Professional Documents
Culture Documents
UT04059FU
UT04059FU
Abstract
This paper presents a comparison among various vehicles when using fossil fuels
and renewable energy. In the case of using fossil fuel, we compared 5 key factors
among the fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV), internal combustion engine (ICE)
vehicle (gasoline or diesel), battery-powered and hybrid vehicles. Comparison
factors are cruising range, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, waste heat rejection,
air pollutants and noise. According to this comparison, hybrid, battery-powered
and fuel cell electric vehicle have better potentials than ICE vehicles. In the case
of utilizing renewable energy, EV will become the mainstream among various
vehicles. In addition, FCEV will play an important role until that age. Moreover,
we designed a high efficiency FCEV from the viewpoint of fuel effective
utilization. This vehicle not only has fuel cell, but also various energy utilization
and storage systems, for example, battery, flywheel and PV cell. This vehicle has
excellent fuel economy more than 100km/liter. The proposed FCEV will be very
promising to mitigate urban and global warming, and to conserve fossil fuel
consumption.
Further, the effect of the introduction of the above environment compatible
vehicles into urban area will be discussed by 3-D heat island simulations.
1 Introduction
Urban environment in mega-cities like Tokyo is getting worse and worse. For
example, the concentration of NO2 is still increasing and has risen gradually
above the regulated level in the Tokyo metropolitan area. The cause of
aggravation in the urban environment can be mainly attributed to the increase of
We compared the fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV) with internal combustion
engine (ICE) vehicle (gasoline or diesel), battery-powered and hybrid vehicles.
Figure 1 (a) shows the comparison among these vehicles for a cruising range
under Japanese 10・ 15 schedule. Assumed that these vehicles have same energy
storage capacity (corresponds to 30 liters of gasoline) and same parameter
excluding engine and energy storage mass. The fuel of FCEV is selected from
hydrogen-storing alloy, liquid hydrogen, high-pressure hydrogen and methanol.
In this case, liquid hydrogen FCEV run the longest range than the other vehicles.
FCEVs run longer range than the ICE vehicles and battery-powered EV, because
FCEV has higher efficiency than ICE.
Next, Figure 1(b) shows a comparison of CO2 emissions including CO2
emitted in the fuel production process. Hydrogen-storing alloy FCEV has the
lowest CO2 emissions, because hydrogen FCEV emits no CO2 in running in the
urban area. Methanol FCEV has higher emissions than hydrogen FCEV, because
methanol fuel needs reforming for producing hydrogen and then CO2 is emitted.
But all FCEV has about half CO2 emissions compared with ICE vehicles.
FCEV1 FCEV1
FCEV2 FCEV2
FCEV3 FCEV3
FCEV4 FCEV4
Battery- Battery-
Powered Powered
EV EV
Hybrid Hybrid
Diesel Diesel
Gasoline Gasoline
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Cruising range,km Carbon emissions,kg-C/km
(a) (b)
Figure 1: Comparison of (a) cruising range and (b) Carbon dioxide emissions
among various vehicles, FCEV1; Fuel cell electric vehicle with
hydrogen-storing alloy; FCEV2; Fuel cell electric vehicle with liquid
hydrogen; FCEV3; Fuel cell electric vehicle with high-pressure
hydrogen; FCEV4; Fuel cell electric vehicle with methanol.
Hybrid Hybrid
Diesel Diesel
Gasoline Gasoline
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Waste heat emissions,MJ/km NOx emissions,g-NOx/km
(a) (b)
Figure 2: Comparison of (a) waste heat emissions and (b) NOx emissions per
unit distance among various vehicles.
2.3 Noise
0 0 0
0 0 0
Battery-powered EV
PV Battery Motor
conversion charging efficiency
15% 95% 90%
PV Electrolytic Motor
Fuel cell efficiency
conversion conversion
40% 90%
15% 5%
Battery-powered
EV
FCEV
Hybrid
Gasoline
Diesel
PV cells are placed on the roof of the vehicle as shown in Fig. 7. Whenever
the vehicle is parked, the area of PV module can be extended to collect as much
energy as possible.
PV cell
Li-ion battery
Controller
In-wheel motor
Table 3: Fuel consumption rate (10・15 mode), running cost, and transport cost
for gasoline, pure FCEV, FCEV with Li-ion battery, FCEV with Li-ion
battery + Flywheel, and FCEV with Li-ion battery + Flywheel + PV
cell.
Fuel
Transport
consumption Running cost
Fleet cost
rate Yen/km
kJ/(km·kg)
km/liter
Gasoline (1500cc) 18.0 5.56 1.62
Hydrogen 40.2 2.98 0.48
Pure FCEV
Methanol 32.4 2.93 0.59
Daytime 2.2
electricity 4
FCEV+Battery (Li-ion) 49.6 0.39
Nighttime 1.8
electricity 5
Daytime
2.0
FCEV+Battery electricity
54.5 0.34
(Li-on)+Flywheel Nighttime 1.6
electricity 8
FCEV + Battery (Li-ion)
+Flywheel + PV cell 116.8 1.23 0.22
(Community-drive mode)
mode [4]. This mode has been developed for testing an actual running mode in
the urban area and includes deceleration, acceleration, and braking patterns.
Two driving periods are scheduled at the worker’s commuter time in the
morning and evening hours. During daytime, it is assumed that the FCEV is
parked at a sunny place and charged by the PV panel.
The hybrid FCEV has an excellent fuel consumption rate more than
100km/liter, running cost and transport cost. The proposed hybrid FCEV will be
very promising to mitigate urban and global warming, and to conserve fossil fuel
consumption.
In the previous section, the hybrid FCEV was designed to reduce urban warming
and air pollution including CO2 emissions in the urban area. In the future, if the
concept of the hybrid FCEV were accepted to almost all the vehicle, the urban
atmospheric environment will be improved significantly. In this section, the
effect of reduction of CO2 emissions in the urban area by the 3-D computer
simulations will be shown.
In the Tokyo metro area, it was reported that the annual mean concentration of
CO2 in 1997 reached 390 ppmv, and its maximum value took about 600 ppmv.
These values are higher than the global background concentration (about 370
ppmv). Namely, it is seen that the greenhouse effect is more evident in the urban
atmosphere than the global one.
In Chiyoda, Chuo and Minato wards which occupy the central area of Tokyo,
it was estimated that the annual CO2 emissions per square meter is larger than the
other wards, and average annual CO2 emissions by the gasoline consumption is
2.83 kg/m2 in the Tokyo metro area.
In order to evaluate CO2 emissions due to the gasoline consumption, the authors
carried out two 3-D simulations. One is for the present Tokyo corresponding to
the gasoline consumption, and another is for the present Tokyo without gasoline
consumption. In this simulation, the equation of radiant heating balance by CO2
was solved to evaluate the greenhouse effect. For further details of the simulation
model including governing equation, see the literature by Saitoh et al.
[6][7][8][9].
Figure 8 shows the horizontal and vertical contours of the reduced fraction
(ppmv) of CO2 concentration at z=1.5 m and y=18.9 km. At the heart of Tokyo
where the gasoline consumption is very high, the reduced fraction is more than
30 ppmv. It is seen that the reduced fraction over the urban area is relatively
higher than that over the rural areas. It is evident that the heat island plume
formed over the urban area causes this phenomenon.
concentration, ppmv
30
20 2 20
20
10 1 10
10
TOKYO BAY
0 0
0
0 0 10 20 30 40
0 10 20 30 40
x, km
x, km
30
Decrease of ambient temp., ºC
0.9
20 0.6
2
0.6
0.4
10 1
0.3
TOKYO BAY 0.2
0
0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
x, km x, km
6 Conclusion
In this article, a comparison among various vehicles was conducted for the future
vehicles. Comparison factors are cruising range, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,
waste heat emissions, air pollutants and running noise. Further, the new
environmentally compatible vehicle (hybrid FCEV) was designed and proposed
to reduce urban warming, air pollution and CO2 emissions in the urban area.
Principal specifications of the hybrid FCEV were clarified.
The following conclusions may be drawn from the present study.
(1) According to the present comparison, hybrid, battery-powered and fuel cell
electric vehicle have better potentials than gasoline and diesel vehicles. In
case of utilizing renewable energy, EV will become the mainstream among
vehicles. In addition, FCEV will play an important role until that age.
(2) We designed an ideal hybrid FCEV for the purpose of fuel effective
utilization. This vehicle has not only fuel cell, but also various energy
utilization and storage systems, for example, battery, flywheel and PV cell.
This vehicle has excellent fuel economy more than 100km/liter.
(3) The proposed hybrid FCEV will be very promising to mitigate urban
warming, global warming, and to conserve fossil fuel consumption.
(4) The 3-D simulation results indicate that if the proposed concept of the
hybrid FCEV were accepted in almost the all gasoline powered vehicle in
the urban area, the reduction of CO2 emissions can significantly mitigate air
pollution and urban warming as well as global warming.
References
[1] Bitterly, J.G., “Flywheel Technology Past, Present, and 21st Century
Projections”, Proc. of IECEC, pp.2312-2315, 1997.
[2] Berndt, J., Jänig, N., Jefferson, C., Lohner, A. and Thoolen, F., Brake
Energy Recovery in Urban Transport, Proc. of Urban Transport and the
Environment VII, pp641-650, 2002.
[3] Jefferson, C.M. and Ackerman, M., A Flywheel Variator Energy Storage
System, Energy Conversion and Management, 37(10), pp.1481-1491,
1996.
[4] Saitoh, T.S., Hoshi, A., Yamada, N., Yoshimura, A. and Ando, D., A
Grand Design of Future Advanced Electric Vehicle Powered by Fuel Cell,
Battery, Flywheel and Photovoltaic Cell., Proc. of Urban Transport and
the Environment VII, pp.727-740, 2002.
[5] Timony, C.M, Ultralight Hybrid Vehicles : Principles and Design, Proc.
of EVS-13 Session 5A, 1996.
[6] Saitoh, T.S. and Yamada N., 3-D Simulation of Urban Warming in Tokyo
and Proposal of Air-cooled City Project, Proc. of ASME-JSME Joint
Thermal Engineering Conference, CD-ROM, 1999.
[7] Saitoh, T.S., Urban Warming and Energy Consumption in Metropolitan
Tokyo. Proc. of Urban Metabolism, Kobe, pp.1-8, 1993.
[8] Saitoh, T.S., Shimada, T. and Hoshi, H., Modeling and Simulation of the
Tokyo Urban Heat Island. Atmospheric Environment 30(20), pp.3431-
3442, 1996.
[9] Saitoh, T.S. and Yamada, N., Evaluation of Effective Temperature Scale
under Heat Island Formation, Int. J. JSME, Series B, 44(1), pp.111-118,
2001.