Repository logo
  • Log In
    Log in via Symplectic to deposit your publication(s).
Repository logo
  • About
  • Communities & Collections
  • Advanced Search
  • Statistics
  • Log In
    Log in via Symplectic to deposit your publication(s).
  1. Home
  2. Faculty of Natural Sciences
  3. Centre for Environmental Policy
  4. Centre for Environmental Policy
  5. Comparative analysis of battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid vehicles in a future sustainable road transport system
 
  • Details
Comparative analysis of battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid vehicles in a future sustainable road transport system
File(s)
Offer-etal-Comparative-Analysis-BEV-HFC-EnergyPolicy2009.pdf (240.4 KB)
Accepted version
Author(s)
Offer, GJ
Howey, DA
Contestabile, M
Clague, R
Brandon, NP
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
This paper compares battery electric vehicles (BEV) to hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV) and hydrogen fuel cell plug-in hybrid vehicles (FCHEV). Qualitative comparisons of technologies and infrastructural requirements, and quantitative comparisons of the lifecycle cost of the powertrain over 100,000 mile are undertaken, accounting for capital and fuel costs. A common vehicle platform is assumed. The 2030 scenario is discussed and compared to a conventional gasoline-fuelled internal combustion engine (ICE) powertrain. A comprehensive sensitivity analysis shows that in 2030 FCEVs could achieve lifecycle cost parity with conventional gasoline vehicles. However, both the BEV and FCHEV have significantly lower lifecycle costs. In the 2030 scenario, powertrain lifecycle costs of FCEVs range from $7360 to $22,580, whereas those for BEVs range from $6460 to $11,420 and FCHEVs, from $4310 to $12,540. All vehicle platforms exhibit significant cost sensitivity to powertrain capital cost. The BEV and FCHEV are relatively insensitive to electricity costs but the FCHEV and FCV are sensitive to hydrogen cost. The BEV and FCHEV are reasonably similar in lifecycle cost and one may offer an advantage over the other depending on driving patterns. A key conclusion is that the best path for future development of FCEVs is the FCHEV.
Version
Accepted version
Date Issued
2010-01
Citation
Energy Policy, 2010, 38 (1), pp.24-29
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/4301
URL
http://www.sciencedirect.com/
DOI
https://www.dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.040
Publisher
Elsevier
Start Page
24
End Page
29
Journal / Book Title
Energy Policy
Volume
38
Issue
1
Copyright Statement
© 2009 Elsevier B.V. This is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in Energy Policy. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Energy Policy (2009).doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.040
License URL
http://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
Subjects
hybrid vehicle
Electric vehicle
Fuel cell vehicle
About
Spiral Depositing with Spiral Publishing with Spiral Symplectic
Contact us
Open access team Report an issue
Other Services
Scholarly Communications Library Services
logo

Imperial College London

South Kensington Campus

London SW7 2AZ, UK

tel: +44 (0)20 7589 5111

Accessibility Modern slavery statement Cookie Policy

Built with DSpace-CRIS software - Extension maintained and optimized by 4Science

  • Cookie settings
  • Privacy policy
  • End User Agreement
  • Send Feedback