A Comparative Durability Cost Analysis of Internal Combustion Engine, Electric and Fuel Cell Vehicles

<div class="htmlview paragraph">The purpose of this system study was to compare the performance and fuel consumption of a pure fuel cell vehicle (<i>i.e.</i> with no battery included) with an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle of similar weight in different drive cycles. Both light and heavy duty vehicles are studied.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">For light duty vehicles, the New European drive cycle, NEDC [70/220/EEC], the FTP75 [EPA] and a Swedish driving pattern from the city of Lund [<span class="xref">Ericsson, 2000</span>] are utilised. The fuel consumption for these drive cycles was compared with ICE vehicles of similar weight, an Ibiza Stella 1.4 (year 2000) from Seat and a Volvo 960 2.5 E sedan (year 1995). For heavy duty vehicles, urban buses in this study, two drive cycles were employed, the synthetic CBD14 and the real bus route 85 from Gothenburg, Sweden.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">It can be concluded that marked improvements in fuel economy can be achieved for hydrogen-fuelled light and heavy duty vehicles. The fuel consumption of a small fuel cell vehicle was 50% less than the corresponding ICE vehicle in both the NEDC and the FTP75. With proper dimensioning of the system components, e.g. the engine, further reductions in fuel consumption can be achieved. The range of more than 500 km with 5 kg of hydrogen in a 345 bar fuel tank was comparable to an ICE vehicle. If the pressure is raised to 690 bar, a driving range of 600 km could be achieved. As the auxiliary system counteracts the increase in fuel cell efficiency, raising the minimum operating voltage from 0.6 to 0.75 V in a 50 kW fuel cell system, provides only a 5% reduction in fuel consumption. A fuel cell bus operated in the CBD14 and the bus route 85, compared with diesel-fuelled urban bus of similar weight, demonstrates a reduction in fuel consumption of 33 and 37 % respectively.</div>

<div class="htmlview paragraph">Road transport has become a large source of CO<sub>2</sub> emission and accounted in 1998 for about 27% of the CO<sub>2</sub> emission in Sweden. Efficient energy use and the use of renewable energy sources are main options for reducing CO<sub>2</sub> emission from vehicles in the future. In this study, the use of energy carriers based on renewable energy sources in battery-powered electric vehicles (BPEVs), fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) and internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) is compared regarding energy efficiency, emission and cost. The cost calculations include energy, environmental and vehicle costs. The potential for non-technical measures to contribute to a reduction of road transport CO<sub>2</sub> emission is also briefly discussed and related to the potential for technical measures.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">There is the potential to double the primary energy efficiency compared with the current level by utilizing vehicles with electric drivetrains. There is also major potential to increase the efficiency of conventional ICEVs. All the studied vehicles with alternative powertrains (HEVs, FCEVs, and HEVs) would have lower energy and environmental costs than the ICEV. The HEVs, FCEVs and BPEVs have, however, higher total costs than the future methanol-fuelled ICEV, if the vehicle cost is added to the energy and environmental costs, even if significant cost reductions for key technologies such as fuel cells, batteries and fuel storages are assumed. The cost differences between the various alternatives may, however, be relatively small and, with regard to the major uncertainties in the cost estimates, no certain winner for the future can today be chosen among the technical options (vehicles and fuels). Several of the promising technologies are, however, dependent on the development of common core technologies such as the electric drivetrain, thermal gasification of biomass, improved combustion technologies and batteries.</div>

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">Fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) are gaining increasing interest due to contributions to zero emissions and carbon neutrality. Thermal management of FCEVs is essential for fuel cell lifespan and vehicle driving performance, but there is a lack of specialized thermal balance test standards for FCEVs. Considering differences in heat generating mechanism between FCEVs and internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), current thermal balance method for ICEVs should be amended to suit for FCHVs. This study discussed thermal balance performance of ICEV and FCHVs under various regulated test conditions based on thermal balance tests in wind tunnel of two FCEVs and an ICEV. FCEVs reported overheat risk during low-speed climbing test due to continuous large power output from fuel cell (FC). Frequent power source switches between FC and battery were observed under dual constrains of fuel cell temperature and battery state of charge (SOC). Significant temperature exceedance of ICEV occurred during flameout and soaking test due to heat accumulation after flameout. Duration time to reach thermal balance state for FCEVs was longer than ICEV due to deterioration in thermal exchange efficiency resulted from inconspicuous temperature difference between FC and coolant. Several modifications including extended test duration time and integration of test conditions were proposed to develop thermal balance test condition sequence for FCEVs. Graded verification system was recommended to comprehensively judge thermal management performance of FCEVs. Such proposal was expected to support the formulation of FCEVs thermal balance test standard and guide improvements of vehicle thermal management performance.</div></div>

The option of decarbonizing urban freight transport using battery electric vehicle (BEV) seems promising. However, there is currently a strong debate whether fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV) might be the better solution. The question arises as to how a fleet of FCEV influences the operating cost, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and primary energy demand in comparison to BEVs and to Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle (ICEV). To investigate this, we simulate the urban food retailing as a representative share of urban freight transport using a multi-agent transport simulation software. Synthetic routes as well as fleet size and composition are determined by solving a vehicle routing problem. We compute the operating costs using a total cost of ownership analysis and the use phase emissions as well as primary energy demand using the well to wheel approach. While a change to BEV results in 17–23% higher costs compared to ICEV, using FCEVs leads to 22–57% higher costs. Assuming today’s electricity mix, we show a GHG emission reduction of 25% compared to the ICEV base case when using BEV. Current hydrogen production leads to a GHG reduction of 33% when using FCEV which however cannot be scaled to larger fleets. Using current electricity in electrolysis will increase GHG emission by 60% compared to the base case. Assuming 100% renewable electricity for charging and hydrogen production, the reduction from FCEVs rises to 73% and from BEV to 92%. The primary energy requirement for BEV is in all cases lower and for higher compared to the base case. We conclude that while FCEV have a slightly higher GHG savings potential with current hydrogen, BEV are the favored technology for urban freight transport from an economic and ecological point of view, considering the increasing shares of renewable energies in the grid mix.

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">The rising demand for electric vehicles (EVs) has pushed automakers to prioritize visual brand consistency across both EVs and internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. A main design factor which is influenced by this trend is the front grille. In order to achieve uniform aesthetic looks, passenger car manufacturers often reduce the front grille openings and limit airflow. This closed grille style is common in electric vehicle. However, this creates challenges for internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles with snorkel-type air intake systems, leading to reduced airflow and higher temperatures in the engine bay and intake air which eventually gets sucked in the engine resulting in low volumetric efficiency.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">Maintaining a cooler intake air is vital for ICE performance. Adjusting snorkel position and airflow patterns in low temperature zones ensures the engine receives air at low temperatures. This improves the combustion efficiency, throttle response and eventually it reduces the risk of knock. This study emphasizes the need to control intake air temperature in such a way that the air intake system supports to meet performance and emissions targets.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">In our study, we use simulation tools such as computation fluid dynamics (CFD) and experiments in order to demonstrate that the ICE vehicle grille design having restricted air flow which are similar to the electric vehicles, increases the air temperature that enters into the snorkel of air intake system. This pre-heated air that enters into engine reduces its efficiency, power output and also might eventually affect the emissions. The findings in our study quantifies the thermal penalty that are linked to this design standardization.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">In order to overcome these issues, the study recommends tailored front-end module thermal management strategies for ICE vehicles particularly for air intake system. The approach optimizes airflow and minimizes heat gain in snorkel of air intakes and hence preserving engine performance without sacrificing the visual consistency between EV and ICE models.</div></div>

A comparison of technologies for carbon-neutral passenger transport

Securing Platinum-Group Metals for Transport Low-Carbon Transition

We calculated the total cost of ownership (TCO) of fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) in 2017, 2020, 2035, and 2050. Our TCO model incorporates proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) cost and durability data that we obtained during our expert elicitation interviews [1]. Our assumptions, including hydrogen storage system and fuel costs, are consistent with those published by the U.S. Department of Energy [2, 3]. We characterized the uncertainty associated with FCEV life cycle costs, and we compared our FCEV projections to the DOE’s 2035 projections for internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), battery electric vehicles (BEVs), hybrid-electric vehicles (HEVs), and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). In our sensitivity analyses, we studied the dependence of FCEV TCO on vehicle lifetime, hydrogen fuel cost, and hydrogen storage system cost. All monetary values are expressed in 2017 USD. On median, we estimated the FCEV TCO to be $0.42/mile in 2017, $0.33/mile in 2020, $0.19/mile in 2035, and $0.18/mile in 2050 (Figure 1). Our 2017 and 2020 estimates ranged widely. Our 2017 estimates ranged from $0.40 to $0.75/mile and 2020 estimates ranged from $0.31 to $0.51/mile. By 2035, FCEVs could be competitive with ICEVs, BEVs, HEVs, and PHEVs, as long as the PEMFC stack lasts sufficiently long. If the FCEV’s lifetime falls below 11 yrs, FCEVs could become more expensive than competing vehicles. At about 11 yrs, the FCEV’s TCO exceeds that of the BEV. If stack durability remains a challenge, replacing the stack could be economical. Achieving a hydrogen fuel cost below $4/kg H2 and hydrogen system cost below $390/kg H2 could further improve FCEVs’ competitiveness.

Comparative life cycle assessment of conventional combustion engine vehicle, battery electric vehicle and fuel cell electric vehicle in Nepal

Finding the most suitable vehicle type for projected years using analytic hierarchy process integrated with economic and environmental aspects

The transportation sector is generally thought to be contributing up to 25% of all greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions globally. Hence, reducing the usage of fossil fuels by the introduction of electrified powertrain technologies such as hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), battery electric vehicle (BEV) and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV) is perceived as a way towards a more sustainable future. With a seemingly more significant shift towards BEV development and roll-out, the research and development of BEV technologies has taken on increasing importance in improving BEV performance and ensuring its competitiveness. Numerical simulation, using MATLAB, is performed as a tool to investigate and to improve the overall performance of BEVs. This study provides an overview of the possible technology outcome and market consequences for future compact BEVs along with HEVs, FCEVs and internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEV). The techno-economics of BEVs, market projection and cost analysis up to 2050 are investigated, as are important BEV characteristics alongside those of other types of vehicles. Well-to-wheel analysis of BEVs is also studied and compared with HEV, FCEV and ICE.

The impact of human behavior on vehicle efficiency has been vastly explored for internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. However, human behavioral impacts on vehicle efficiency have not yet transitioned to include battery electric vehicles (BEVs). Understanding the impact of human behavior that achieves BEV efficiency is essential globally, as BEVs begin to retain a significant portion of the automotive market share. BEV sales trends in the US have seen consistent growth since 2010, amounting to over 200,000 units sold by 2015. Globally, the total amount of BEVs and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) is expected to be 40-70 million by 2025. In light of the growth estimates, defining behavior that induces efficient energy consumption when driving BEVs is essential as these vehicles have a traveling distance constrained to 60-120 miles and can require 1-8 hours to attain a fully charged battery at commercial charging stations. With firm traveling distances and long charging times, defining human behavioral impacts on BEV efficiency will allow drivers to get the most range out of their vehicle. In order to develop categories of BEV drivers in terms of efficiency, an empirical experiment was conducted to determine if clustering drivers on their energy consumption profiles invokes significant categories. The driving attributes that defined the clusters were extracted to compare whether or not efficient BEV driving is similar to eco-driving in ICE vehicles. Furthermore, BEV drivers can suffer from anxiety that stems from limited traveling distance, a phenomenon known as range anxiety. However, there exist other sources of anxiety-related human driving behavior, three of which can be measured using the driving behavior survey (DBS). The three anxiety measures from the DBS were contrasted against the BEV efficiency clusters found from this research, to determine if the anxiety factors defined by the DBS were responsible for efficient BEV driving. The results from this research found two significantly different clusters of BEV driving efficiency, which were defined as efficient and inefficient BEV driving. In comparison to eco-driving in ICE vehicles, both aggressive speed and acceleration were found to be contributing factors to BEV efficiency. The results from the DBS proved that anxiety was not a contributing factor to BEV efficiency, as both clusters had similar answers. The information accumulated through this research can be used to guide new BEV drivers to adopt sustainable driving behaviors, which can help maximize their traveling distance on a single charge. Behavioral contributions to

Transport-related activities represented 34% of the total carbon emissions in the UK in 2022 and heavy-duty vehicles (HGVs) accounted for one-fifth of the road transport greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Currently, battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) are considered as suitable replacements for diesel fleets. However, these technologies continue to face techno-economic barriers, creating uncertainty for fleet operators wanting to transition away from diesel-powered internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). This paper assesses the performance and cost competitiveness of BEV and FCEV powertrain solutions in the hard-to-abate HGV sector. The study evaluates the impact of battery degradation and a carbon tax on the cost of owning the vehicles. An integrated total cost of ownership (TCO) model, which includes these factors for the first time, is developed to study a large retailer's HGV fleet operating in the UK. The modelling framework compares the capital expenditures (CAPEX) and operating expenses (OPEX) of alternative technologies against ICEVs. The TCO of BEVs and FCEVs are 11% to 33% and 37% to 78% higher than ICEVs; respectively. Despite these differences, by adopting a longer lifetime for the vehicle it can effectively narrow the cost gap. Alternatively, cost parity with ICEVs could be achieved if BEV battery cost reduces by 56% or if FCEV fuel cell cost reduces by 60%. Besides, the pivot point for hydrogen price is determined at £2.5 per kg. The findings suggest that BEV is closer to market as its TCO value is becoming competitive, whereas FCEV provides a more viable solution than BEV for long-haul applications due to shorter refuelling time and lower load capacity penalties. Furthermore, degradation of performance in lithium-ion batteries is found to have a minor impact on TCO if battery replacement is not required. However, critical component replacement and warranty can influence commercial viability. Given the high costs, we propose financial incentives and vehicle tax reforms to reduce costs of critical components that will encourage the roll-out of zero emission HGVs.

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">Worldwide, the automotive industry is pivoting towards electrification and zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) to address greenhouse gas emissions and to meet net-zero emission goals. Although pure electric vehicles with rechargeable high-voltage batteries seem to be the most popular choice to achieve climate goals, hydrogen-powered vehicles are also seen by many as a viable technology to clean up the transportation sector. Hydrogen fuel cells and fuel cell-powered vehicles have been in development for a long time, and hydrogen internal combustion engines (ICE) have seen rapid development in the past few years. While the technological feasibility of hydrogen fuel cells and H2 ICE is being proven, the mass adoption of these technologies depends, along with other factors such as hydrogen infrastructure, upon financial feasibility as well. This paper presents a systematic analysis of the total cost of ownership (TCO) of hydrogen-powered vehicles, especially fuel cell electric vehicles. Different commercial vehicle categories are analysed to assess the vehicle classes and use cases where hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles can be a cost-effective alternative to conventional ICE and battery electric vehicles (BEV). The analysis also determines the factors that contribute most to TCO, which will help identify the areas that require improvement/development or policy support to make fuel cells and hydrogen power more widespread. The paper also analyses the sensitivity of TCO to different cost factors, such as hydrogen cost, which helps in establishing cost targets to make hydrogen-powered vehicles a cost-effective solution in the transition to zero-emission transportation. Finally, different market trends are analysed to predict the timelines in which fuel cell-powered vehicles can become cost-competitive with ICE and BEV.</div></div>

A polygon-based environmental appraisal of new vehicle technologies combined with renewable energy sources