Economic and environmental comparison of conventional, hybrid, electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Published data from various sources are used to perform economic and environmental comparisons of four types of vehicles: conventional, hybrid, electric and hydrogen fuel cell. The production and utilization stages of the vehicles are taken into consideration. The comparison is based on a mathematical procedure, which includes normalization of economic indicators (prices of vehicles and fuels during the vehicle life and driving range) and environmental indicators (greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions), and evaluation of an optimal relationship between the types of vehicles in the fleet. According to the comparison, hybrid and electric cars exhibit advantages over the other types. The economic efficiency and environmental impact of electric car use depends substantially on the source of the electricity. If the electricity comes from renewable energy sources, the electric car is advantageous compared to the hybrid. If electricity comes from fossil fuels, the electric car remains competitive only if the electricity is generated on board. It is shown that, if electricity is generated with an efficiency of about 50–60% by a gas turbine engine connected to a high-capacity battery and an electric motor, the electric car becomes advantageous. Implementation of fuel cells stacks and ion conductive membranes into gas turbine cycles permits electricity generation to increase to the above-mentioned level and air pollution emissions to decrease. It is concluded that the electric car with on-board electricity generation represents a significant and flexible advance in the development of efficient and ecologically benign vehicles.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Electric Vehicles and Infrastructure · Energy, Environment, and Transportation Policies · Advanced Battery Technologies Research
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (25)
Show source-provided references
1. M. Walwijk., M. Buckman, W.P. Troelstra, N. Elam, Automotive fuels for the future: The search for alternatives, Report, International Energy Agency, 1999. Via www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/1990/autofuel99.pdf, accessed on March 4, 2005.
2. Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation (GREET 1.6) model. Transportation Technology Research and Development Center, Argonne National Laboratory. Via www.transportation.anl.gov/ttrdc/greet, accessed on March 10, 2005.
3. M.A. Weiss, J.B. Heywood, E.M. Drake, A. Schafer, F.F. Au Yeung, On the Road in 2020, Report MIT EL 00-003, Energy Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, October, 2000.
4. J. Row, M. Reynolds, G. Woloshyniuk, A. Gilbride, J. Manson, R. Legati, R. Monk, G. Arnold, Life-Cycle Value Assessment (LCVA) of Fuel Supply Options for Fuel Cell Vehicles in Canada. Report. Pembina Institute, 2002.10.4271/2003-01-0413 ↗
5. R. Dhingra, J. Overly, G. Davis, Life-Cycle Environmental Evaluation of Aluminum and Composite Intensive Vehicles, Report, University of Tennessee, Center for Clean Products and Technologies, 1999
6. United States Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency, and Renewable Energy. Via www.fueleconomy.gov, accessed May 15, 2005.
7. Canadian driver, Canada's Online Auto Magazine, July 30, 2002, Via www.canadiandriver.com/previews/fcx-v4.htm, accessed on May 12, 2005.
8. Batteries for electric drive vehicles: evaluation of future characteristics and costs through a Delphi study
9. Energy Information Administration, Official energy statistics from the U.S. Government, Via http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/steo_query/app/pricepage.htm, accessed on June 5, 2005.
10. C.E.G. Padro, V. Putsche, Survey of the Economics of Hydrogen Technologies, Report No. NREL/TP-570-27079, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, 1999.10.2172/12212 ↗
11. M. Granovskii, I. Dincer, M.A. Rosen, Life cycle assessment of hydrogen fuel cell and gasoline vehicles, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 2006, in press.10.1016/j.ijhydene.2005.10.004 ↗
12. P.L. Spath, M.K. Mann, Life Cycle Assessment of Hydrogen Production via Natural Gas Steam Reforming, Report No NREL/TP-570-27637, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, 2001.10.2172/764485 ↗
13. Houghton · 1996
14. Weighting methodologies for emission from transport fuels, Australian Greenhouse Office, Via www.greenhouse.gov.au/transport/comparison/pubs/3ch1.pdf, accessed on March 5, 2005.
15. S. Basrur, D. Pengelly, M. Campbell, R. Macfarlane, A. Li-Muller, Toronto Air Quality Index: Health Links Analysis. Report, Toronto Public Health, 2001.
16. M. Rantik, Life Cycle Assessment of Five Batteries for Electric Vehicles Under Different Charging Regimes, Report, KFB-Stockholm, 1999.
17. Impact of the European Union vehicle waste directive on end-of-life options for polymer electrolyte fuel cells10.1016/S0378-7753(01)01019-9 ↗
18. Life cycle assessment of fuel cell stacks10.1016/S0360-3199(00)00053-7 ↗
19. M. Granovskii, I. Dincer, M.A. Rosen, Environmental and economic aspects of hydrogen production and utilization in fuel cell vehicles, J. Power Sources, 2006, in press.10.1016/j.jpowsour.2005.07.044 ↗
20. P. Meier, Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Systems and Applications for Climate Change Policy Analysis, Report No. UWFDM-1181, Fusion Technology Institute, 2002.
21. P. Meier, Life-cycle assessment of electricity generation systems and applications for climate change policy analysis, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2002.
22. Kirillin · 1979
23. Modelling of simple hybrid solid oxide fuel cell and gas turbine power plant10.1016/S0378-7753(02)00051-4 ↗
24. M. Granovskii, I. Dincer, M.A. Rosen, Application of oxygen ion-conductive membranes for simultaneous electricity and hydrogen generation, J. Chem. Eng. Sci., submitted for publication.
25. Electric vehicles in the next millennium10.1016/S0378-7753(99)00037-3 ↗