Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 8:50 AM

Societal Lifecycle Cost of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles

Yongling Sun, Joan M. Ogden, and Mark A. Delucchi. University of California-Davis

The transportation sector accounts for 2/3 of oil consumption in the US, and remains one of the largest sources of urban air pollution and a fast growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. Energy security, environmental protection and skyrocketing oil prices have drawn an increased interest in developing alternative fuel vehicles. Among the various fuel/propulsion options available, hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (FCV) stands out because it offers zero emissions from vehicle operation. However, emissions associated with upstream processes of the hydrogen fuel cycle, high fuel cell system costs and investments needed for hydrogen infrastructure in the early stages of a hydrogen transition are non-trivial issues for the commercialization of such advanced vehicles. From a social welfare perspective, the crucial index for evaluating the alternatives is the Societal Lifecycle Cost over the full fuel cycle and vehicle lifetime, including not only consumer or private lifecycle cost (i.e. initial vehicle cost, fuel cost, and operating & maintenance cost), but also external costs that are not priced in the current markets. We use the Advanced Vehicle Lifetime Cost and Energy-Use Model (AVCEM) model developed by Dr. Mark Delucchi to study how the Societal Lifecycle Cost for hydrogen FCVs compares to that for reference gasoline vehicles during a transition to hydrogen. To model the transition, we use the USDOE scenarios for hydrogen and FCV market penetration from 2010 to 2025. We begin with current fuel cell performance and cost data, and employ a learning curve model to estimate how fuel cell system costs change with cumulative production.  During this transition period, we assume that hydrogen is produced from natural gas reforming, which allows us to estimate delivered fuel costs and emissions, and external costs. To examine the assumptions and uncertainties involved in the calculation, we further perform the sensitivity analysis regarding fuel cell system learning rate, oil price, and greenhouse gas damage cost. Our preliminary results show that though consumer lifetime cost of hydrogen FCVs is higher than conventional gasoline internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle, the externality cost of hydrogen FCVs is lower. In this paper, we present the comparisons of hydrogen FCVs and other alternatives including methanol ICE, ethanol ICE, battery-powered electric and hybrid electric vehicles in terms of consumer lifetime cost and societal lifecycle cost, and raise some questions for further research.

Back to Poster Session
Back to Program

Back to The NHA Annual Hydrogen Conference 2008 (March 31-April 4 2008)