Abating transport GHG emissions by hydrogen fuel cell vehicles: Chances for the developing world

doi:10.1007/s11708-018-0561-3

Front. Energy

2018, Vol. 12

Issue (3) : 466-480 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-018-0561-3

RESEARCH ARTICLE

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

Download: PDF(630 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

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.

Keywords hydrogen fuel cell vehicle life cycle assessment energy consumption greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions China

Corresponding Author(s): Fuquan ZHAO

Online First Date: 12 July 2018 Issue Date: 05 September 2018

Cite this article:

Han HAO,Zhexuan MU,Zongwei LIU, et al. Abating transport GHG emissions by hydrogen fuel cell vehicles: Chances for the developing world[J]. Front. Energy, 2018, 12(3): 466-480.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fie/EN/10.1007/s11708-018-0561-3
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fie/EN/Y2018/V12/I3/466

Fig.1 Study framework

Tab.1 Technology pathways in this paper

Tab.2 Commonly seen GHG emissions factors in China

Tab.3 Source of energy consumption/GHG emissions data of the battery manufacturing process

Fig.2 Energy consumption of each technology pathway

Fig.3 GHG emissions of each technology pathway

Technical routes	Subsystems
Technical routes	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 Energy consumption of each technology pathway (Unit: MJ/km)

Tab.5 GHG emissions of each technology pathway (Unit: kg-CO₂/km)

Fig.4 Energy consumption and GHG emissions of vehicle fuel use subsystem

Fig.5 Energy consumption and GHG emissions of product fuel storing subsystem

Fig.6 Energy consumption and GHG emissions of the product fuel transporting subsystem

Fig.7 Energy consumption and GHG emissions of the feedstock processing subsystem

Fig.8 Change of energy consumption in China at different coal-electricity proportions

Fig.9 Change of GHG emissions in China at different coal-electricity proportions

Fig.10 Comparison of existing NG-based studies

Fig.11 Comparison of existing water-based studies

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

[1]	Sheng ZHOU, Maosheng DUAN, Zhiyi YUAN, Xunmin OU. Peak CO₂ emission in the region dominated by coal use and heavy chemical industries: a case study of Dezhou city in China[J]. Front. Energy, 2020, 14(4): 740-758.
[2]	Zhong HUANG, Lei DENG, Defu CHE. Development and technical progress in large-scale circulating fluidized bed boiler in China[J]. Front. Energy, 2020, 14(4): 699-714.
[3]	Jitan WU, Yonglin JU. Comprehensive comparison of small-scale natural gas liquefaction processes using brazed plate heat exchangers[J]. Front. Energy, 2020, 14(4): 683-698.
[4]	Hilal ÇELİK KAZICI, Şakir YILMAZ, Tekin ŞAHAN, Fikret YILDIZ, Ömer Faruk ER, Hilal KIVRAK. A comprehensive study of hydrogen production from ammonia borane via PdCoAg/AC nanoparticles and anodic current in alkaline medium: experimental design with response surface methodology[J]. Front. Energy, 2020, 14(3): 578-589.
[5]	Jianpeng ZHENG, Liubiao CHEN, Ping WANG, Jingjie ZHANG, Junjie WANG, Yuan ZHOU. A novel cryogenic insulation system of hollow glass microspheres and self-evaporation vapor-cooled shield for liquid hydrogen storage[J]. Front. Energy, 2020, 14(3): 570-577.
[6]	Ru Shien TAN, Tuan Amran TUAN ABDULLAH, Anwar JOHARI, Khairuddin MD ISA. Catalytic steam reforming of tar for enhancing hydrogen production from biomass gasification: a review[J]. Front. Energy, 2020, 14(3): 545-569.
[7]	Liang YIN, Yonglin JU. Review on the design and optimization of hydrogen liquefaction processes[J]. Front. Energy, 2020, 14(3): 530-544.
[8]	Junjie LI, Yajun TIAN, Xiaohui YAN, Jingdong YANG, Yonggang WANG, Wenqiang XU, Kechang XIE. Approach and potential of replacing oil and natural gas with coal in China[J]. Front. Energy, 2020, 14(2): 419-431.
[9]	Jiahui JIN, Lei WANG, Mingkai FU, Xin LI, Yuanwei LU. Thermodynamic assessment of hydrogen production via solar thermochemical cycle based on MoO₂/Mo by methane reduction[J]. Front. Energy, 2020, 14(1): 71-80.
[10]	Xiaoping CHEN, Jihai XIONG, Jinming SHI, Song XIA, Shuanglin GUI, Wenfeng SHANGGUAN. Roles of various Ni species on TiO₂ in enhancing photocatalytic H₂ evolution[J]. Front. Energy, 2019, 13(4): 684-690.
[11]	Tongbin ZHAO, Jiabo ZHANG, Dehao JU, Zhen HUANG, Dong HAN. Exergy losses in premixed flames of dimethyl ether and hydrogen blends[J]. Front. Energy, 2019, 13(4): 658-666.
[12]	Xinfang WANG, Ming MENG. Understanding high-emitting households in the UK through a cluster analysis[J]. Front. Energy, 2019, 13(4): 612-625.
[13]	Ali MOSTAFAEIPOUR, Mojtaba QOLIPOUR, Hossein GOUDARZI. Feasibility of using wind turbines for renewable hydrogen production in Firuzkuh, Iran[J]. Front. Energy, 2019, 13(3): 494-505.
[14]	Hailin WANG, Jiankun HE. China’s pre-2020 CO₂ emission reduction potential and its influence[J]. Front. Energy, 2019, 13(3): 571-578.
[15]	Mostafa REZAEI, Ali MOSTAFAEIPOUR, Mojtaba QOLIPOUR, Mozhgan MOMENI. Energy supply for water electrolysis systems using wind and solar energy to produce hydrogen: a case study of Iran[J]. Front. Energy, 2019, 13(3): 539-550.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed