud. 2022, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinius, M.; Linsen, J.; Grube, T.; Reus, M.; Stenzel, P.; Syranidis, K.; Kuckertz, P.; Stolten, D. Comparative Analysis of Infrastructures: Hydrogen Fueling and Electric Charging of Vehicles. Energy Environ. 2017, 408, 1–126. [Google Scholar]
- CNRS. Hydrogen Car for All? In Proceedings of the European Fuel Cell Car Workshop, Orléans, France, 1–3 March 2017; Available online: https://news.cnrs.fr/articles/hydrogen-cars-for-all (accessed on 1 September 2023).
- Association Francaise pour l’Hydrogène et les piles à Combustibles, Mobilité hydrogène en France. 2018. Available online: http://www.afhypac.org/mobilite-hydrogene-france/ (accessed on 1 September 2023).
- Singh, S.; Jain, S.; PS, V.; Tiwari, A.K.; Nouni, M.R.; Pandey, J.K.; Goel, S. Hydrogen: A sustainable fuel for future of the transport sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 51, 623–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shukla, A.; Pekny, J.; Venkatasubramanian, V. An optimization framework for cost effective design of refueling station infrastructure for alternative fuel vehicles. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2011, 35, 1431–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Debray, B.; Weinberger, B. Guide Pour L’évaluation de la Conformité et la Certification des Systèmes à Hydrogène; ADEME: Angers, France, 2021; pp. 1–192. [Google Scholar]
- Clause, E.; Larrouturou, B.; Rostagnat, M.; Wallard, I. Sécurité du Développement de la Filière Hydrogène; Rapport No. 014277-01; Inspection Générale de l’Environnement et du Développement Durable: Paris, France, 2022; pp. 1–111.
- Andwari, A.M.; Pesiridis, A.; Rajoo, S.; Martinez-Botas, R.; Esfahanian, V. A review of Battery Electric Vehicle technology and readiness levels. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 78, 414–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearre, N.S.; Kempton, W.; Guensler, R.L.; Elango, V.V. Electric vehicles: How much range is required for a day’s driving? Transp. Res. Part Emerg. Technol. 2011, 19, 1171–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Transport and Environnement. How Clean Are Electric Cars? Transport and Environment Analysis of Electric Car Lifecycle CO2 Emissions. 2020, pp. 1–33. Available online: https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/TEs-EV-life-cycle-analysis-LCA.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2023).
- Sun, P.; Bisschop, R.; Niu, H.; Huang, X. A Review of Battery Fires in Electric Vehicles. Fire Technol. 2020, 56, 1361–1410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasa, I.; Mariyappan, S.; Saurel, D.; Adelhelm, P.; Koposov, A.Y.; Masquelier, C.; Croguennec, L.; Casas-Cabanas, M. Challenges of today for Na-based batteries of the future: From materials to cell metrics. J. Power Sources 2021, 482, 228872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gauthier, L. La Batterie Sodium-Ion Débarque sur le Marché. Révolution Energétique 2023. Available online: https://www.revolution-energetique.com/la-batterie-sodium-ion-debarque-sur-le-marche/ (accessed on 1 September 2023).
- Hu, X.; Zou, C.; Tang, X.; Liu, T.; Hu, L. Cost-Optimal Energy Management of Hybrid Electric Vehicles Using Fuel Cell/Battery Health-Aware Predictive Control. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2020, 35, 382–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kandidayeni, M.; Trovao, J.P.; Soleymani, M.; Boulon, L. Towards health-aware energy managementstrategies in fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles: A review. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 1021–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iqbal, M.; Laurent, J.; Benmouna, A.; Becherif, M.; Ramadan, H.S.; Claude, F. Ageing-aware load following control for composite-cost optimal energy management of fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle. Energy 2022, 254, 124233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stiller, C.; Bunger, U.; Moller-Holst, S.; Svensson, A.M.; Espegren, K.A.; Nowak, M. Pathways to a hydrogen fuel insfratstucture in Norway. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2010, 35, 2597–2601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Konda, M.; Shah, N.; Brandon, N. Optimal transition towards a large-scale hydrogen infrastructure for the transport sector: The case for the Netherlands. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2011, 36, 4619–4635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- André, J.; Auray, S.; Brac, J.; De Wolf, D.; Maisonnier, G.; Ould-Sidi, M.-M. Antoine Simonnet, Design and dimensioning of hydrogen transmission pipeline networks. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2013, 229, 239–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- André, J.; Auray, S.; De Wolf, D.; Sidi, M.O.; Simonnet, A. Time development of new hydrogen transmission pipeline networks for France. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 10323–10337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- HyFrance 2 Project. Final Report: Evaluation Technico-Economique du Développement d’une Filitère Hydrogène en France et de ses Impacts sur le Système Énergétique, L’économie et L’environnement. 2007. Available online: http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_french/H2-rapport-_HyFrance_07.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2023).
- Service public fédéral Mobilité et Transports, Enquête sur la mobilité des belges. 2017. Available online: https://mobilit.belgium.be/fr/mobilite-durable/enquetes-et-resultats/enquete-monitor-sur-la-mobilite-des-belges (accessed on 1 September 2023).
Model | Type | Price | Autonomy | Charging Time |
BMW I3 | BEV | €32,100 | 200 km | 8 h |
Citroen C-Zero | BEV | €30,235 | 150 km | 15 h |
Hyundai Ioniq | BEV | €35,850 | 280 km | 7 h |
Kia Soul EV | BEV | €35,400 | 200 km | 8 h |
Nissan Leaf | BEV | €32,640 | 140–250 km | 13 h |
Peugeot Ion | BEV | €30,370 | 150 km | 11 h |
Renault Zoe | BEV | €25,900 | 200–350 km | 10 h |
Tesla S | BEV | €75,700 | 600 km | 38 h |
Volkwagen E-Goff | BEV | €39,350 | 300km | 17 h |
Average | BEV | €37,505 | 261 km | 13 h |
Model | Type | Price | Autonomy | Charging Time |
Toyota Mirai | FCEV | €79,200 | 500 km | 3 min |
Honda Clarity | FCEV | €57,600 | 650 km | 3 min |
Hyundai ix 35 | FCEV | €66,550 | 500 km | 3 min |
Average | FCEV | €62,075 | 575 km | 3 min |
Model | CO2 per km |
---|---|
BEV | 2.7 g |
FCEV | 20.9 g |
Model | CO2 per km |
---|---|
BEV | 170 gr |
FCEV | 57 gr |
Land | BEV’s CO2 Reduction |
---|---|
Poland | −29% |
Germany | −56% |
Italy | −57% |
Netherlands | −58% |
UK | −62% |
Belgium | −65% |
Spain | −67% |
France | −77% |
Sweden | −79% |
EU27 | E63% |
% | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2035 | 2040 | 2045 | 2050 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H | 0.1 | 1.5 | 3.3 | 10 | 23.7 | 35 | 55 | 68 | 74.5 |
L | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
De Wolf, D.; Smeers, Y. Comparison of Battery Electric Vehicles and Fuel Cell Vehicles. World Electr. Veh. J. 2023, 14, 262. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj14090262
De Wolf D, Smeers Y. Comparison of Battery Electric Vehicles and Fuel Cell Vehicles. World Electric Vehicle Journal. 2023; 14(9):262. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj14090262
Chicago/Turabian StyleDe Wolf, Daniel, and Yves Smeers. 2023. "Comparison of Battery Electric Vehicles and Fuel Cell Vehicles" World Electric Vehicle Journal 14, no. 9: 262. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj14090262