An evaluation of future energy conversion

systems including fuel cell

T. S. Saitoh1, A. Yoshimura2 & N. Yamada1
1
Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Tohoku University,
Sendai, Japan
2
Yanmar Co. Ltd., Japan

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

Urban Transport X, C. A. Brebbia & L. C. Wadhwa (Editors)

© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-716-7
608 Urban Transport X

automobiles in this area. Another serious environmental issue is "urban warming

(i.e. heat island )", which is caused by concentrated consumption of energy in the
urban area. In order to resolve the problems, new energy conversion systems
should be established.
This paper presents a comparison among various vehicles when using fossil
fuels and renewable energy. In 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 running noise. According to this comparison,
hybrid, battery-powered and fuel cell electric vehicle have better potentials than
ICE vehicles. On the other hand, in case of utilizing renewable energy, EV will
become the mainstream among vehicles. FCEV will play an important role until
that age. Moreover, we designed a high efficiency FCEV in order to use fuel
more effectively. This vehicle has not only fuel cell, but also various energy
utilization and energy storage systems, for example, battery, flywheel and PV
cell. This vehicle has excellent fuel economy more than 90km/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 environmentally compatible vehicles
will be shown by 3-D heat island simulations.

2 Comparison in case of using fossil fuels

2.1 Cruising range and CO2 emissions

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.

Urban Transport X, C. A. Brebbia & L. C. Wadhwa (Editors)

© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-716-7
 Urban Transport X 609

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.

2.2 Waste heat emissions and NOx emissions

In Fig.2(a), we will show a comparison of waste heat emissions among various

vehicles. In the ICE vehicles, the thermal efficiency is much less than the Carnot
efficiency. The thermal efficiency of the hybrid vehicle (HV) is better than that
of ICE vehicles. The running energy of FCEV is 2.7 times larger than that of ICE
vehicle. However, the waste heat emissions emitted when the vehicles run in the
urban area becomes a subject of discussion. When running in the urban area, the
thermal efficiency of electric vehicle (EV) is the best since no waste heat is
emitted.
Figure 2(b) shows a comparison of NOx emissions per unit distance among
various vehicles. In this comparison, NOx emitted in fuel production process is
also included. Hydrogen FCEV and EV emits no NOx and air pollutant matters
when it running. Methanol FCEV emits a very small mount of NOx(1/350 of
gasoline vehicle), which is emitted in the reforming process.
FCEV FCEV
(hydrogen) (hydrogen)
FCEV FCEV
(methanol) (methanol)
Battery- Battery-
Powered Powered
EV EV

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.

Urban Transport X, C. A. Brebbia & L. C. Wadhwa (Editors)

© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-716-7
610 Urban Transport X

2.3 Noise

Table 1 shows a contribution of noise source of ordinary vehicles for two

running conditions. In acceleration, engine, tire and exhaust contribute largely to
making noise. In constant-speed, tire noise occupies 80 % among the whole
noise.
Figure 3 shows a comparison of noise fraction in acceleration among various
vehicles. Noise levels of gasoline and Diesel vehicles are set to be unity. EV and
FCEV are much quieter than the HV and ICE vehicles.
Table 1: Contribution of noise
source for two running
conditions.
FCEV
Acceleration Constant-speed
Noise source
% %
Battery-
Tire 22.9 80.4 powered
EV
Engine 34.4
Traction 2.8 Hybrid
Cooling sys. 1.9
19.6
Suction 11.6 Gasoline
Diesel
Exhaust 23.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Others 3.0 Noise fraction
Figure 3: Comparison of noise fraction
among various vehicles.

Cruising range Cruising range Cruising range

走行距離 走行距離 走行距離
1 1 1

0.5 0.5 0.5

Noise Noise Noise
騒音 CCOO 22 騒音 CCOO 22 騒音 CCOO 22

0 0 0

大気汚染物質 排熱量 大気汚染物質 排熱量 大気汚染物質 排熱量

Air pollutant matter Waste heat Air pollutant matter Waste heat Air pollutant matter Waste heat
Gasoline Diesel Hybrid
Cruising
走行距離 range Cruising
走行距離
range Cruising
走行距離
range
1 1 1

0.5 0.5 0.5

Noise Noise Noise
騒音 CCO
O 22 騒音 CCOO 22 騒音 CCOO 22

0 0 0

大気汚染物質 排熱量 大気汚染物質 排熱量 大気汚染物質 排熱量

Air pollutant matter Waste heat Air pollutant matter Waste heat Air pollutant matter Waste heat

Battery-powered EV FCEV(methanol) FCEV(liq.hydrogen)

Figure 4: Pentagon comparison among gasoline, Diesel, hybrid, battery-
powered EV, FCEV (methanol), and FCEV (hydrogen).

Urban Transport X, C. A. Brebbia & L. C. Wadhwa (Editors)

© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-716-7
 Urban Transport X 611

2.4 Pentagon comparison among various vehicles

Figure 4 shows a pentagon comparison among various vehicles. The area

enclosed by pentagonal diagram indicates a total performance for environment.
The larger area means the better performance. HV, FCEV and battery-powered
EV have advantage over the ICE vehicles for 5-key factors. These vehicles will
be promising to mitigate urban and global environment.

3 Comparison when using renewable energy

In the future, if fossil fuels run out eventually, we have to utilize renewable
energies including solar, wind, hydroelectric, and biomass etc. as energy source
of vehicles. In this case, battery-powered EV and FCEV are available for the
future vehicle, which can use electric power produced from renewable energy.

Battery-powered EV

PV Battery Motor
conversion charging efficiency
15％ 95％ 90％

Solar Total efficiency : 12.8％

energy
100％ FCEV

PV Electrolytic Motor
Fuel cell efficiency
conversion conversion
40％ 90％
15％ 5％

Total efficiency : 2.7％

Figure 5: Comparison of total efficiency between battery-powered EV and

fuel cell EV if electricity were produced originally from renewable
energy.

Utilization of renewable energy

about solar, wind, water and biomass
The change of fossil fuel

Battery-powered
EV

FCEV

Hybrid

Gasoline

Diesel

2000 year 2100～2200

Figure 6: Transition of fossil fuel to renewable energy.

Urban Transport X, C. A. Brebbia & L. C. Wadhwa (Editors)

© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-716-7
612 Urban Transport X

Figure 5 shows a comparison of total efficiency between battery-powered EV

and FCEV if electricity were produced originally from solar energy. Total
efficiency of battery-powered EV is superior to that of FCEV because FCEV
needs electrolytic conversion, while EV can directly use electricity from
photovoltaic (PV) conversion.
Figure 6 shows predicted transition of fossil fuel to renewable energy. Fossil
fuels will be run out and in the long run, the renewable energies will be only
energy source in the future (for ex. at end of the 21st century). In case of utilizing
renewable energy, EV will become the mainstream among vehicles. In addition,
FCEV will play an important role until that age.

4 Optimal design of fuel cell electric vehicle

According to the comparison mentioned above, FCEV is promising in the near

future. However, fuel cell has no energy storage system in itself. In this section,
we will evaluate optimal specifications of a high efficiency FCEV equipped with
battery, flywheel and PV cell. We call this FCEV as the hybrid FCEV.
Table 2 shows principal specifications for the hybrid FCEV. Li-ion battery
has the highest energy density among chemical batteries. On the other hand, the
energy density of the flywheel made of CFRP is three times as high as Pb
battery, which has been frequently used for the automobiles. The most noticeable
feature of the flywheel (Bitterly [1]) is that it has a very fast charging rate
compared with the conventional chemical batteries. It can restore more than
70 % of the total kinetic energy, while the other batteries can restore only about
10 %. If the flywheel were employed in the hybrid FCEV, it is expected that the
weight of the battery can be reduced considerably [3]. Berndt et al. [2] have
already described a flywheel energy storage system, with 93% energy storage
efficiency, developed for passenger transit vehicles by which over 30% fuel
savings can be achieved on urban driving cycles.

Table 2: Principal specifications for hybrid FCEV.

Curb weight kg 822

Drag coefficient ― 0.2
Frontal projected area m2 2.3
Coefficient of rolling resistance ― 0.01
Motor efficiency ％ 90
Area m2 1.8
PV cell
Module efficiency ％ 15
Energy density Wh/kg 360
Fuel cell 35 kW Output density W/kg 351.5
Auxiliary equipment ％ 7
Type ― Li-ion
Battery (Li-ion) 15 kW Energy density Wh/kg 300
Output density W/kg 200
Regeneration and energy storage device Flywheel kg 20

Urban Transport X, C. A. Brebbia & L. C. Wadhwa (Editors)

© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-716-7
 Urban Transport X 613

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

Fuel cell system

Fly wheel

Li-ion battery
Controller

In-wheel motor

Figure 7: Imaginary sketch of the hybrid FCEV.

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)

Table 3 shows a result of running simulation of the hybrid FCEV. In order to

validate the effectiveness of the flywheel and PV cell, the running simulations
for daily use of the FCEV were performed by using the community-drive

Urban Transport X, C. A. Brebbia & L. C. Wadhwa (Editors)

© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-716-7
614 Urban Transport X

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.

5 Effect of reduction of CO2 emissions

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.

5.1 CO2 emissions in Tokyo metro area

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.

5.2 Simulation results and discussion

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

Urban Transport X, C. A. Brebbia & L. C. Wadhwa (Editors)

© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-716-7
 Urban Transport X 615

higher than that over the rural areas. It is evident that the heat island plume
formed over the urban area causes this phenomenon.

TOKYO (Summer, 18:00) z=1.5 m

30 TOKYO (Summer, 18:00) y=18.9 km

40 3 30

Reduced fraction of CO2

Reduced fraction of CO2

concentration, ppmv

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

Figure 8: Reduced fraction (ppmv) of CO2 concentration in Tokyo metro

area when CO2 emissions due to gasoline consumption are
reduced.

TOKYO (Summer, 18:00) z=1.5 m

N

30
Decrease of ambient temp., ºC

1.2 TOKYO (Summer, 18:00) y=18.9 km

3

Decrease of ambient temp., ºC

0.8

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

Figure 9: Temperature decrease in Tokyo metro area when CO2 emissions

due to gasoline consumption are reduced.

Figures 9 show the decrease temperature in the same case. Maximum

temperature decrease during the period of the simulation is about 1.2 oC at
z=1.5m. This temperature decrease is prominent in the urban area where the
ground surface temperature is also high. In particular, temperature decrease over
the urban area is comparatively high. This phenomenon corresponds to the
contours of reduced fraction of CO2 concentration shown in Fig. 8.

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

Urban Transport X, C. A. Brebbia & L. C. Wadhwa (Editors)

© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-716-7
616 Urban Transport X

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.

Urban Transport X, C. A. Brebbia & L. C. Wadhwa (Editors)

© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-716-7