HYTEC FINAL SUMMARY TECHNICAL REPORT - … · HYTEC FINAL SUMMARY TECHNICAL REPORT Peter Speers1 (Cenex), ... project which deployed fuel cell electric vehicles ... o Hyundai Motor

HYTEC FINAL SUMMARY TECHNICAL REPORT

Peter Speers1 (Cenex), Michael Dolman (Element Energy), Aleksandar Lozanovski and Michael Baumann (Fraunhofer), Lourdes F. Vega, Gabriel Blejman and Patricia Ruiz (MATGAS).

Status: Final. HyTEC Deliverable 6.12. Dissemination level: Public. Date: 31th August 2015.1Cenex, Advanced Technology Innovation Centre, Loughborough, LE11 3QF, UK.

[email protected]

Author printed in bold is the contact person for this document.

Level of dissemination: PU (public)

mailto:[email protected]

Contents and key conclusions

Section SlideIntroduction 3Overall summaryHyTEC represents the largest and most comprehensive FCEV and infrastructure trial dataset yet published in the EU.

5

FCEV and infrastructure operationHyTEC is the first comprehensive EU trial to prove that FCEVs can operate successfully day-to-day as part of working vehicle fleets.

13

End-user surveysFCEVs and refuelling infrastructure have generally proven popular with users. Hands-on vehicle experience is crucial in shaping user vehicle choice.

20

Life Cycle AssessmentEven with fossil fuel-derived hydrogen, FCEV taxis operating in London deliver significant lifetime CO2e emission benefit over diesel equivalents. With hydrogen generated by electrolysis supplied by wind-derived electricity, the benefit can be as high as 80%.

27

Life Cycle Cost (LCC)FCEVs have a considerable LCC premium over conventional vehicles. Incentives and consideration of societal benefits reduce the gap, but early deployments are likely to be to customers who are willing to bear a cost premium.

36

Introduction

•HyTEC (Hydrogen Transport in European Cities) was an FCH JU-supported demonstration project which deployed fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) and hydrogen refuelling stations (HRSs) in Copenhagen, London and Oslo between 2012-2015.

•This report presents a summary of the four analysis subtasks carried out during the project:

o FCEVs and refuelling infrastructure performance analysis (led by Cenex).

o Assessment of the users’ attitudes via questionnaires and interviews (led by Cenex).

o Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the vehicles and infrastructure deployed in Copenhagen and London (led by Fraunhofer and MATGAS).

o Life Cycle Cost (LCC) assessment of FCEVs (led by Element Energy).


Acknowledgements•This project was co-funded by the European Union’s 7th Framework for the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH JU) under grant agreement number 278727. We would like to thank the FCH JU for supporting this activity.

•The information in this report is a summary of the comprehensive analysis contained in the following HyTEC reports:

o HyTEC Final Report on Three Years of Hydrogen Vehicle and Refuelling Station Operation in Copenhagen, London and Oslo, Peter Speers, Cenex (deliverable 6.6).

o Final Life Cycle Assessment Report, Aleksandar Lozanovski and Michael Baumann (Fraunhofer), Lourdes F. Vega, Gabriel Blejman and Patricia Ruiz (MATGAS) (deliverable 6.8).

o Lifecycle Cost Analysis of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles, Michael Dolman, Element Energy (deliverable 6.9).

o Fuel Cell Vehicle End-User Surveys, Peter Speers, Cenex (deliverable 6.11).

•We would like to thank the following project partners for providing data and support during this work:

o Air Products

o City of Copenhagen

o H2 Logic

o Hyundai Motor Europe

o Intelligent Energy


HyTEC overall data summary – July 2012-July 2015


Vehicle and infrastructure operation centres in HyTEC (1)

Copenhagen

• 15 Hyundai ix35 fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs, of which nine were co-funded by HyTEC) began operating with public fleets in June 2013.

• Some of the vehicles had regular assigned users; others were part of the Copenhagen municipal car pool.

• The vehicles were refuelled at three HyTEC-co-funded hydrogen refuelling stations (HRSs) in the Greater Copenhagen area operated by the Copenhagen Hydrogen Network:

o The first station, at Sydhavnen, opened in April 2013.

o A second station at Gladsaxe was added to the network in December 2014.

o A third was added at Köge in August 2015.

Oslo

• Driving data is presented for eight Hyundai ix35 FCEVs which were operated by private users from January to July 2015.


Vehicle and infrastructure operation centres in HyTEC (2)

London

• Five Intelligent Energy fuel cell hybrid conversions of diesel London Taxi Company TX4 vehicles performed transportation duties during the London Olympics and Paralympics from July-September 2012.

• Two of the FCEV hybrid taxis resumed operation in London in July 2013, carrying out a combination of chauffeuring, promotional and testing duties. The remaining three taxis were based at Intelligent Energy’s headquarters in Loughborough performing similar duties.

• In 2012-14 the London vehicles were refuelled primarily at the Air Products HRS at Hatton Cross (Heathrow). A small number of refuellings were also carried out at the Air Products bus HRS in Temple Mills, East London.

• An additional Air Products HRS in Hendon (North West London), funded by the Innovate UK-supported London Hydrogen Network Expansion (LHNE) project, was added to the network in March 2015 and was also used by the HyTEC vehicles.

• Six Hyundai ix35 FCEVs (two co-funded by HyTEC, four by LHNE) began operation with public and private fleets in London and the south of England in September 2014.


FCEVs deployed during HyTEC


Vehicle manufacturer Hyundai

Vehicle type Fuel cell hybrid

Max. speed (kph) 160

H2 storage (kg) 5.6 (@700 bar)

Range (km, NEDC) 590

Source: City of Copenhagen

Vehicle manufacturer

LTI TX4 taxi, Intelligent Energy (IE) fuel cell and vehicle conversion

Vehicle type Fuel cell hybrid

Max. speed (kph) 150

H2 storage (kg) 3.73 (@350 bar)

Range (km) 400

Source: Intelligent Energy

HRSs deployed during HyTEC


Locations London: Heathrow and Hendon

Daily capacity Up to 80 kg/day

H2 Supply Offsite production

Refuelling pressure

Dual 700 bar (70 MPa)and 350bar (35 MPa) operation

Accessibility Public (by appointment in the first instance). 24/7. Self-service operation

Owner & Operator Air Products

1

2

3 Köge

Sydhavnen

Gladsaxe Locations 3 HRSs in the Greater Copenhagen area

Daily capacity (per station) Up to 75 kg/day

H2 Supply Partial onsite

Refuelling pressure 70MPa

Owner & Operator Copenhagen Hydrogen Network A/S

HRS provider H2 Logic A/S

Hendon

Heathrow

Cumulative distance travelled

• Total distance recorded by telemetry on vehicles operating in Denmark, Norway and the UK from July 2012-July 2015 was 365,300 km.

• Not all vehicle drive events were captured and analysed and project data capture ended in July 2015 to allow time for reporting. The mileage measured by on-vehicle odometers was over 400,000km by the trial end in August 2015.


Jun 2013 onwards:15 Hyundai ix35

FCEVs deployed in Copenhagen.

Two FCEV taxis deployed in

London at any one time

Sept 2014 onwards:

six Hyundai ix35 FCEVs deployed in

London

Jan 2015 onwards:

eight Hyundai ix35 FCEVs

deployed in Oslo

Jul-Sep 2012:

Five FCEV taxis

deployed in London

during the Olympics

Refuelling quantity and no. of refuels per month

• Total quantity of hydrogen dispensed from Denmark and UK HRSs from July 2012-July 2015 was 6,730 kg from 2,529 refuelling events.


July 2012: first

generation 350 bar Air

Products HRS deployed in Heathrow,

London

April 2013: 700 bar H2 Logic HRS opened at

Sydhavnen, Copenhagen

May 2014: second generation 350/700

bar Air Products HRS deployed at

Heathrow

Dec 2014: second 700 bar H2 Logic HRS deployed in

Gladsaxe, Copenhagen

August 2015: third 700 bar H2 Logic HRS

deployed in Köge, Copenhagen

March 2015: second 350/700 bar Air

Products HRS opened at Hendon,

London

Summary of project results


Period of report July 2012-July 2015

Number of vehicles34

29 Hyundai ix35 FCEVsFive LTI TX4 Intelligent Energy fuel cell hybrid conversions

Location and dates of operation

15 Hyundai ix35 FCEVs operating in Copenhagen (6/2013-7/2015).Six Hyundai ix35 FCEVs operating in London (9/2014-7/2015).Eight Hyundai ix35 FCEVs operating in Oslo (1/2015-7/2015).

Five LTI TX4 Intelligent Energy fuel cell hybrid conversions operating in London and Loughborough (7/2012-7/2015).

Cumulative distance driven measured by on-vehicle telemetry (km)

365,300 (over 400,000 including odometer data that was not captured by telemetry systems)

Number of refuelling stations

FiveThree in Copenhagen (Sydhavnen, Gladsaxe and Köge)

Two in London (Heathrow and Hendon)

Hydrogen refuelled (kg) 6,730

Number of refuellings 2,529

Conclusions of FCEV and infrastructure operation


1. the HyTEC dataset represents the largest and most comprehensive FCEV fleet trial yet published in the EU

• HyTEC represents the first comprehensive EU trial to prove that FCEVs can operate successfully day-to-day as part of working vehicle fleets.

• FCEV and station usage increased steadily throughout the project as the vehicles were integrated fully into fleet operations.

• By the end of three years of HyTEC deployment the vehicle fleet accumulated over 400,000km of operation in demanding urban environments.

• HyTEC refuellers delivered over 6,700kg in hydrogen and carried out over 2,500 refuels.

• There were no FCEV or refuelling station safety incidents during the three years of the project.

• Building on the success of earlier projects such as H2Moves Scandinavia, the vehicle mileage and refuelling experience accumulated during HyTEC represent the most comprehensive dataset published on FCEV fleet vehicle operation in the EU.

• The vehicles and refuelling infrastructure were also generally popular with end users, as discussed later and in detail in the report HyTEC fuel cell electric vehicle end-user surveys (deliverable 6.11 ).

Source: HyTEC Final Report on Three Years of Hydrogen Vehicle and Refuelling Station Operation in Copenhagen, London and Oslo, Peter Speers, Cenex (deliverable 6.6).

2. FECVs offer flexibility of usage to fleets and have proven durable over 100,000s of km of operation

• One of the primary aims of HyTEC was prove that hydrogen vehicles are practical to operate on a daily basis in working fleets, and to feedback trial learnings to the vehicle manufacturers.

• As an example of the FCEV’s flexibility, in urban operation in Copenhagen the average daily distance travelled by each vehicle was around 50km.

• However, the vehicles were also capable of travelling much greater daily distances if their work tasks required it, and the vehicles drove up to 480km in a single day.

• In London the FCEV taxis also performed a variety of daily driving tasks covering up to 350km per day.

• The vehicles proved to be very reliable, with the ix35 FCEVs achieving almost 100% availability in Copenhagen. In London, the FCEV taxi reliability improved throughout the project to reach 98% by the end of the trial.

• Data obtained during the trial and feedback from users was fed into the manufacturers’ development plans for next generation vehicles. This is discussed further in the report HyTEC fuel cell electric vehicle end-user surveys (deliverable 6.11).


3. FCEVs maintain their fuel efficiency over two+ years of trial operation

• The measured annual fuel efficiency for the Hyundai ix35 FCEV over two+ years of operation in Copenhagen was 78km/kgH2, or 26% lower than the NEDC value of 105km/kgH2.

• There was no evidence of an efficiency loss over two+ years, or an average of ~35,000km, of operation for each vehicle.

• The observed variation of fuel efficiency with external temperature is due to factors including increased air and rolling resistance, higher use of auxiliary power and reduced mechanical and electrical efficiency. This effect is typical of that seen in the operation of both conventional and alternatively fuelled vehicles (for comparator data, see Low Carbon Vehicle Procurement Programme Final Technical Report, http://www.cenex.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/LCVPP-Final-Technical-Report-2.pdf).

• The decrease in real world efficiency compared to drive cycle test measured efficiency is topical, and also typical of that observed for conventional and alternatively fuelled vehicles; see http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_LaboratoryToRoad_2015_Report_English.pdf for further discussion.


http://www.cenex.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/LCVPP-Final-Technical-Report-2.pdf

http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_LaboratoryToRoad_2015_Report_English.pdf

Slow route Fast route

FCEV Diesel FCEV Diesel

Fuel

1.63

(kg/

100 km)

12

(l/

100km)

1.31

(kg/

100 km)

8.5

(l/

100km)

Energy

(kWh/

100km)

54 85 44 112

4. hydrogen vehicles are more energy efficient than ICE vehicles on a tank-to-wheel basis

• A further aim of HyTEC was to establish the full Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) of producing, operating and disposing of the fuel cell taxis compared to their diesel equivalents.

• In a series of back-to-back runs the FCEV taxi consistently used less energy (on a tank-to-wheel basis) than its diesel equivalent.

• The in-use efficiency of the hydrogen vehicle over a diesel comparator was amplified over an inner city duty cycle compared to an extra-urban cycle.

• A full analysis shows that the hydrogen vehicle has a lower life cycle impact than the diesel vehicle over its full life cycle even using current (fossil) sources of hydrogen.

• The impact could be > 80% lower if green hydrogen generated from renewable sources such as wind were to be used.

• For a full discussion of the LCIA work see Final Life Cycle Assessment Report (HyTEC deliverable 6.8).


5. hydrogen refuelling stations have proven reliable in use and offer a refuelling experience comparable to conventional stations

• The hydrogen refuelling stations (HRS) deployed in Copenhagen and London proved to be reliable in use, with availability (excluding scheduled maintenance) of ~99% during the project.

• The users expressed no concerns with the vehicle refuelling time. In London 84% of vehicle refuelling events were completed within five minutes.

• The refuelling stations were generally viewed relatively positively by end-users; however some expressed frustration at the relative sparseness of the current refuelling networks.

• Data obtained during the trial and feedback from users was fed into the manufacturers’ improvement plans for current stations, and development plans for next generation refuelling infrastructure. This is discussed further in the report HyTEC fuel cell electric vehicle end-user surveys (deliverable 6.11).

•


6. hydrogen refuelling stations will need to plan carefully for back-to-back refuelling capacity and scheduling when usage grows

• The HyTEC FCEVs in Copenhagen typically performed relatively short daily trips, and there was no evidence of range anxiety once the users became accustomed to the vehicles.

• The great majority of refuellings were carried out during the working day which demonstrates the vehicle’s duties as part of working public fleets.

• However, the refuellings are not evenly spaced through the day: there was evidence of a morning peak between 10 am and 12pm (see upper graph on the right), with comparatively fewer refuelling events at the end of the working day showing that the drivers do not in general refuel the vehicles to be ready for the next user on the next working day.

• The hydrogen refuelling patterns contrast with those for return to base electric fleet vehicles (see lower graph on the right) where recharging infrastructure is available at the depot. Here the EVs are generally refuelled (charged) overnight by drivers at the end of their shifts using local recharging infrastructure; in fact operational procedures mandate that vehicles are put on charge at the end of a shift irrespective of their state-of-charge (comparable to bus operation).

•


Conclusions of the user surveys and interviews



FCEV user surveys: introduction• A number of previous studies1 have assessed user attitudes to hydrogen vehicles. These

studies have generally been carried out:

o With the general public, not working fleet users.

o Without offering hands-on experience of hydrogen vehicles to those being surveyed.

• The end-user engagement work carried out during HyTEC is amongst the first2 where fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) were deployed with working fleets, and their users surveyed about their attitudes to the FCEVs and associated refuelling infrastructure.

• Due to time and budgetary limitations, the HyTEC surveys were not conducted with the full rigour of some studies (e.g., there was no control group who were not given access to an FCEV), and the number of responses was limited by the number of people taking part in the trial.

• However, a number of broad conclusions can be proposed from the user engagement work carried out during HyTEC. These are presented in the following slides.

1 For examples, see: Martin et. al., Behavioural response to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and refueling: Results of California drive clinics and Truett et. al, Compendium: Surveys Evaluating Knowledge and Opinions of Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies.2 For a recent bus fleet end-user survey, see Lipman et al, Hydrogen Fuel Cell Bus Driver Response in a Real World Setting: Study of a Northern California Transit Bus Fleet.


1. hands-on experience of vehicles is important in user choice

• Previous reports on hydrogen technologies have noted the importance of allowing end-users to get real-world experience of the technology to allow them to gain an informed opinion of the vehicles.

• This work has confirmed the importance of hands-on vehicle experience in shaping user opinion and choice:

o For the London FCEV taxi drivers, ongoing driving experience meant that by the three-year trial period all believed that the FCEV taxi could substitute for their work vehicles.

o In Copenhagen, prior vehicle experience was shown to be the most important reason for a user’s choice of a particular vehicle. Source: HyTEC Fuel Cell Vehicle End-User Surveys,

Peter Speers, Cenex (deliverable 6.11).


2. direct experience of FCEVs results in them being rated positively by end-users

• Direct experience of FCEVs has resulted in the end-users generally having very positive experience of the vehicles.

• End-users believe driving an FCEV is environmentally-friendly.

• Most aspects of the vehicles were rated positively, with users particularly highlighting:

o Driving experience

o Quietness

Source: HyTEC Fuel Cell Vehicle End-User Surveys, Peter Speers, Cenex (deliverable 6.11).


3. hydrogen refuelling stations tend to be judged more harshly by end-users

• In Copenhagen and London, hydrogen refuelling stations tended to be given lower ratings by users.

• For example, despite the fact that users generally found the HRS easy to use and there were no complaints from users about the refuelling process, the Copenhagen users on average rated the station refuelling experience at 0.75 compared to an average driving experience rating of 1.8.

• There are a number of potential contributory factors to this, including:o Users complained about the inconvenience of refuelling

due to current scarcity of the refuelling network. This may increase their general level of dissatisfaction with FCEV refuelling.

o Using the language of Herzberg’s motivation factors*:

Refuelling can be considered a hygiene factor: if it works well, users will not particularly notice it (i.e., will tend to be relatively neutral about it) as it is considered to be the same as its petrol/diesel equivalent. It will only be when hydrogen refuelling showed a particular positive improvement over conventional refuelling (e.g., in terms of speed or cleanliness) that it will attract more positive ratings.

Driving an FCEV can be considered a motivator: as discussed previously, users see differentiating factors such as the lack of noise of the FCEV as positive improvements compared to petrol/diesel equivalents, and rate the FCEV driving experience accordingly.

* Herzberg’s two-factor motivation theory is used in discussing workplace satisfaction: hygiene factors serve only to cause dissatisfaction, whereas motivators can lead to positive satisfactory experiences.



4. purchase and running costs are important considerations in determining fleet users’ willingness to pay for FCEV

• The London FCEV taxi drivers pay for their own vehicles, in contrast to the Copenhagen municipal fleet users.

• The London FCEV taxi users were enthusiastic about the vehicles, but in general only expressed a willingness to pay a small premium (10-25%), or no premium, for the vehicles.

• The London taxi drivers stressed the importance of running costs in making vehicle purchase decisions, citing the cost of running an equivalent diesel taxi as the comparator they would use.



5. trials and user interaction provide valuable feedback to vehicle and station manufacturers to advance their technology

• The London taxi vehicle conversion involved the development of bespoke hybrid drive and fuel cell system.

• The FCEV taxis were driven by a regular pool of drivers who, as well as participating in the user-engagement workstream, were constantly in touch with Intelligent Energy who developed the fuel system and managed the trial of the vehicles in London.

• In Copenhagen and London two-way interaction between the manufacturers and users during the project has provided valuable feedback for future vehicle and station development.


Level of dissemination: CO (confidential)

Conclusions of the Life Cycle Impact Assessment



Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): introduction• Three principal phases were considered in the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA):

o Production — which includes upstream processes such as mineral extraction.

o Use — which incorporates the energy required to produce and deliver the hydrogen to the vehicle and therefore the LCA of the stations and the real-world fuel use by the vehicle.

o End-of-life (EoL). Processes for the EoL of the crucial components of FCEVs (fuel cells and batteries) are immature and recycling/reuse techniques continue to evolve. These were therefore considered separately by the study.

Source: Final Life Cycle Assessment Report, Aleksandar Lozanovski and Michael Baumann (Fraunhofer), Lourdes F. Vega, Gabriel Blejman and Patricia Ruiz (MATGAS) (deliverable 6.8).

1. production of FCEVs produces higher CO2e emissions than diesel equivalents


• The figure shows the CO2e emissions for the production of the FCEV taxi used in London compared to the diesel-fuelled base TX4.

• Production of the FCEV taxi conversion has ~75% higher CO2e emissions than the base diesel vehicle.

• The CO2e emissions increment of the FCEV taxi over the base diesel vehicle is due largely to the addition of the fuel cell system, vehicle battery and hydrogen tank.

• The analysis shown assumes a 1g/kW platinum loading on the fuel cell. The study also explores the effect of lower platinum loadings expected in next-generation fuel cells which would reduce the production life cycle impact of the fuel cell.

2. production and delivery of fossil-fuel derived hydrogen to the London HRS has a higher life cycle impact than that of a diesel station

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

HR

S

HR

S(o

nly

win

d)

Die

se

lS

tatio

n

Glo

ba

l W

arm

ing

Po

ten

tia

l [k

g C

O2

-Eq

uiv

./M

J]

Global Warming Potential London

Transportation

Delivery

Station

Compression

Production


• The figure shows the CO2e emissions for the production and delivery of hydrogen to the London station at Heathrow (i.e., well to tank or WTT emissions) compared to that of a diesel station on an energy-delivered basis.

• The current London HRS has significantly higher WTT CO2e emissions than its diesel equivalent.

• The WTT emissions profile of the London station is dominated by the energy of production of the hydrogen from steam methane reforming which is a relatively efficient (~80%), but energy-intensive, process.

• Considering a future London scenario of hydrogen derived by electrolysis supplied by wind energy-derived electricity would reduce the WTT CO2e emissions of a London hydrogen station by around an order of magnitude to below that of a diesel station.

3. FCEV taxis in London have lower life cycle CO2e emissions than diesel equivalents

• The figure shows the CO2e emissions for the FCEV taxi compared to a diesel equivalent over the full vehicle lifecycle (here considered as 550,000km or 12 years of operation) for an urban taxi duty cycle (the ‘slow’ route described on slide 17).

• The jumps in the lines for the FCEV taxi represent vehicle fuel cell and battery swaps which are assumed to occur every 160,000km.

• At very low mileages the relatively higher production CO2e emissions for the FCEV taxi over its diesel equivalent can be seen.

• Over the full lifecycle the FCEV taxi has 28% lower lifecycle CO2e emissions than the diesel taxi even using current fossil-derived hydrogen. This is due to the higher energy efficiency of the FCEV compared to the diesel vehicle and the high tank-to-wheel (~73g/MJ) CO2e emissions of the diesel vehicle.

• Considering a future London scenario of hydrogen by electrolysis supplied by wind energy-derived electricity would reduce the lifecycle CO2e emissions by 83% over a diesel taxi.


0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

0 275,000 550,000

Glo

ba

l W

arm

ing

Po

ten

tia

l [k

g C

O2-E

qu

iv.]

Mileage [km]

Comparison FC vs. Diesel Taxi using fossil H2 and green H2

Taxi Diesel(max)

Taxi FC (max)

Taxi FC (max)(wind power)

28% GWP

reduction

83% GWP

reduction

FC/battery exchange

4. production of hydrogen in Copenhagen by electrolysis has a lower life cycle CO2e impact than production of hydrogen for London by SMR


• The figure shows the CO2e emissions for the production and delivery of hydrogen to the Copenhagen HRS at Sydhavnen compared to a petrol and electrical vehicle recharging station on an energy-delivered basis.

• The Copenhagen HRS has higher CO2e emissions (~50%) than petrol or electrical recharging stations, but a lower impact than the London HRS which uses hydrogen derived from steam methane reforming.

• The emissions profile of the Copenhagen station is dominated by the energy of production of the hydrogen by electrolysis (here assumed to be at 66.5% efficiency) and hence by the electricity mix used in the hydrogen production.

5. use of 100% renewable electricity further reduces the life cycle CO2e impact of hydrogen production by electrolysis


• The HyTEC Copenhagen electrolysers operate using 100% certified renewable electricity.

• By 2023 Denmark is targeting a 100% renewable electricity supply.

• Use of 100% renewable electricity to supply electrolysis in Copenhagen reduces CO2e emissions of dispensing hydrogen by an order of magnitude, and below that of the petrol/electrical refuelling stations shown in the previous slide.

• The electricity supply mix used has a greater influence over the CO2e emissions of dispensing hydrogen than the electrolyser efficiency in the scenarios considered in this study (where the efficiency was varied between a value of 58% which is considered typical of present values and a future target of 66.5%).

6. emissions of FCEVs operating in Copenhagen depend critically on the electricity mix used for hydrogen production by electrolysis


• The HyTEC Copenhagen electrolysers operate using 100% certified renewable electricity.

• By 2023 Denmark is targeting a 100% renewable electricity supply.

• The effect of the electricity supply mix on the comparative CO2e emissions of conventional and alternatively fuelled vehicles over the NEDC test cycle in Copenhagen is shown in the figures.

o Using the 2014 overall (non-renewable certified) Copenhagen electricity supply mix means that FCEVs have higher CO2e emissions than conventional and plug-in electric vehicles (top figure).

o User a 100% renewable mix lowers the CO2e emissions of the FCEV below that of a diesel or petrol equivalent over a 150,000km vehicle lifetime (bottom figure). The FCEV’s emissions are then comparable with t hat of a PHEV, but slightly higher than that of an electric vehicle.

7. the end-of-life impact of FCEVs depends on the development and implementation of recycling strategies for critical components


• The figure shows the comparative lifecycle CO2e emissions for the an FCEV taxi and its diesel equivalent operating in London.

• As discussed on slide 31, the FCEV has additional maintenance lifecycle CO2e emissions over the diesel taxi associated with a battery and fuel cell system swap every 160,000km.

• The figure assumes that appropriate recycling/reuse strategies are in place for FCEV components including:

o The fuel cell (platinum is assumed to be 98% recoverable)

o Vehicle battery

o Hydrogen tank

• If appropriate recycling strategies are implemented, then even though the FCEV has higher maintenance life cycle costs, much of this is recovered at end of life yielding the negative CO2e EoL emission credits shown in the figure.

Level of dissemination: CO (confidential)

Conclusions of the FCEV Life Cycle Cost analysis


1. FCEVs have a significant TCO premium over conventional vehicles

• Over a four-year lease period, the total cost of ownership (TCO) premium for a zero emission FCEV priced at ~£44k (ex. VAT) — which is representative of the market-introduction prices for FCEVs that have recently been announced by major OEMs — over an equivalent diesel car is close to 100%.

• The primary reason for the large FCEV TCO premium is the much higher (~250%) capital cost premium of the FCEV over the incumbent diesel vehicle, which means that capex constitutes ~70% of the four-year total cost of ownership (TCO) of the FCEV.

• Lowering FCEV purchase costs (for example, by purchase price incentives) reduces, but does not eliminate, the FCEV TCO premium over a diesel equivalent.

Source: Lifecycle Cost Analysis of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles, Michael Dolman, Element Energy (deliverable 6.9).

2. FCEV taxis have a TCO premium over conventional taxis

• Based on an outright vehicle purchase model (which is typical of current taxi operations) the four-year total cost of ownership (TCO) premium over a diesel equivalent for an FCEV taxi priced at £55k is 26%.

• The relatively lower TCO premium for the FCEV taxi compared to the FCEV passenger car arises from a number of factors including:

o An assumed lower purchase price premium for the FCEV taxi over its diesel equivalent than in the passenger car case.

o A three-times higher annual mileage for the taxi compared to the passenger car, which means that the greater fuel efficiency of the FCEV taxi over its diesel equivalent (see slide 17) plays a more significant role in lowering the running costs of the FCEV. Source: Lifecycle Cost Analysis of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles,

Michael Dolman, Element Energy (deliverable 6.9).

3. incentives can significantly reduce the FCEV LCC cost premium

• A number of potential incentives can be considered that would reduce the FCEV TCO premium over conventional vehicles.

• Capital cost incentives include:

o Purchase price support.

o Residual value guarantees.

• Potential operating cost incentives are:

o Congestion charge exemption.

o Favourable parking rates.

• A combination of these incentives could significantly reduce or even eliminate the FCEV cost premium over conventional vehicles.

• The operating cost incentives would favour the early introduction of these vehicles in urban areas where congestion charge exemption and favourable parking terms could prove very attractive to potential purchasers.


4. monetisation of societal benefits also reduces FCEV LCC, but not by an amount sufficient to offset the capital cost premium over conventional vehicles

• EC Directive 2009/33/EC (‘The Clean Vehicles Directive’) mandates that full lifecycle energy and environmental impacts are taken into account in all public procurements of road vehicles.

• The Directive provides a methodology for monetising the impacts of:

o Energy consumption

o Tailpipe emissions (CO2, NOx, PM and NMHC)

• The figure shows the lifecycle impact of accounting for the increased operational energy efficiency and zero tailpipe emissions of the FCEV compared to its diesel equivalent over a full vehicle lifetime (here considered at 200,000km of operation).

• At current price levels, the increased tank-to-wheel efficiency (see slide 17) and reduced tailpipe emissions of FCEVs, when valued from a societal perspective, are insufficient to offset the vehicles’ additional capital costs.

• In the current early FCEV market, public authorities following the guidance of Directive 2009/33/EC for procurement will need to consider wider benefits such as economic development to justify vehicle purchases.


HYTEC FINAL SUMMARY TECHNICAL REPORT - … · HYTEC FINAL SUMMARY TECHNICAL REPORT Peter Speers1 (Cenex), ... project which deployed fuel cell electric vehicles ... o Hyundai Motor

Documents