DOCSLIB.ORG

What's in the Future for Fuel Cell Vehicles?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What's in the Future for Fuel Cell Vehicles? Viewpoint What’s in the future for fuel cell vehicles? Will hydrogen fuel cell vehicles fully demonstrate their benefits with the uptake scenario still uncertain and OEMs already investing? Hydrogen H2 The development of new and diversified technologies is creating exciting opportunities within the automotive industry. Arthur D. Little has already analyzed and reported the evolution trends in traditional and innovative powertrain technologies. In this report Arthur D. Little provides its perspective on the present and future of fuel cell vehicles (FCVs), providing a synthetic comparison with other technologies, as well as an overview of FCV benefits and the main obstacles to their adoption. Source: International Energy Agency 2012 (IEA) Fuel cells are an expected market trend The slow FCV uptake will mainly be due to: FCV sales volumes are expected to be significant, but only in n OEMs’ need to achieve significant cost reductions. the long term, even with a favorable climate-policy scenario. n Market need of network infrastructures to build and local 1 Due to a recognized absence of CO2 emissions during vehicle experiments that have proven successful. operation, expectations of the future FCV market are growing n Time required to identify and100 standardize the most efficient following the adoption of the Paris Agreement. The agreement solution for hydrogen production. for the first time brought all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change. The role of public administration FCV sales volume predictions based on long-term To promote FCVs and break the initial impasse, various policy powertrain mix scenario (Mln units) 140 options could be evaluated: 120 250 n Government support through research, development,FCV and deployment100 initiatives and grants (e.g. for building out the 200 infrastructure80 for hydrogen distribution). 150 n Tax60 and/or subsidy policies to reduce the high initial cost of FCVs compared to conventional vehicles – directed at either 100 40 consumers or manufacturers of FCVs and H2 suppliers. 20 50 n GHG reduction policies. For example, setting targets for GHG0 intensity for the entire transportation fuel supply. 0 2000 2010 2020 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 FCV #REF!Electricity Plug-in hybrid gasoline Main obstaclesElectricity to FCV adoptionFCV Plug-in hybrid diesel Plug-in hybrid diesel #REF!Diesel hybrid Gasoline hybrid Diesel Hybrid Plug-in hybrid gasoline Gasoline Hybrid CNG/LPG Diesel Gasoline FCVs’ potentialCNG/LPG adoption is sufferingDiesel from three major problems: Source: International Energy Agency 2012 (IEA) cost of vehicles, distribution infrastructure and hydrogen Within a similar scenario, the international energy agency (IEA) production. estimates an FCV market share of about 17% by 2050 (35 a. Cost of vehicles: The high cost of FCVs mainly stems from million annual unit sales). the use of expensive catalysts and other materials used in the fuel cell “stack” (e.g. platinum). Today, based on a US Yet will hydrogen fuel cells fully demonstrate their benefits DOE estimate, fuel cells can be manufactured for around when the uptake scenario is still uncertain? 1 Viewpoint $280/kW at low volumes of 20k units/year. Yet their cost Infrastructure issues are significantly mitigated for “fleet” would drop down to $53/kW if they were manufactured at applications such as buses, delivery services, post-office higher volumes (500k units). The US DOE also forecast a vehicles and so on, for which it is possible to return to cost of around $40/kW in 2020 and $30/kW as an ultimate a central location to refuel. Indeed, many of the early target. As a matter of fact, two more product iterations demonstrations of FCVs have focused on bus fleets, while are likely to be needed to bring costs down and, given fuel cells have found some success in the material-handling automotive product-cycle times, this suggests the 2020s, market niche. at the earliest, before costs can reach mass-market c. Hydrogen production: Like electricity, the production acceptance levels. of hydrogen can be derived from various primary energy Main obstacles to FCV adoption resources, each having a different impact on the GHG footprint. Depending on the primary energy resource from which the energy is produced, the hydrogen can be labeled “green” or “gray”. In terms of GHG footprint, it is most favorable to Cost of Distribution Hydrogen 1 2 3 produce hydrogen from renewable primary energy resources the vehicle infrastructure production (“green”), rather than from “gray” resources. Even if fuel cell FCVs require an For FCVs to be technology would be entirely new and competitive in terms of Hydrogen production primary energy resources and widely known and expensive GHG-reduction, the right intermediate products accepted by infrastructure system decisions to achieve a customers and benefits for each step of the low-cost and low- Primary Energy Conversion proven, the current chain, from hydrogen GHG production Resource (intermediate product) cost of the FCVs transport, through methods need to would limit their storage and delivery to be pursued Coal marketability the vehicle Thermochemical Oil Hydrocarbon Source: Arthur D. Little analysis Natural Gas Conversion (synthetic gas) b. Distribution infrastructure: The development of Biomass infrastructure requires important and expensive investment H2 Wind Electrolysis decisions, which need to be supported by sustained FCV Hydropower (electricity) market demand. Solar Thermochemical Water Splitting There is currently no national system similar to that for diesel Nuclear (high temperature heat) or gasoline to deliver hydrogen from production facilities to green gray Primary Energy Resources legend filling stations. A completely new distribution infrastructure Source: Arthur D. Little analysis; The Hydrogen Transition, Joan Ogden, Christopher Yang, will be required to allow mass-market penetration of FCVs. Michael Nicholas, and Lew Fulton (2014) Additionally, the total costs associated with replicating Nonetheless, the use of renewable energy to produce 1 the gasoline fueling and storage infrastructure are huge. hydrogen will be subject to specific cost-benefit analyses. Today the cost of a commercial station is between $750k Indeed, the transformation of renewable energy in hydrogen and $1.5Mln, with entry-level stations in the range of $350 involves significant process inefficiencies (and therefore cost to $500k. While cost reductions will be achieved as the inefficiencies), mainly due to losses from electrolyzing water. technology matures, clearly the costs of replacing even a 1 Starting with renewable resources, FCVs are, as a matter fraction of the national filling stations could total billions of of fact, less efficient in the well-to-pump phase compared dollars. to electric vehicles (EVs), which do not need to transform The hydrogen infrastructure problem is a classic “chicken- electricity into hydrogen. and-egg” issue: companies will not invest in infrastructure Considering, instead, the pump-to-wheels phase, FCVs are without a significant FCV market, and FCVs are not viable about 50% less efficient than EVs, despite being up to twice without an adequate level of infrastructure. as efficient as ICE vehicles. Today deployment is limited to a small number of countries. Well-to-wheels value chain Government agencies in the US, Japan, Germany and Pump to Wheels Pump to Wheels the UK have funded the construction of hydrogen filling stations. In the United States, California is leading the way, Feedstock Transport Refining Fueling Tank to Wheels Feedstock Transport Refining Fueling Tank to Wheels developing the “Hydrogen Highway” (mainly in the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas). However, even here the number of installed stations falls below that required to make FCVs an attractive proposition for the majority of Well to Pump Well to Pump potential adopters. 2 What’s in the future for fuel cell vehicles? Source: … 1 Viewpoint Comparison of alternative and traditional fuel vehicles FCVs’ main benefits Best Option Worst Option Besides the absence of CO emissions during vehicle Alternative Traditional 2 FCVs BEVs PHEVs ICE operation, FCVs promise benefits among multiple dimensions: Refueling Few minutes/ >1 hour Few minutes >1 hour Few minutes Time for electric recharge n Refueling time – a few minutes (like for ICE engines) Up to more than Drive Range >450 km 400km Comparable to ICE (by 2018-2020) 1000 km will be needed to refill the tank compared to the longer Additional cost Additional cost Additional cost Price of Car Lower benchmark compared to BEV compared to ICE compared to ICE (consolidated technology) (BEV + FC system*) duration expected to recharge battery-electric vehicles Higher than ICE but Higher than Higher than ICE but Fuel Efficiency Lower benchmark lower than BEVs ICE and FCVs lower than BEVs (BEVs). Fueling H stations similar Chargers Chargers / 2 Gas stations Infrastructure to gas stations (home and public) Gas stations n Driving range – with more than 450km of driving * But with a lower power battery Source: Arthur D. Little analysis allowance, FCVs are already commercially attractive and, on average, they support larger ranges than BEVs. Fuel cells: a mature technology that has to find its n Fuel efficiency – FCVs are more energy efficient than way towards widespread commercialization within gasoline-powered vehicles: a fuel cell uses about 40 to 60 the automotive market percent of the available energy in hydrogen, compared to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Electric Vehicle Fleet Toolkit
    ELECTRICITY Electricity WHAT IS CHARGING? What is a PEV? A plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) is a How many stations are in the San vehicle in which there is an onboard Diego region? battery that is powered by energy Currently there are over 550 public delivered from the electricity grid. There are two types of electric charging stations in the San Diego region. Level 1 Charging vehicles: a battery electric vehicle Level 1 charging uses 120 volts AC. An PEV (BEV) and a plug-in hybrid electric How much does it cost to fuel my can be charged with just a standard wall vehicle (PHEV). BEVs run exclusively vehicle? outlet. on the power from their onboard battery. PHEVs have both an It generally costs less than half as onboard battery and an internal much to drive an electric vehicle as Level 2 Charging combustion engine that is used an internal combustion engine Level 2 charging uses 240 volts AC. This is when the car’s battery is depleted. the same type of voltage as an outlet used for a dryer or washing machine. There are upwards of 12,000 PEVs in 24-month average* the San Diego region (as of Summer Gasoline $3.35 2015). DC Fast Charging Electricity** $1.22 DC fast charging is a very quick level of charging. An PEV can be charged up to 80% Savings $2.13 within 30 minutes of charging. *June 2013-June 2015 **Gasoline gallon equivalent 1 ELECTRICITY What types of vehicles can use electricity? Electric vehicles come in all shapes and sizes.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Fuels, Vehicles & Technologies Feasibility
    ALTERNATIVE FUELS, VEHICLES & TECHNOLOGIES FEASIBILITY REPORT Prepared by Eastern Pennsylvania Alliance for Clean Transportation (EP-ACT)With Technical Support provided by: Clean Fuels Ohio (CFO); & Pittsburgh Region Clean Cities (PRCC) Table of Contents Analysis Background: .................................................................................................................................... 3 1.0: Introduction – Fleet Feasibility Analysis: ............................................................................................... 3 2.0: Fleet Management Goals – Scope of Work & Criteria for Analysis: ...................................................... 4 Priority Review Criteria for Analysis: ........................................................................................................ 4 3.0: Key Performance Indicators – Existing Fleet Analysis ............................................................................ 5 4.0: Alternative Fuel Options – Summary Comparisons & Conclusions: ...................................................... 6 4.1: Detailed Propane Autogas Options Analysis: ......................................................................................... 7 Propane Station Estimate ......................................................................................................................... 8 (Station Capacity: 20,000 GGE/Year) ........................................................................................................ 8 5.0: Key Recommended Actions – Conclusion
    [Show full text]
  • A Comprehensive Study of Key Electric Vehicle (EV) Components, Technologies, Challenges, Impacts, and Future Direction of Development
    Review A Comprehensive Study of Key Electric Vehicle (EV) Components, Technologies, Challenges, Impacts, and Future Direction of Development Fuad Un-Noor 1, Sanjeevikumar Padmanaban 2,*, Lucian Mihet-Popa 3, Mohammad Nurunnabi Mollah 1 and Eklas Hossain 4,* 1 Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Khulna University of Engineering and Technology, Khulna 9203, Bangladesh; [email protected] (F.U.-N.); [email protected] (M.N.M.) 2 Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park 2006, South Africa 3 Faculty of Engineering, Østfold University College, Kobberslagerstredet 5, 1671 Kråkeroy-Fredrikstad, Norway; [email protected] 4 Department of Electrical Engineering & Renewable Energy, Oregon Tech, Klamath Falls, OR 97601, USA * Correspondence: [email protected] (S.P.); [email protected] (E.H.); Tel.: +27-79-219-9845 (S.P.); +1-541-885-1516 (E.H.) Academic Editor: Sergio Saponara Received: 8 May 2017; Accepted: 21 July 2017; Published: 17 August 2017 Abstract: Electric vehicles (EV), including Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV), Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV), Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV), Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV), are becoming more commonplace in the transportation sector in recent times. As the present trend suggests, this mode of transport is likely to replace internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles in the near future. Each of the main EV components has a number of technologies that are currently in use or can become prominent in the future. EVs can cause significant impacts on the environment, power system, and other related sectors. The present power system could face huge instabilities with enough EV penetration, but with proper management and coordination, EVs can be turned into a major contributor to the successful implementation of the smart grid concept.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Biodiesel Fuel in Your Engine
    RENEWABLE AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY FACT SHEET Using Biodiesel Fuel in Your Engine Introduction Biodiesel is an engine fuel that is created by chemically reacting fatty acids and alcohol. Practically speaking, this usually means combining vegetable oil with methanol in the presence of a cata- lyst (usually sodium hydroxide). Biodiesel is much more suitable for use as an engine fuel than straight vegetable oil for a number of reasons, the most notable one being its lower viscosity. Many large and small producers have begun producing biodiesel, and the fuel can now be found in many parts of Pennsylvania and beyond either as “pure biodiesel” or a blended mixture with tradi- tional petroleum diesel (e.g., B5 is 5 percent biodiesel, 95 percent petroleum diesel). The process of making biodiesel is simple enough that farm- ers can consider producing biodiesel to meet their own needs by growing and harvesting an oil crop and converting it into biodiesel. In this way, farmers are able to “grow” their own fuel (see the Penn State Cooperative Extension publication Biodiesel Safety and Best Management Practices for Small-Scale Noncom- biodiesel fuel has less energy per unit volume than traditional mercial Production). There are many possible reasons to grow or diesel fuel. use biodiesel, including economics, support of local industry, and environmental considerations. • Fuel efficiency: fuel efficiency tends to be slightly lower when However, there is also a great deal of concern about the effect using biodiesel due to the lower energy content of the fuel. of biodiesel on engines. Many stories have been circulating about Typically, the drop-off is in the same range as the reduction in reduced performance, damage to key components, or even engine peak engine power (3–5 percent).
    [Show full text]
  • Fuel Cells on Bio-Gas
    Fuel Cells on Bio-Gas 2009 Michigan Water Environment Association's (MWEA) Biosolids and Energy Conference Robert J. Remick, PhD March 4, 2009 NREL/PR-560-45292 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. Wastewater Treatment Plants • WWTP operators are looking for opportunities to utilize biogas as a renewable energy source. • Majority use biogas through boilers for reheating • Interest is growing in distributed generation, especially where both electricity and fuel costs are high. • Drivers for the decision to purchase fuel cells – Reliability – Capital and O&M costs – Availability of Government Incentives National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas • Anaerobic digestion is a process used to stabilize Range of Biogas Compositions wastewater sludge before final disposal. Methane 50% – 75% Carbon Dioxide 25% – 50% • The process uses Nitrogen 0% – 10% microorganisms in the Hydrogen 0% – 1% absence of oxygen to Sulfur Species 0% – 3% convert organic Oxygen 0% – 2% materials to biogas. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future WWTP Co-Gen Market • There are over 16,800 WWTP in the U.S. • 615 facilities with flows > 3 mgd that use anaerobic digestion • 215 do not use their biogas but flare it instead. • California has the highest number of municipal facilities using anaerobic digestion, about 102, of which 25 do not use their biogas.
    [Show full text]
  • DOE Transportation Strategy: Improve Internal Combustion Engine Efficiency
    DOE Transportation Strategy: Improve Internal Combustion Engine Efficiency Gurpreet Singh, Team Leader Advanced Combustion Engine Technologies Vehicle Technologies Program U.S. Department of Energy Presented at the ARPA-E Distributed Generation Workshop Alexandria, VA June 2, 2011 Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov Outline Current state of vehicle engine technology and performance trends (efficiency and emissions) over time Headroom to improve vehicle engine efficiency Future technical pathways and potential impact DOE’s current strategy and pathways eere.energy.gov Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy Trends Significant fuel economy increases (in spite of increases in vehicle weight, size and performance) can be largely attributed to increase in internal combustion engine efficiency. Source: Light-Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 through 2010, EPA. eere.energy.gov Progress In Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Efficiency and Emissions Historical progress in heavy-duty engine efficiency and the challenge of simultaneous emissions reduction, illustrate positive impact from DOE R&D support. (Adapted from DEER presentation, courtesy of Detroit Diesel Corporation). 20 Steady State 2.0 hr) - Test NOx + HC Particulate Matter 15 1.5 g/bhp NOx Transient Test (Unregulated) 90% NOx NO + HC 10 x 1.0 Oil savings from heavy-duty vehicles alone PM (Unregulated) 2002 (1997 – 2005) represent an over 35:1 return NOx on investment (ROI) of government funds for 5 0.5 heavy-duty combustion engine R&D. PM NOx + NMHC 90% Oxides ofOxides Nitrogen ( Urban Bus PM 0 0.0 Source: Retrospective Benefit-Cost Evaluation of U.S. DOE 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Vehicle Advanced Combustion Engine R&D Investments: Model Year 2007 Impacts of a Cluster of Energy Technologies, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Fuel Properties Comparison
    Alternative Fuels Data Center Fuel Properties Comparison Compressed Liquefied Low Sulfur Gasoline/E10 Biodiesel Propane (LPG) Natural Gas Natural Gas Ethanol/E100 Methanol Hydrogen Electricity Diesel (CNG) (LNG) Chemical C4 to C12 and C8 to C25 Methyl esters of C3H8 (majority) CH4 (majority), CH4 same as CNG CH3CH2OH CH3OH H2 N/A Structure [1] Ethanol ≤ to C12 to C22 fatty acids and C4H10 C2H6 and inert with inert gasses 10% (minority) gases <0.5% (a) Fuel Material Crude Oil Crude Oil Fats and oils from A by-product of Underground Underground Corn, grains, or Natural gas, coal, Natural gas, Natural gas, coal, (feedstocks) sources such as petroleum reserves and reserves and agricultural waste or woody biomass methanol, and nuclear, wind, soybeans, waste refining or renewable renewable (cellulose) electrolysis of hydro, solar, and cooking oil, animal natural gas biogas biogas water small percentages fats, and rapeseed processing of geothermal and biomass Gasoline or 1 gal = 1.00 1 gal = 1.12 B100 1 gal = 0.74 GGE 1 lb. = 0.18 GGE 1 lb. = 0.19 GGE 1 gal = 0.67 GGE 1 gal = 0.50 GGE 1 lb. = 0.45 1 kWh = 0.030 Diesel Gallon GGE GGE 1 gal = 1.05 GGE 1 gal = 0.66 DGE 1 lb. = 0.16 DGE 1 lb. = 0.17 DGE 1 gal = 0.59 DGE 1 gal = 0.45 DGE GGE GGE Equivalent 1 gal = 0.88 1 gal = 1.00 1 gal = 0.93 DGE 1 lb. = 0.40 1 kWh = 0.027 (GGE or DGE) DGE DGE B20 DGE DGE 1 gal = 1.11 GGE 1 kg = 1 GGE 1 gal = 0.99 DGE 1 kg = 0.9 DGE Energy 1 gallon of 1 gallon of 1 gallon of B100 1 gallon of 5.66 lb., or 5.37 lb.
    [Show full text]
  • Vehicle Fuel Efficiency
    Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Potential measures to encourage the uptake of more fuel efficient, low carbon emission vehicles Public Discussion Paper Prepared by Australian Transport Council (ATC) and Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC) Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Working Group With support from The Australian Government September 2008 Closing date for comments: 7 November 2008 © Commonwealth of Australia 2008 This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to Commonwealth Copyright Administration Attorney General’s Department Robert Garran Offices National Circuit Barton ACT 2600 or posted at http://www.ag.gov.au/cca Disclaimer The discussion paper has been prepared by the Australian Transport Council/Environment Protection & Heritage Council Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Working Group. The opinions, comments and analysis expressed in the discussion paper are for discussion purposes only and cannot be taken in any way as an expression of current or future policy of the Australian Government nor any state or territory government. The views and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Australian Government or the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Services and Local Government, or the Minister for Climate Change and Water. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually correct, the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents, and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Hydrogen Powertrains with the Battery Powered Electric Vehicle and Investigation of Small-Scale Local Hydrogen Production Using Renewable Energy
    Review Comparison of Hydrogen Powertrains with the Battery Powered Electric Vehicle and Investigation of Small-Scale Local Hydrogen Production Using Renewable Energy Michael Handwerker 1,2,*, Jörg Wellnitz 1,2 and Hormoz Marzbani 2 1 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Applied Sciences Ingolstadt, Esplanade 10, 85049 Ingolstadt, Germany; [email protected] 2 Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, School of Engineering, Plenty Road, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Climate change is one of the major problems that people face in this century, with fossil fuel combustion engines being huge contributors. Currently, the battery powered electric vehicle is considered the predecessor, while hydrogen vehicles only have an insignificant market share. To evaluate if this is justified, different hydrogen power train technologies are analyzed and compared to the battery powered electric vehicle. Even though most research focuses on the hydrogen fuel cells, it is shown that, despite the lower efficiency, the often-neglected hydrogen combustion engine could be the right solution for transitioning away from fossil fuels. This is mainly due to the lower costs and possibility of the use of existing manufacturing infrastructure. To achieve a similar level of refueling comfort as with the battery powered electric vehicle, the economic and technological aspects of the local small-scale hydrogen production are being investigated. Due to the low efficiency Citation: Handwerker, M.; Wellnitz, and high prices for the required components, this domestically produced hydrogen cannot compete J.; Marzbani, H. Comparison of with hydrogen produced from fossil fuels on a larger scale.
    [Show full text]
  • EPRI Journal--Driving the Solution: the Plug-In Hybrid Vehicle
    DRIVING THE SOLUTION THE PLUG-IN HYBRID VEHICLE by Lucy Sanna The Story in Brief As automakers gear up to satisfy a growing market for fuel-efficient hybrid electric vehicles, the next- generation hybrid is already cruis- ing city streets, and it can literally run on empty. The plug-in hybrid charges directly from the electricity grid, but unlike its electric vehicle brethren, it sports a liquid fuel tank for unlimited driving range. The technology is here, the electricity infrastructure is in place, and the plug-in hybrid offers a key to replacing foreign oil with domestic resources for energy indepen- dence, reduced CO2 emissions, and lower fuel costs. DRIVING THE SOLUTION THE PLUG-IN HYBRID VEHICLE by Lucy Sanna n November 2005, the first few proto­ vide a variety of battery options tailored 2004, more than half of which came from Itype plug­in hybrid electric vehicles to specific applications—vehicles that can imports. (PHEVs) will roll onto the streets of New run 20, 30, or even more electric miles.” With growing global demand, particu­ York City, Kansas City, and Los Angeles Until recently, however, even those larly from China and India, the price of a to demonstrate plug­in hybrid technology automakers engaged in conventional barrel of oil is climbing at an unprece­ in varied environments. Like hybrid vehi­ hybrid technology have been reluctant to dented rate. The added cost and vulnera­ cles on the market today, the plug­in embrace the PHEV, despite growing rec­ bility of relying on a strategic energy hybrid uses battery power to supplement ognition of the vehicle’s potential.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Quality Impacts of Biodiesel in the United States
    WHITE PAPER MARCH 2021 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS OF BIODIESEL IN THE UNITED STATES Jane O’Malley, Stephanie Searle www.theicct.org [email protected] twitter @theicct BEIJING | BERLIN | SAN FRANCISCO | SÃO PAULO | WASHINGTON ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was generously funded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation. International Council on Clean Transportation 1500 K Street NW, Suite 650, Washington, DC 20005 [email protected] | www.theicct.org | @TheICCT © 2021 International Council on Clean Transportation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has enacted standards to reduce vehicle exhaust emissions. These standards set emission limits for pollutants that contribute to poor air quality and associated health risks, including nitrous oxide (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM). Although the majority of the on-road vehicle fleet in the United States is fueled by gasoline, diesel combustion makes up an overwhelming share of vehicle air pollution emissions. Air pollution emissions can be affected by blending biodiesel, composed of fatty acid methyl ester (FAME), into diesel fuel. Biodiesel increases the efficiency of fuel combustion due to its high oxygen content and high cetane number. Studies have found that biodiesel combustion results in lower emissions of PM, CO, and HC, likely for this reason. However, studies have consistently found that biodiesel blending increases NOx formation. Industry analysts, academic researchers, and government regulators have conducted extensive study on the emissions impacts of biodiesel blending over the last thirty years. The EPA concluded in a 2002 report that, on the whole, biodiesel combustion does not worsen air quality compared to conventional diesel and reaffirmed that conclusion in a 2020 proposal and subsequent rulemaking.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Range Extenders in Battery Electric Vehicles: Current Progress and Future Perspectives
    Review A Review of Range Extenders in Battery Electric Vehicles: Current Progress and Future Perspectives Manh-Kien Tran 1,* , Asad Bhatti 2, Reid Vrolyk 1, Derek Wong 1 , Satyam Panchal 2 , Michael Fowler 1 and Roydon Fraser 2 1 Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON N2L3G1, Canada; [email protected] (R.V.); [email protected] (D.W.); [email protected] (M.F.) 2 Department of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON N2L3G1, Canada; [email protected] (A.B.); [email protected] (S.P.); [email protected] (R.F.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-519-880-6108 Abstract: Emissions from the transportation sector are significant contributors to climate change and health problems because of the common use of gasoline vehicles. Countries in the world are attempting to transition away from gasoline vehicles and to electric vehicles (EVs), in order to reduce emissions. However, there are several practical limitations with EVs, one of which is the “range anxiety” issue, due to the lack of charging infrastructure, the high cost of long-ranged EVs, and the limited range of affordable EVs. One potential solution to the range anxiety problem is the use of range extenders, to extend the driving range of EVs while optimizing the costs and performance of the vehicles. This paper provides a comprehensive review of different types of EV range extending technologies, including internal combustion engines, free-piston linear generators, fuel cells, micro Citation: Tran, M.-K.; Bhatti, A.; gas turbines, and zinc-air batteries, outlining their definitions, working mechanisms, and some recent Vrolyk, R.; Wong, D.; Panchal, S.; Fowler, M.; Fraser, R.
    [Show full text]