Abating transport GHG emissions by hydrogen fuel cell vehicles: Chances for the developing world
Han HAO1, Zhexuan MU2, Zongwei LIU2, Fuquan ZHAO2()
1. State Key Laboratory of Automotive Safety and Energy; China Automotive Energy Research Center, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China 2. State Key Laboratory of Automotive Safety and Energy, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
Fuel cell vehicles, as the most promising clean vehicle technology for the future, represent the major chances for the developing world to avoid high-carbon lock-in in the transportation sector. In this paper, by taking China as an example, the unique advantages for China to deploy fuel cell vehicles are reviewed. Subsequently, this paper analyzes the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 19 fuel cell vehicle utilization pathways by using the life cycle assessment approach. The results show that with the current grid mix in China, hydrogen from water electrolysis has the highest GHG emissions, at 3.10 kgCO2/km, while by-product hydrogen from the chlor-alkali industry has the lowest level, at 0.08 kgCO2/km. Regarding hydrogen storage and transportation, a combination of gas-hydrogen road transportation and single compression in the refueling station has the lowest GHG emissions. Regarding vehicle operation, GHG emissions from indirect methanol fuel cell are proved to be lower than those from direct hydrogen fuel cells. It is recommended that although fuel cell vehicles are promising for the developing world in reducing GHG emissions, the vehicle technology and hydrogen production issues should be well addressed to ensure the life-cycle low-carbon performance.
On-site hydrogen refueling station via NG gasification
[23]
On-site hydrogen refueling station via water electrolysis
Factory data
Methanol refueling station
⑦
Vehicle fuel use subsystem
Direct hydrogen FCV
Factory data
Indirect methanol fuel cell station
Factory data
Tab.3
Fig.2
Fig.3
Technical routes
Subsystems
Feedstock processing
Product fuel transporting
Product fuel storing
Vehicle fuel use
H2 via coal gasification-GH2 by tube trailer-off-site HRS1-DHFCV
11.5265
5.2212
0.2321
9.3746
H2 via coal gasification-LH2 by Tank-off-site HRS2-DHFCV
11.5265
9.6198
4.6295
9.3746
H2 via coal gasification-GH2 by pipeline-off-site HRS2-DHFCV
11.5265
1.8168
4.6295
9.3746
H2 via NG reforming-GH2 by tube trailer-off-site HRS1-DHFCV
5.2366
5.2212
0.2321
9.3746
H2 via NG reforming-LH2 by tank-off-site HRS2-DHFCV
5.2366
9.6198
4.6295
9.3746
H2 via NG reforming-GH2 by pipeline-off-site HRS2-DHFCV
5.2366
2.0106
4.6295
9.3746
H2 via water electrolysis (G-Ele)-GH2 by tube Trailer-off-site HRS1-DHFCV
27.6008
5.2212
0.2321
9.3746
H2 via water electrolysis (G-Ele)-LH2 by tank-off-site HRS2-DHFCV
27.6008
9.6198
4.6295
9.3746
H2 via water electrolysis (G-Ele)-GH2 by pipeline-off-site HRS2-DHFCV
27.6008
2.0106
4.6295
9.3746
H2 via water electrolysis (W-Ele)-GH2 by tube trailer-off-site HRS1-DHFCV
0
5.2212
0.2321
9.3746
H2 via water electrolysis(W-Ele)-LH2 by tank-off-site HRS2-DHFCV
0
9.6198
4.6295
9.3746
H2 via water electrolysis(W-Ele)-GH2 by pipeline-off-site HRS2-DHFCV
0
2.0106
4.6295
9.3746
By-product H2 via chlor-alkali industry-GH2 by tube trailer-off-site HRS1-DHFCV
0.9411
4.8074
0.2321
9.3746
By-product H2 via chlor-alkali industry-LH2 by tank-off-site HRS2-DHFCV
0.9411
8.6937
4.6295
9.3746
By-product H2 via chlor-alkali industry-GH2 by pipeline-off-site HRS2-DHFCV
0.9411
2.0106
4.6295
9.3746
NG production-CNG by Tank-on-site HRS via NG gasification-DHFCV
0.5058
0.6164
9.36
9.3746
NG production-LNG by tank-on-site HRS via NG gasification-DHFCV
0.5058
0.874
9.36
9.3746
On-site HRS via water electrolysis-DHFCV
0
0
32.23
9.3746
Methanol via coal-liquid methanol by tank-MRS-IMFCV
11.0493
0.002
0
10.8942
Diesel via coal-diesel transportation-diesel RS-diesel ICEV
2.771922384
0.02688588
0
8.3997648
Power plant-transmission loss-charging loss-BEV
10.34652406
0.278074866
0.427807487
3.6
Tab.4
Technical routes
Subsystems
Feedstock processing
Product fuel transporting
Product fuel storing
Vehicle fuel use
H2 via coal gasification-GH2 by tube trailer-off-site HRS1-DHFCV
1.9734
0.4343
0.0194
0
H2 via coal gasification-LH2 by tank-off-site HRS2-DHFCV
1.9734
0.806
0.3879
0
H2 via coal gasification-GH2 by pipeline-off-site HRS2-DHFCV
1.9734
0.1685
0.3879
0
H2 via NG reforming-GH2 by tube trailer-off-site HRS1-DHFCV
1.1234
0.4343
0.0194
0
H2 via NG reforming-LH2 by tank-off-site HRS2-DHFCV
1.1234
0.806
0.3879
0
H2 via NG reforming-GH2 by pipeline-off-site HRS2-DHFCV
1.1234
0.1685
0.3879
0
H2 via water electrolysis (G-Ele)-GH2 by tube trailer-off-site HRS1-DHFCV
3.098
0.4343
0.0194
0
H2 via water electrolysis (G-Ele)-LH2 by tank-off-site HRS2-DHFCV
3.098
0.806
0.3879
0
H2 via water electrolysis (G-Ele)-GH2 by pipeline-off-site HRS2-DHFCV
3.098
0.1685
0.3879
0
H2 via water electrolysis (W-Ele)-GH2 by tube trailer-off-site HRS1-DHFCV
0
0.4343
0.0194
0
H2 via water electrolysis(W-Ele)-LH2 by tank-off-site HRS2-DHFCV
0
0.806
0.3879
0
H2 via water electrolysis(W-Ele)-GH2 by pipeline-off-site HRS2-DHFCV
0
0.1685
0.3879
0
By-product H2 via chlor-alkali industry-GH2 by tube trailer-off-site HRS1-DHFCV
0.0789
0.4351
0.0194
0
By-product H2 via chlor-alkali industry-LH2 by tank-off-site HRS2-DHFCV
0.0789
0.806
0.3879
0
By-product H2 via chlor-alkali industry-GH2 by pipeline-off-site HRS2-DHFCV
0.0789
0.1685
0.3879
0
NG production-CNG by tank-on-site HRS via NG gasification-DHFCV
0.0427
0.0517
1.3609
0
NG production-LNG by tank-on-site HRS via NG gasification-DHFCV
0.0427
0.0731
1.3609
0
On-site HRS via water electrolysis-DHFCV
0
0
3.4859
0
Methanol via coal-liquid methanol by tank-MRS-IMFCV
0.6067
0.00015
0
0.546
Diesel via coal-diesel transportation-diesel RS-diesel ICEV
0.2507
0.0022
0
0.6106
Power plant-transmission loss-charging loss-BEV
1.1151
0.0645
0.0992
0
Tab.5
Fig.4
Fig.5
Fig.6
Fig.7
Fig.8
Fig.9
Fig.10
Fig.11
1
Hardman S, Chandan A, Shiu E, Steinberger-Wilckens R. Consumer attitudes to fuel cell vehicles post trial in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2016, 41(15): 6171–6179 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.02.067
2
Campanari S, Manzolini G, Garcia de la Iglesia F. Energy analysis of electric vehicles using batteries or fuel cells through well-to-wheel driving cycle simulations. Journal of Power Sources, 2009, 186(2): 464–477 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2008.09.115
3
Schafer A, Heywood J B, Weiss M A. Future fuel cell and internal combustion engine automobile technologies: a 25-year life cycle and fleet impact assessment. Energy, 2006, 31(12): 2064–2087 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2005.09.011
4
Ekdunge P, Raberg M. The fuel cell vehicle analysis of energy use, emissions and cost. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 1998, 23(5): 381–385 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3199(97)00062-1
5
Wang M. Fuel choices for fuel-cell vehicles: well-to-wheels energy and emission impacts. Journal of Power Sources, 2002, 112(1): 307–321 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7753(02)00447-0
6
Paster M D, Ahluwalia R K, Berry G, et al. Hydrogen storage technology options for fuel cell vehicles: well-to-wheel costs, energy efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions. Fuel and Energy Abstracts, 2011, 36(22): 14534–14551
7
Felgenhauer M F, Pellow M A, Benson S M, Hamacher T. Economic and environmental prospects of battery and fuel cell vehicles for the energy transition in German communities. Energy Procedia, 2016, 99: 380–391 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.10.128
8
Felgenhauer M F, Pellow M A, Benson S M, Hamacher T. Evaluating co-benefits of battery and fuel cell vehicles in a community in California. Energy, 2016, 114: 360–368 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.014
9
Offer G J, Howey D, Contestabile M, Clague R, Brandon N P. Comparative analysis of battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid vehicles in a future sustainable road transport system. Energy Policy, 2010, 38(1): 24–29 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.040
10
Wagner U, Eckl R, Tzscheutschler P. Energetic life cycle assessment of fuel cell powertrain systems and alternative fuels in Germany. Energy, 2006, 31(14): 3062–3075 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2005.10.031
11
Ahmadi P, Kjeang E. Comparative life cycle assessment of hydrogen fuel cell passenger vehicles in different Canadian provinces. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2015, 40(38): 12905–12917 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.07.147
12
Winter U, Weidner H. Hydrogen for the mobility of the future results of GM/Opel’s well-to-wheel studies in North America and Europe. Fuel Cells, 2003, 3(3): 76–83 https://doi.org/10.1002/fuce.200332105
13
Han W, Zhang G, Xiao J, Bénard P, Chahine R. Demonstrations and marketing strategies of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in China. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2014, 39(25): 13859–13872 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.04.138
14
Zhang L, Yu J, Ren J, Ma L, Zhang W, Liang H. How can fuel cell vehicles bring a bright future for this dragon? Answer by multi-criteria decision making analysis. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2016, 41(39): 17183–17192 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.08.044
15
Xu X, Xu B, Dong J, Liu X. Near-term analysis of a roll-out strategy to introduce fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen stations in Shenzhen China. Applied Energy, 2017, 196: 229–237 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.11.048
16
Wang D, Zamel N, Jiao K, Zhou Y, Yu S, Du Q, Yin Y. Life cycle analysis of internal combustion engine, electric and fuel cell vehicles for China. Energy, 2013, 59: 402–412 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.07.035
17
SAE-China.Technology Roadmap for Energy Saving and New Energy Vehicles. Beijing: China Machine Press, 2016 (in Chinese)
18
Yi B. Large scale demonstration and hydrogen source of fuel cell vehicle. In: 2nd Fuel Cell Vehicle Congress, Rugao, China, 2017 (in Chinese)
19
Ou X, Yan X, Zhang X. Using coal for transportation in China: life cycle GHG of coal-based fuel and electric vehicle, and policy implications. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2010, 4(5): 878–887 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.04.018
20
Chen Y. Life cycle ecological benefit evaluation of automobile parts. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Changsha: Hunan University, 2014 (in Chinese)
21
Li Y. Research on evaluating the several methods of hydrogen production technology by life cycle assessment. Dissertation for the Master’s Degree. Xi’an: Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, 2010 (in Chinese)
22
Pan H, Wang Q. Economic and technical comparison of three typical coal gasification technologies for hydrogen preparation. Shanxi Science and Technology, 2016, 31(3): 42–47 (in Chinese)
23
Liu G. Cost analysis of hydrogen production by NG reformation. Engineering Technology, 2016, 11: 00287–00289 (in Chinese)
24
GB 21257–2014. The Norm of Energy Consumption Per Unit Product of Caustic Soda. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2014 (in Chinese)
25
Sun Y. Assessment and countermeasure study of coal-based methanol cleaner production based on life cycle assessment (LCA): a case study of a classical coal-based methanol process. Dissertation for the Master’s Degree. Shanghai: Fudan University, 2013 (in Chinese)
26
Tang L, Qiu L, Yao L, et al. Review on research and developments of hydrogen liquefaction systems. Journal of Refrigeration, 2011, 32(6): 1–8 (in Chinese)
27
Chen C. Development of 300 m3 liquid hydrogen storage tank for transportation in vehicle. Dissertation for the Master’s Degree. Harbin: Harbin Institute of Technology, 2015 (in Chinese)
33
GB 24163-2009. Periodic Inspection and Evaluation of Steel Cylinder for the Storage of Compressed Natural Gas for Stations. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2009 (in Chinese)
28
Liu J, Bai G, Ji M. Method for advancement evaluation of natural gas liquefaction process. Chemical Engineering (Albany, N.Y.), 2016, 44(11): 69–73 (in Chinese)
29
Kong W, Li Q, Wang X. Analysis on energy saving and emission reduction of electric vehicles based upon life-cycle energy efficiency. Electric Power, 2012, 45(9): 64–67 (in Chinese)
30
National Bureau of Statistics of China. 2016 China Energy Statistical Yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press, 2016 (in Chinese)
31
Ou X, Zhang X, Chang S. Alternative fuel buses currently in use in China: life-cycle fossil energy use, GHG emissions and policy recommendations. Energy Policy, 2010, 38(1): 406–418 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.09.031
32
Dong J, Liu X, Xu X, Zhang S. Comparative life cycle assessment of hydrogen pathways from fossil sources in China. International Journal of Energy Research, 2016, 40(15): 2105–2116 https://doi.org/10.1002/er.3586
