ww.sciencedirect.com

i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n en e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 7 8 7 3e1 7 8 8 3

Available online at w

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/he

On the comparison and the complementarityof batteries and fuel cells for electric driving

Alain Le Duigou a,*, Aimen Smatti b

a CEA/DEN/DANS/I-t�es�e e Saclay, 91191 Gif Sur Yvette Cedex, Franceb Arts et M�etiers ParisTech e Internship at CEA/DEN/DANS/I-t�es�e, France

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 24 February 2014

Received in revised form

29 July 2014

Accepted 17 August 2014

Available online 22 September 2014

Keywords:

Mobility

Powertrains

Battery

Hydrogen

Economics

Range-extender

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ33 1 6908 365E-mail addresses: alain.le-duigou@cea.fr

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.08.00360-3199/Copyright © 2014, Hydrogen Ener

a b s t r a c t

This paper considers different current and emerging power train technologies (ICE, BEV,

HEV, FCEV and FC-RE) and provides a comparison within a techno-economic framework,

especially for the architectures of range-extender power trains. The economic benefits in

terms of Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) are based on forecasts for the major TCO-

influencing parameters up to 2030: electric driving distances, energy (fuel, electricity,

hydrogen) prices, batteries and fuel cell costs. The model takes into account functional

parameters such as the battery range as well as daily trip segmentation statistics.

The TCOs of all the vehicles become similar in 2030, given a 200 km battery range for

BEVs. BEVs are profitable for yearly mileages of 30,000 km and over, and for higher battery

ranges.

The competitiveness of FCEVs is examined through the H2 target price at the pump.

There is a very significant effect of the fuel cell cost on the TCO. A FCEV with a fuel cell cost

of 40 V/kW will be competitive with a similar ICE car for a 1.75 V/l fuel cost and ca. 7 V/kg

hydrogen cost. This depends too to a great extent on possible ICE cars' CO2 taxes. As regard

the FC-RE electric car, the hydrogen target price at the pump is noticeably higher (ca 10 V/

Kg). FC-RE cars TCOs are strongly affected by the FC power, the discount rate chosen and

the yearly mileage. Moreover, it therefore seems reasonable to confine FC-RE battery

ranges in the region of 60 km.

Copyright © 2014, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights

reserved.

Introduction

In 2010, the IEA Energy Technology Perspectives [1] presented

various scenarios for the amounts of reduction for the major

sectors emitting CO2, in particular: buildings, transport, in-

dustry, power generation and others. With regard to the so-

called BLUE Map scenario, the power generation sector is

most concerned, and in the transport sector, more than 50%

9.(A. Le Duigou), aimen.sm77gy Publications, LLC. Publ

reduction is anticipated in 2050 compared with the baseline

scenario by the deployment of plug-in hybrid, electric or fuel-

cell vehicles. Passenger road usage represents about 60e70%

of total CO2 emissions in the transport sector, which means

that even with a 30%e50% increase in fuel economy for in-

ternal combustion engines, conventional vehicles alone will

be unable to reach the EU CO2 reduction goal for 2050 [2],

especially as CO2 capture technology is not even being

considered at the moment. With the soaring price of gasoline,

atti@gmail.com (A. Smatti).

ished by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Glossary

BEV battery and electric motor

ENTD Enquete Nationale Transports D�eplacements

ETP energy technology perspectives

FCEV fuel cell, hydrogen tank and electric motor

FC-RE the fuel cell is designed to charge the battery or

to drive the electric motor directly. The power

of the fuel cell is 40% of that of the motor.

GHG green house gases

HEV the combustion engine and the electric motor

can operate at the same time. They provide 70%

and 30% respectively of the total hybrid power

ICE combustion engine and fuel tank

IEA International Energy Agency

LDV light duty vehicle

PEM proton exchange membrane

PEMFC proton exchange membrane fuel cell

RE-EV the ICE is only used to charge the battery. Its

power is 40% of that of the main engine (the

electric motor)

R&D research & development

RFC regenerative fuel cell

TCO total cost of ownership

WEO world energy outlook

i n t e rn a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n en e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 7 8 7 3e1 7 8 8 317874

energy dependence has long become an important issue in all

countries' national strategies. Global transportation and fossil

fuels are inextricably linked. More than 60% of the 87 million

barrels of oil is consumed every day in the world's trans-

portation system, while liquid fossil fuels account for more

than 96% of the current energy supply to the transport sector,

and within the transport sector, road transport accounts for

more than 70% of total transport final energy consumption

(2% for light duty vehicles [3]).

Data from the IEA BLUE Map scenario shows that Electric

Vehicles (EVs) and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs)

contribute to a reduction of approximately 30% in light-duty

vehicle CO2 emissions by 2050, assuming the deployment of

20 million EVs/PHEVs and Fuel Cell Vehicles by 2020.4 Fig. 1

shows that the market share of electric vehicles should be

greater after 2015, decreasing gasoline vehicle deployment,

and paving the way for extensive deployment of electric and

Fig. 1 e Stated national EV and PHEV sales targets in the short te

type (BLUE Map scenario) (1-B) (from Ref. [1]).

hydrogen fuel cell vehicles after a “hybrid vehicle” transition

phase [4]. Many countries have announced national plans to

deal with the issue (Fig. 1). As shown in this figure, China and

the United States have both announced objectives of

achieving more than 30% market share in 2020.

Aims and scientific approach

The literature already considers the fuel cell and battery ve-

hicles, as competing or combined systems, from experimental

as well as economic points of view. The major developments

are given below.

As regards separate batteries and fuel cells systems, ac-

cording to Dijk et al. [5], battery and fuel cell technologies

must face the increasing sales and preferences for cheaper

ICE cars in emerging markets such as China, as compared

with more expensive electric and hybrid vehicles that can be

sold in western countries. These authors recently considered

BEVs, PHEVs and FCEVs; they assert that electric mobility has

crossed a critical threshold and is mainly benefitting from

high oil prices and carbon constraints. A. Zubaryeva et al. [6]

say that a large scale deployment of hydrogen vehicles and

the related infrastructure need to develop with lead markets

as nuclei for further market replication and spread. They

showed that in 2030 the EU15 countries have a higher

hydrogen FCEV lead market score than EU12, with the dif-

ference of the lead market potential between EU15 and EU12

reduced in 2050. They noticed that most regions with a high

lead market score have on average high population density

and therefore well-developed infrastructure and known

automotive market size. Streimikiene et al. [7] performed a

multi-criteria assessment of road transport technologies BEV,

PHEV and ICE with petroleum-based fuels and bio-fuels)

which were ranked with respect to five emission indicators

and private cost criterion. The analysis showed that the best

option according to an ‘equal weight’ and environmental

approach was renewable-based battery-electric vehicles (Re-

BEVs), whereas customers would prefer biodiesel from rape-

seed. Bento [8] addressed the issue of the diffusion of

hydrogen cars in the market, particularly the competition

with electric cars for the replacement of conventional vehi-

cles. He used the multi-technological competition model

developed by Le Bas and Baron-Sylvestre [9], which shows

rm (1-A), and annual light-duty vehicle sales by technology

i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n en e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 7 8 7 3e1 7 8 8 3 17875

that the early deployment of plug-in hybrid vehicles (the only

electric technology which can compete with fuel cell cars in

the multipurpose vehicle field) risks closing the market for

hydrogen in the future. He points out the importance of the

starting points, particularly the early existence of a hydrogen

infrastructure with a sufficient coverage. C.E. Thomas [10]

showed that there are two primary options for all-electric

vehicles, batteries or fuel cells, and that for any vehicle

range greater than 160 km fuel cells are superior to batteries

in terms of mass, volume, cost, initial greenhouse gas re-

ductions, refueling time, well-to-wheels energy efficiency

using natural gas or biomass as the source and life cycle

costs. Besides that, all-electric vehicles will be powered by

either batteries (or possibly ultracapacitors) or by fuel cells

with peak power augmentation batteries, and a major

breakthrough in battery technology is required before a long-

range battery EV could satisfy customer's needs for conven-

tional passenger cars, particularly with respect to battery

recharging times.

But on the other hand, adoption of electric driving is not

obvious. Then, as said by Egbue and Long who analyzed the

barriers preventing the widespread adoption of electric vehi-

cles [11], policy decisions must take into account the natural

resistance to new technologies that are always considered

alien or unproved, even if early adopters of EVs who are highly

connected to technology already exist. Nonetheless, they need

to perceive EVs to be superior in performance compared with

ICEs. In particular, the notion of ‘range anxiety’ is strongly

linked to the use of pure electric cars. Then a growing number

of car manufacturers take an interest in possible solutions to

increase substantially the electric cars driving ranges. The

phenomenon of range anxiety has been discussed in the

literature. According to T. Franke et al. [12], the range barrier

experienced by many novices may be successfully overcome

by practice in dealing with range. As a first step, a highly

accessible option for users would be to simulate their daily

mobility behavior, for example, using a travel diary. The

opinion that range anxiety is more psychological than prac-

tical reality is shared by C. Thompson [13]: average electric

cars, with a 50-mile range, can cover most daily driving needs

without difficulty. Furthermore, the ‘range extender’ solution

may become a common feature in the coming wave of electric

cars, because it solves range anxiety in a way that is both

elegant and emission-free. Tolj I. et al. [14] integrated a 1.2 kW

fuel cell system in a light electric vehicle (5 kW motor power)

and noticed that the operation of the hybrid (battery þ fuel

cell) power mode resulted in a more stable driving perfor-

mance, as well as a noticeable increase in the range capacity.

In addition, they say that the increase of the fuel cell power

could avoid the interruption of the vehicle operation for bat-

tery recharge which in this case could be provided only by the

fuel cell during the driving.

Then range-extending by combining plug-in batteries and

fuel cell systems as battery charging, seems to appear more

and more as a very promising solution. F. Barreras et al. [15]

developed a multipurpose hybrid vehicle hybrid powertrain

based on commercial lead-acid batteries and specifically

developed PEM fuel cell stacks, mainly to overcome the

problem of the limited range of classical battery electric ve-

hicles, together as performing zero emission in confined

areas. This is a solution that integrates a battery pack that can

be charged either from the electricity grid or from the energy

produced by an embarked fuel cell system, which can also be

used to power the vehicle. This is an innovative prototype in

the field of the fuel-cell powered vehicles. It presents good

maneuverability, excellent traction performance in off-road

driving, and good slope-climbing capability. C. Sapienza

et al. [16] developed fuel cellebattery hybrid powertrains to be

used in vehicles designed for niche markets. They showed

that the hybrid powertrain has shown a fast response even at

extreme and impulsive loads and awider range compared to a

battery vehicle, without compromising the weight limitations

on the vehicles. L. Xu et al. [17] combined fuel cells and bat-

teries in hybrid ‘‘China city bus typical cycle’’. They mainly

found that the braking energy regeneration strategy (BERS)

was the most efficient control strategy, that lower hydrogen

consumption by 15.3%, while the equivalent consumption

minimization strategy (ECMS) contributed to a consumption

reduction ca. 2.5%. J.-J. Hwang et al. [18] used the GREET

(Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in

Transportation) model to analyze the fuel-cycle energy con-

sumption and GHG emissions for battery electric and fuel cell

electric vehicles. As they considered various driving cycles,

they showed that the hybrid-power dynamics of the FCV have

clearly revealed that the power from the lithium-ion battery

could compensate for the transient inability of the fuel cell to

provide sufficient power for the system during the accelera-

tion period. Conversely, it could store the extra power from

the fuel cell during the slowdown periods. In 2004, G.J. Suppes

[19] proposed a new approach on vehicular fuel cell technol-

ogy, which uses an on-board regenerative fuel cell (RFC) stack

as a battery charger. The RFC's electrolyzer uses grid elec-

tricity to produce hydrogen and oxygen during an overnight

charging process. By using the RFC to recharge the vehicle'sbattery pack during the day, the size of the battery pack can be

reduced by more than 50%. Vehicles using so-called “tribrid

power systems” based on the combination of RFCs, battery

packs, and internal combustion engines (ICE) could be viable

decades before vehicles powered solely by fuel cells that rely

on a hydrogen refueling infrastructure. Substantially

petroleum-free automobiles can spontaneously evolve from

hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) based solely on the economic

viability of replacing batteries with RFCs as fuel cell prices

decrease. The evolution can be projected first to plug-in HEVs

(PHEVs) and finally to a substantially hydrogen-based trans-

portation system (G.J. Suppes, [20]). J.-J. Hwang et al. [21]

modeled a hybrid electric vehicle, based on a primary PEMFC

and an auxiliary Li-ion battery. MATLAB/Simulink software

was used to simulate the fuel cell hybrid vehicle under a

driving cycle, and to evaluate the overall energy efficiency at

various hybrid ratios. The results show that the increased

power in the fuel cell results in increased hydrogen con-

sumption, thus decreasing efficiency. In the experiment,

because a high level of power was not required in the driving

cycle, a high-power fuel cell had no effect on performance.

This paper considers various present and future power

train technologies, to achieve the competitiveness limits,

based on both component costs and, that is not considered by

the referenced papers above, the mobility segmentation: In-

ternal Combustion Engine (ICE), Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV),

i n t e rn a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n en e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 7 8 7 3e1 7 8 8 317876

Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV), Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV),

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) and Range-Extender

Electric Vehicles (RE-EV and FC-RE). ICE and HEV are mainly

powered by a thermal engine, with an electric motor as an

auxiliary (they are only refueled with diesel and gasoline),

while FCEV, BEV, PHEV, RE-EV and FC-RE are powered by both

thermal and electric engines. Note that electric power trains

are 2 or 3 times more fuel-efficient than internal combustion

engines (ICEs), and have the potential of achieving zero CO2

emissions.

A model named TrHyBaL (Transports Hydrogen Batteries

and Liquids) simulates the economic benefits in terms of total

cost of ownership (TCO) of all classes of LDV, based on the

major TCO-influencing parameters: electric driving distances,

energy (fuel, electricity, hydrogen) prices, batteries and fuel

cell costs, and the other major components and economic

costs (including taxes, insurance and maintenance). To

simulate electric driving distances, the model takes into ac-

count on the one hand the characteristics of plug-in batteries,

mainly their range, and on the other hand operating param-

eters such as the assumption of recharging once a day (during

the night), and according to yearly mileages and daily trip

segmentation statistics.

Data, assumptions and calculations

Consumers' driving characteristics

BEVs are disadvantaged by their limited ranges (the McKinsey

analysis [22] gives a maximum range value of around 200 km

in 2050), but can really benefit from mobility habits. Sup-

porters of electric vehicles argue that the poor range of electric

vehicles is not a disadvantage; they insist on the fact thatmost

daily journeys are short distance trips. The recent IEA report

[4] indicates that in the United Kingdom, 97% of trips are

estimated to be less than 80 km. In Europe, 50% of trips are less

than 10 km and 80% of trips are less than 25 km. In the United

States, about 60% of vehicles are driven less than 50 km daily,

and about 85% are driven less than 100 km [4].

The averagemobility patterns in France are shown in Fig. 2

below, based on the ENTD 2008 database (Enquete Nationale

Transports et D�eplacements in France) [23] which recorded dis-

tances traveled each trip (from the starting point to the

destination) each day for a whole week. Only passenger

Fig. 2 e Distribution (2-A) and cumulated distribution (2-B)

vehicles and the light duty vehicles (LDV) were investigated,

and the statistics were based on a sample of 10,179 vehicles.

The distances recorded are those driven on the road, and

40,518 observations were processed by the Odomatrix soft-

ware. Fig. 2 shows that around 92% of daily travel is less than

100 km, which means that a 100 km range battery could meet

the requirements for 92% of daily trips. According to the data

on average distance per journey (10.3 km) and average num-

ber of trips per day (2.04), the average distance traveled per

day is 21 km. Overall, this shows that 80% of vehicles have a

daily driving distance of less than 55 km. A battery with a

40 km range could cover 67% of daily travel requirements.

Fig. 2 (ENTD 2008 data) shows the distribution of private

vehicle trips, but it could also be interpreted as the probability

of occurrence of variable driving distances per day per vehicle.

Then, assuming uniform driving behavior, the annual trav-

eling distance can be calculated, and would be about

15,500 km. This is consistent with the data given by several

organizations in the literature, obtained by means of national

questionnaires and statistical analysis in France, which

describe the change in annual average mileage of private ve-

hicles (reference [24]: from 12,000 km/year to 15,000 km/year

between 1976 and 1999, a 2% increase in annual driving

distance).

As Fig. 2 shows the distribution of travel frequency for

average yearly mileage (15,500 km/year), using a bottom-up

method, we have come up with a new distribution of travel

frequency by split kmwhen given another yearly distance. For

this purpose, we assume uniform driving behavior for

different vehicles, and multiply each split km by a factor

which is the division of the given annual distance by 15,500.

This homothetic transformation assumption gives the distri-

bution of split km for each yearly distance segment; of course

real segmentations and more complete and precise statistics

will be better for further studies.

The following must also be added. Although 92% of daily

travel in France is less than 100 km, the total distance traveled

above 100 km remains significant [23]: around 35% of the

yearly mileage. The average “long distance trip” (over 100 km/

day) is around 265 km.

Characteristics of LDV

Two items of information are needed to build the character-

istics of current and future vehicles: an accurate description of

of travel frequency by mileage per vehicle per day.[23].

Fig. 3 e Diagrams of the vehicles/power trains studied.

i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n en e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 7 8 7 3e1 7 8 8 3 17877

current vehicles, and the probable trends or improvements in

the characteristics of the vehicles' components. This study

provides a factual comparison of six different power trains e

HEVs, BEVs, FCEVs, RE-EVs, FC-REs and ICEs in terms of

economy, viability and performance across the whole value

chain between now and 2030.

Fig. 3 shows the different types of power train studied.1 In

the study, the economic comparison between the vehicles is

based on the total cost of ownership (TCO), which describes all

the costs during the lifetime of the vehicle. The characteristics

of the vehicles of the future have been defined according to

the expected gradual improvements (performance). These

vehicles have been divided into three groups - small city cars

(A&B), medium sized vehicles (C&D) and large vehicles (E&H).

Then the costs and performance of an “average” vehicle in

each group have been calculated based on publicly available

data.

The purchase cost of conventional vehicles (ICE) is given in

the literature2,3 (average price per category). The costs of the

alternative vehicles are calculated by adding the components

of the power train concerned to a standard vehicle body,

which includes the chassis, the bodywork and other compo-

nents common to all types (eg: the internal trim, the steering

and the braking system). The cost model is based on six main

components of the vehicle: taxes and margins, chassis-

bodywork, internal combustion engine, electric motor, bat-

tery, fuel cell and hydrogen tank.

The cost projections for ICEs, electric motors and batteries

have been made up to 2030 based on various bibliographic

sources [22,25e30]. Fig. 4 shows the cost forecasts for the

hydrogen tank and fuel cell components (complete system,

1 http://www.voiture-electrique-populaire.fr/tag/toyota-prius,http://www.nissan.fr/FR/fr/inside-nissan/innovation-and-technology/ev.html, http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity,http://www.automobile-magazine.fr/les_plus/lexique/range_extender_prolongateur_d_autonomie, http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index#/leaf-electric-car/range-disclaimer/index.

2 Given by http://www.caradisiac.com/.3 Ultra Low Emission Vans study, Appendix 2, Element Energy

2012.4 http://www.automobile-magazine.fr/les_plus/lexique/range_

extender_prolongateur_d_autonomie, http://www.carfutur.com/tag/tco/.

including the control system, the FC stack, the air humidifi-

cation system, the hydrogen recirculation system, and the

capacitor) [22,31].

The range of pure electric vehicles is however assumed to

increase between 2012 and 2030, but will still remain signifi-

cantly lower than that of a conventional vehicle. TheMcKinsey

study [22] does not anticipate electric vehicle battery ranges of

more than 250 km, even by 2050. This is the maximum range

taken into consideration in this study for category C&D vehi-

cles (maximum 300 km for category E&H in 2030). The range of

the plug-in batteries of rechargeable hybrid vehicles (HEV, RE-

EV, FC-RE) is limited to 60 km.4

Fuel and other cost characteristics

For pure electric vehicles, and also those using hydrogen, it is

assumed that the infrastructures are in place. The McKinsey

study [22] values the share of the TCO accounted for by the

infrastructures at between 1500 and 2500 V/vehicle for BEVs,

and between 1000 and 2000V/vehicle for FCEVs (theMcKinsey

study does not include range-extender vehicles), which only

weights the results of the study slightly. The McKinsey study

include the infrastructure and costs distribution in the

hydrogen costs, it represents 5% of the overall TCO.

Fig. 4 e Fuel cell and hydrogen tank cost forecasts up to

2030 [22,31].

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0,30

0,35

0,40

0,45

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Price (€/kWh)

------- ICE Fuel -------- Electricity -------- Hydrogen

Fig. 5 e Fuels prices and evolutions considered.

i n t e rn a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n en e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 7 8 7 3e1 7 8 8 317878

It is assumed that fuel prices will rise by 0.6% a year in

relation to 2012 prices, which corresponds to the increase in

the IEA/WEO 2010 “New Policies Scenario” [32].

Electricity prices are assumed to rise by 3% a year, which is

a very different increase from the previous reference value for

conventional fuels. There may well also be additional costs

resulting from the development of renewable energies and

energy storage mechanisms. However this assumption of a

large annual increase enables us to remain “conservative” in

relation to the competitiveness of vehicles equipped with

rechargeable batteries.

The prices and changes in hydrogen prices are taken from

the McKinsey study [22]. The change in the price of hydrogen

at the pump is thus linked to the various production and

transport mixes considered in this study, as well as to their

projected changes up to 2050 [22].

Fig. 5 gives the fuels prices and evolutions considered.

The insurance costs are assumed to increase with the time

(3% per year), and to be the same for all types cars.5

The maintenance costs are assumed to remain constant

with the time, but are slightly higher for ICE cars than for the

others.6

The question of taxation on hydrogen at the pump is not

covered in this study, nor are the tax and price incentives

which could be introduced in the context of the deployment of

new forms of electrical mobility.

Results

Changes in total cost of ownership

The current total cost of ownership for electric vehicles is

much higher than for conventional vehicles. A pure BEV costs

20%more than a combustion engine vehicle over 10 years. The

cost of the battery (30 kWh) is responsible for most of this

additional cost.

Rechargeable hybrid vehicles and RE-EVs have lower

ownership costs than BEV, because the savings made on their

low capacity batteries are greater than the fuel costs used to

5 Given by http://www.caradisiac.com/.6 Given by http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/resource-library/reports-

and-studies.htm.

run them in combustion engine mode. Fig. 6 shows the TCO

for a category C&D vehicle, traveling 15,000 km/year, for 10

years (discount rate 5%). The range of the rechargeable bat-

teries of BEVs increases from 160 km in 2012 to 240 km in 2030.

Fig. 6 shows the significant differences in the total cost of

ownership of EVs in comparison with ICE vehicles, consid-

ering the mobility segments for rechargeable hybrids

described at the beginning of the report. The total cost of

ownership of electric vehicles in comparisonwith ICE vehicles

decreases considerably over the next decade. This is

explained by the decrease in the purchase costs of vehicles.

Generally speaking, projections up to 2030 become very

favorable for electric vehicles with batteries and/or fuel cells.

The differences in TCO are in any case within the range of

even the most modest subsidies that are currently offered to

those purchasing EVs, even though in the long term they could

be due to disappear, or at least be adjusted according to price

changes that actually occur. In terms of markets, it should be

pointed out that government subsidies and grants for pur-

chase are not included. With this help, the market for EVs

should increase in the coming years.

Sensitivity analyses

Fig. 7 shows the differences in TCO between a BEV and an ICE

vehicle, according to the battery range (autonomy) for a class

C&D vehicle. In 2020, the increase in range from 200 km to

300 km increases the TCO loss from 3000 V to 9000 V.

In 2030, the differences are considerably less,mainly due to

the decrease in the costs of batteries by this time. A BEV is

more economical if it is equippedwith a battery with a 150 km

range. The TCO is similar for a 200 km range and remains

reasonable up to 250 km. It can also be noted that up to a

400 km range, the differences remain within the amounts of

the subsidies currently offered in France for purchasing an

electric vehicle. But there is currently no evidence that these

incentives will continue.

Fig. 8 shows the effect of the yearly mileage. The total cost

of ownership of vehicles in 2030 is calculated for three

different yearlymileages: 10,000 km, 15,000 kmand 30,000 km.

The main effect of an increase in the yearly mileage is the

increase in the TCO for all power trains, because the overall

fuel consumption increases. This increase in TCO is more

marked in the rechargeable hybrid sector, where the fuel cost

per kilometer is the highest, in other words more mileage is

done in combustion engine mode. It can also be seen that the

differences between the various types of power train are

markedly greater than for lower yearlymileages. In particular,

electric vehicles (battery and/or hydrogen) become noticeably

more cost-effective than those using conventional fuel for all

or part of their mileage.

Competitiveness of electric vehicles using hydrogen

We compare first two power train technologies, Internal

Combustion Engines (ICE), and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles

(FCEV), to calculate the competitiveness limits based on both

components and energy costs. Fig. 9 illustrates the power-

trains considered.

Fig. 6 e Changes in the total cost of ownership of category C&D vehicles with various types of power train, between 2012 (6-

A) and 2030 (6-B).

Fig. 7 e TCO differences between BEV and ICE vehicles in

2020 and 2030, vs. battery ranges (C&D).

Fig. 9 e Simplified description of the compared

powertrains ICE vehicle vs. FC electric vehicle.

i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n en e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 7 8 7 3e1 7 8 8 3 17879

Electric driving with FCEVs does not consider any daily trip

segmentation or range limit, as the ranges of FCEVs are

significantly higher than those of BEVs, and hydrogen refuel-

ing is feasible quickly in stations similar to the present ones.

The comparisons between the ICE and FCEV technologies are

based on the technological components on the one hand, as

R&D is being carried out on fuel cells and hydrogen tanks, and

fuel costs/prices on the other hand. The literature references

are similar to the ones used for the TCO calculations above.

Instead of a direct comparison of the economic differences

between the use of the two power trains (investments and

operating costs), herewe give the hydrogen target prices at the

pump based on two parameters: fuel cell costs (V/kW) and fuel

price at the pump (V/l) for ICE cars. The other assumptions

and forecasts of R&D progress are the same than those given

above (same references).

Fig. 8 e TCO differences between the different vehicles vs.

yearly mileages (C&D).

The hydrogen target price is given using TCO comparisons

of FCEVs and ICEs, based on the assumptions on components

and fuels given above, but varying the fuel cell cost, then

leading to the dependency of these two parameters on each

other. No government subsidies are considered here. Fig. 10

gives the H2 target prices as against FC costs, according to

the fuel price at the pump for a similar ICE.

This figure shows the very significant effect of the fuel cell

cost on the H2 target price at the pump, for a given ICE fuel

price: significant slope. This figure shows that the TCO of a

70 kW FCEVwith a fuel cell cost of 40V/kWwill be the same as

that of a similar ICE car that uses 5.6 l/100 km if the ICE fuel

and FCEV hydrogen costs are respectively 1.75 V/l and around

6.8 V/100 km at the pump (1 kgH2/100 km). If the FC cost is

Fig. 10 e H2 target prices vs. FC costs, depending on the fuel

price at the pump for a similar ICE (C&D class).

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

€/kg

Fuel Cell cost (€ / kW)

Hydrogen target price (at the pump - €/kg)FC RE 25 kW (80 kW Full H2), 15 000 km/y, 10 years, discount rate 5%

145 130 115 100 85 70 55 40 25

FCRE electric car

Full H2 electric car

Fig. 12 eH2 target prices vs. FC costs, depending on the fuel

price at the pump for a similar ICE. Electric engine 70 kW,

Full H2 powertrain: FC 80 kW, FC-RE powertrain: FC 25 kW,

5000 km/y with plug-in battery (range 40 km, 20 kW h/

100 km, 200 V/kW h) e 160 V/MW h electricity cost.

i n t e rn a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n en e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 7 8 7 3e1 7 8 8 317880

120V/kW, for the same gasoline price, the hydrogen should be

around 2 V/kg to achieve the same operational cost as gaso-

line. The cost reduction of fuel cells depends to a large extent

on economy of scale, and the U.S. Department of Energy has

already set a fuel cell target price of 30 $/kW (23V/kW) by 2015.

Applying this assumption, and with a gasoline price of 1.75 V/

l, the hydrogen price should be around 8 V/kg, a target that

seems achievable.

No tax is considered here. But if we assume a 100 V/t CO2

tax for ICE cars, FCEV carswill have an additional advantage of

around 1.5 V/kg H2 at the pump, which is not insignificant.

However, those values depend to a great extent on car size,

yearly mileage, lifetime and the discount rate considered. It is

therefore very likely that specific mobility markets could take

advantage of developing FCEV.

Let's now consider the benefit of combining the perfor-

mance levels of fuel cells and batteries in an electric

car. Fig. 11 illustrates the powertrains considered.

In fact, by assigning the “power” part to the battery, in the

case of the FC-RE (Fuel Cell as Range Extender), the continuous

recharging of the battery by the fuel cell only requires a

limited size of cell at least 3 time smaller than that required

for fuel cell only architectures: the maximum size required

only therefore depends on the average speed of the vehicle,

and not the power peaks which are only rarely needed. In

addition, the battery can be plugged to the network, then it

can provide the travels that correspond to its range; the daily

trips segmentation given by Fig. 2 is taken into account.

Figs. 12 and 13 show the savings in terms of acceptable

price of hydrogen at the pump, both for FC-RE powertrain and

Full H2 powertrain. For the FC-RE powertrain, as previously for

rechargeable hybrid architectures, the calculation is based on

the average distance and segmentation of the mileages

covered by private light duty vehicles in France.

As regard the FC-RE electric car, and for a 40 V/kW FC

system cost, the hydrogen target price at the pump (ca 10 V/

Kg) is noticeably higher than for the full H2 electric car one (ca.

7V/Kg). It ismainly because the FC power is at least three time

smaller, and one third of the yearly mileage is driven with the

electricity grid which price remains low (3.2 V/100 km) as

compared with the other fuels prices. In addition, the differ-

ence increases with the fuel cell system cost, which means a

smaller effect of the fuel cell system techno-economic

FC electric vehicle

Plug-in battery + FC range extender

H2 tank+ FC

Plug-in Battery

Fuel tankICE vehicle ICE

Electric powertrain

Electric powertrain

H2 tank+ FC

Fig. 11 e Simplified description of the compared

powertrains ICE vehicle vs. FC, and battery þ FC electric

vehicle (FC-RE).

performance on the overall competitiveness of the fuel cell car

vs. a similar ICE car.

Sensitivity analyses

The discount rate represents the required rate of return tomake

a business acquisition worthwhile [33]. It is the factor by

which a future cash flowmust be multiplied in order to obtain

the present value; the higher discount rate, the lower corre-

sponding present value for a future expenditure. The idea is to

look at a business purchase as an investment decision. Given

that point of view, the business purchase investment must be

compared against other, possibly safer, alternatives. In our

case, we consider that the customer must buy a car (he can

only choose between different powertrains), and can antici-

pate either a higher, or a similar or even a lower income in the

future. Then, all other things being equal, we respectively

considered 3 values for the discount rate: 5% (referent case),

0% and �3%. Fig. 13 shows the impact of the discount rate

values.

We notice that the impact of the discount rate choice may

have a great impact on the hydrogen target price at the pump,

ca. 1 to 3 V/kg given our assumptions, mainly for higher fuel

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

€/kg

Fuel Cell cost (€ / kW)

Hydrogen target price (at the pump - €/kg)FC RE 25 kW (80 kW Full H2), 15 000 km/y, 10 years, discount rate 5%, 0% and -3%

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 333333333333333333333333333333333333333 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

Full H2 electric car

FCRE electric car

0%

5%

5%0%

-3%

-3%

Fig. 13 e Fig. 12, given different values for the discount

rate: 5%, 0%, ¡3%.

Fig. 15 e H2 target prices when combining plug-in batteries

and fuel cells in range-extender cars to fit the TCOs of

similar ICE cars (C&D class). Electric engine 70 kW, plug-in

battery mileage given by the battery range and Fig. 2,

batteries 20 kW h/100 km, costs 200 (15-A) and 300 V/kW h

(15-B). 160 V/MW h electricity cost.

i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n en e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 7 8 7 3e1 7 8 8 3 17881

cell costs. If the discount rate decreases, the present value of

the future expenses increase. In our case, the FC and ICE ve-

hicles TCOs are supposed to be the same (we calculate the

hydrogen target price at the pump), and the assumptions lead

to a cost sharing for which the future expenses of a ICE car

(fuel) are higher: Fig. 6. Then the impact of lower discount

rates is higher for the ICE fuel, therefore leading to higher

hydrogen target prices at the pump. And the curves meet at

the point that correspond to the same ICE and FC vehicles fuel

expenses.

Fig. 14 shows that Fig. 12 outcome is noticeably amplified if

the grid derived yearly mileage is higher (8000 km), or if the

fuel cell size is lower (FC-RE 10 kW instead of 25 kW) then

leading to a lower average speed. In the latter case, the

competitiveness is again less dependent on the fuel cell sys-

tem cost.

Let's now consider the impact of the (plug-in) battery

range. All in all, a greater range leads to a higher price of the

vehicle, and in the same time to an increase in the yearly

mileage driven with grid electricity. But we must take into

account the distribution of the travel frequency bymileage per

vehicle per day (Fig. 2), which shows that after a peak, the

frequency of longer daily trips decreases. Fig. 15 shows that,

by combining all the assumptions and parameters, optima

systems exist that depend on the Fuel Cell cost, the battery

cost, and the battery range.

This figure shows the advantage of combining these two

power supplies for the electric motor: the battery, whose cost

is essentially determined by the energy storage capacity, and

the fuel cell whose cost is essentially determined by the

deliverable power. It is also noted that optimum battery ca-

pacities can emerge, showing the additional cost that can

result from oversizing a battery for a given average yearly

usage (limited use of the “extra” kW h). Noticeably different

values and curves are given by this figure:

- The higher battery price here considered (300 V/kW h), the

lower battery range is profitable: consequence of the

mileage distribution (Fig. 2); for a 40V/kW fuel cell cost, it is

better not to exceed a 60 km battery range; the maximum

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

€/kg

Fuel Cell cost (€ / kW)

Hydrogen target price (at the pump - €/kg)FC RE 25 and 10 kW (80 kW Full H2), 15 000 km/y, 10 years, discount rate 5%

145 130 115 100 85 70 55 40 25

FCRE electric car

Full H2 electric car

FC 25 kW, 5000 km/y

FC 25 kW, 8000 km/y FC 10 kW, 5000 km/y

Fig. 14 e H2 target prices vs. FC costs, depending on the fuel

price at the pump for a similar ICE. Electric engine 70 kW,

Full H2 powertrain: FC 80 kW, FC-RE powertrain: FC 25 kW

and 10 kW, 5000 km/y and 8000 km with plug-in battery

(range 40 km, 20 kW h/100 km, 200 V/kW h) e 160 V/MW h

electricity cost.

acceptable price of hydrogen at the pump can be lowered to

ca. 2 V/kg, which is not feasible.

- On the other hand, if the battery cost is 200 V/kW h, it is

better to take advantage of the (relatively) reduced price of

electricity and then use batteries with higher ranges, even

when the fuel cell cost is higher (up to 100 V/kW); the

saving is brought about by the maximum acceptable price

of hydrogen at the pump, which may increase to around

12 V/kg applying the “best case” assumption: FC-RE cost

25 V/kW.

If we refer to Fig. 10, then we consider a fuel cell system

cost ca. 40 V/kW, it therefore seems reasonable to confine

ourselves to capacities in the region of 60 km, at least with the

assumptions chosen in this study.

The results given in Figs. 10e15 can also be read consid-

ering that markets favorable to the development of hydrogen

electric mobility may emerge in the short or even very short

term, as a result of a combination of battery and fuel cell

technologies which has not yet reached the ideal performance

levels required for separate uses. The synergy of these two

components is clearly demonstrated here.

In any case, whenwe consider the only hydrogen supply to

assess the hydrogen market prices for the transport sector

i n t e rn a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n en e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 7 8 7 3e1 7 8 8 317882

[34], and not the various powertrains and uses, it must be of

course a very first step, a complete techno-economic analysis

gives very different results.

Conclusions

This paper considered different emerging power train tech-

nologies (ICE, BEV, HEV, FCEV and FC-RE) with potential re-

ductions of CO2 emissions, and provides a comparison within

a techno-economic framework, especially for the architec-

tures of range-extender power trains.

The economic benefits in terms of total cost of ownership

(TCO) are discussed, based on forecasts for the major TCO-

influencing parameters up to 2030: electric driving distances,

energy (fuel, electricity, hydrogen) prices, batteries and fuel

cell costs. The model takes into account functional parame-

ters such as the battery range as well as daily trip segmenta-

tion statistics, and potential electric driving distances are

evaluated.We notice that the TCOs of the various powertrains

aim at similar values in 2030, in any case within the range of

even the most modest subsidies that are currently offered to

those purchasing EVs. It seems that BEV TCOs remain

reasonable up to 250 km battery ranges at that date, since

there is no subsidy, and even profitable for longer yearly

mileages due to a greater combustion engine use. Both battery

and fuel cell electric vehicles are almost cost-competitive in

relation to conventional vehicles between 2020 and 2030. The

purchase price of electric vehicles remains high during the

next decade with a high dependency on battery energy ca-

pacity and FC power, but the benefits from saved fuel cost

(gasoline costs assumed to be higher than electricity) during

usage may be considerable. All the systems seem to be

competitive by 2030.

The competitiveness of FCEVs is examined, as well as the

H2 target price at the pump, as against the fuel cell cost, for a

given ICE vehicle and fuel price. The ICE fuel price, as well as

the fuel cell system cost, have amajor impact on the hydrogen

target price at the pump.

A FCEV with a fuel cell cost of 40 V/kW will be competitive

with a similar ICE car for a 1.75 V/l fuel cost and ca. 7 V/kg

hydrogen cost, which is a reachable value. This depends too to

a great extent on possible ICE cars’ CO2 taxes. In all the cases

analyzed, the hydrogen target price at the pump vary between

ca. 2 and 12 V/kg. The profitability of a FC and hydrogen sys-

tem as a range extender for a plug-in battery for an electric

power train is demonstrated, as well as an optimum battery

range for EV battery cars. As regard the FC-RE electric car, the

hydrogen target price at the pump (ca 10 V/Kg) is noticeably

higher than for the full H2 electric car one. FC-RE cars TCOs are

strongly affected by the FC power, the discount rate chosen

and the yearly mileage. Moreover, it therefore seems reason-

able to confine FC-RE battery ranges in the region of 60 km, at

least with the assumptions chosen in this study, value that

depends noticeably on battery prices.

The results can also be read considering that markets

favorable to the development of hydrogen electric mobility

may emerge in the short or even very short term, as a result of

a combination of battery and fuel cell technologies which has

not yet reached the ideal performance levels required for

separate uses.

However, those values depend to a great extent on car

size, yearly mileage and travels segmentation, lifetime and

the discount rate considered. But it is therefore very likely

that specific mobility markets could take advantage of

developing FCEVs, especially as range-extender of BEVs in

the short term.

r e f e r e n c e s

[1] IEA/ETP (Energy Technology Perspectives) 2010/Scenarios &Strategies to 2050 OECD/IEA, 2010 International EnergyAgency (9 rue de la F�ed�eration, 75739 Paris Cedex 15, France).

[2] Reducing transport greenhouse gas emissions e trends &data 2010 international transport forum e ©OECD/ITF 2010.

[3] Repowering transport, project white paper, April 2011 (page11) World Economic Forum, Geneva, Copyright© 2011.

[4] Technology roadmap, electric and plug-in hybrid electricvehicles. Int Energy Agency June 2011. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/EV_PHEV_Roadmap.pdf.

[5] Dijk M, Orsato R, . Kemp R. The emergence of an electricmobility trajectory. Energy Policy 2013;52:135e45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.024.

[6] Zubaryeva A, Thiel Ch. Analyzing potential lead markets forhydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Europe: expert views andspatial perspective. Int J Hydrogen Energy2013;38(36):15878e86.

[7] Streimikiene D, Balezentis T, Balezentien L. Comparativeassessment of road transport technologies. Renew SustainEnergy Rev 2013;20:611e8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.021.

[8] Bento N. Dynamic competition between plug-in hybrid andhydrogen fuel cell vehicles for personal transportation. Int JHydrogen Energy 2010;35:11271e83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.07.103.

[9] Le Bas C, Sylvestre Baron P. Non-binary technologicaldiffusion and epidemic model: a reconsideration. EconAppliqu�ee 1995;48(3):71e101.

[10] Thomas CE. Fuel cell and battery electric vehicles compared.Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:6005e20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.06.003.

[11] Egbue O, Long S. Barriers to wide spread adoption of electricvehicles: an analysis of consumer attitudes and perceptions.Energy Policy 2012;48:717e29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.06.009.

[12] Franke T, Neumann I, Buhler F, Cocron P, Krems JF.Experiencing range in an electric vehicle e understandingpsychologicalbarriers.Appl Psychol IntRev2012;61(3):368e91.

[13] Thompson C. Batteries not included the green issue. TheNew-York Times; April 19, 2009.

[14] .Tolj I, Lototskyy MV, Davids MW, Pasupathi S, Swart G,Pollet BG. Fuel cell-battery hybrid powered light electricvehicle (golf cart): influence of fuel cell on the drivingperformance. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2013;38(25):10630e9.

[15] Barreras F, Maza M, Lozano A, B�ascones S, Roda V,Barranco JE, et al. Design and development of a multipurposeutility AWD electric vehicle with a hybrid powertrain basedon PEM fuel cells and batteries. Int J Hydrogen Energy2012;37:15367e79.

[16] Sapienza C, Andaloro L, Matera FV, Dispenza G, Creti P,Ferraro M. Batteries analysis for FC-hybrid powertrainoptimization. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33:3230e4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.01.023.

i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n en e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 7 8 7 3e1 7 8 8 3 17883

[17] Xu L, Li J, Hua J, Li X, Ouyang M. Optimal vehicle controlstrategy of a fuel cell/battery hybrid city bus. Int J HydrogenEnergy 2009;34:7323e33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.06.021.

[18] Hwang J-J, Kuo J-K, Wu W, Chang W-R, Lin C-H,Wang S-E. Life cycle performance assessment of fuelcell/battery electric vehicles. Int J Hydrogen Energy2013;38:3433e46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.12.148.

[19] Suppes GJ. Plug-in hybrid with fuel cell battery charger. Int JHydrogen Energy 2005;30:113e21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2004.04.017.

[20] Suppes GJ. Roles of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in thetransition to the hydrogen economy. Int J Hydrogen Energy2006;31:353e60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2005.06.026.

[21] Hwang J-J, Chen Y-J, Kuo J-K. The study on the powermanagement system in a fuel cell hybrid vehicle. Int JHydrogen Energy 2012;37:4476e89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.11.127.

[22] McKinsey & Company. A portfolio of power-trains forEurope: a fact-based analysis. The role of battery electricvehicles, plug-in hybrids and fuel cell electric vehicles;November 2010.

[23] Commissariat G�en�eral au D�eveloppement Durable. Lesv�ehicules �electriques en perspective, analyse cout-avantageset demande potentielle; May 2011. p. 33e4.

[24] Girault M, Fosse M, Jeger F. Circulation et consommation decarburant en France estimation d�etaill�ee par type dev�ehicule; Sept. 2000.

[25] EUCAR-CONCAWE, TTW report, appendix 1.[26] EPRI 2001, Comparing the benefits and impacts of hybrid

electric vehicle options.[27] EPRI 2002, Comparing the benefits and impacts of hybrid

electric vehicle options for compact sedan and SUV.[28] MIT, On the road in 2035.[29] Lotus Engineering (2010), an assessment of mass reduction

opportunities.[30] Battery prices for electric vehicles fall 14%. BNEF; 2012.[31] The European hydrogen roadmap. HyWays; 2008.[32] IEA crude oil import price/International Energy Agency,

World energy outlook 2010 (Paris, France, November 2010).[33] http://www.valuadder.com/glossary/discount-rate.html.[34] Mansilla C, Avril S, Imbach J, Le Duigou A. CO2-free hydrogen

as a substitute to fossil fuels: what are the targets?Prospective assessment of the hydrogen marketattractiveness. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012;37(12):9451e8.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.03.149.