Energy Reports 11 (2024) 611–623

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Characterisation under Laboratory and In-

use Operation☆☆
Giuseppe Di Pierro, Evangelos Bitsanis, Alessandro Tansini, Christian Bonato, Giorgio Martini,
Georgios Fontaras *
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) are one of the main options considered as possible future alternatives to
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle efficiency conventional vehicles. The paper evaluates a light-duty FCEV under both laboratory and on-road conditions.
Hydrogen consumption Hydrogen consumption and vehicle efficiency were measured over various driving and temperature conditions.
Consumption factors
Results show hydrogen consumption between 0.975 kg/100 km and 1.5 kg/100 km, close to the officially
WLTP
In-use operation
declared value. A new extended formulation of vehicle efficiency is proposed to consider different energy streams
in the vehicle. Vehicle indicative efficiency remained between 50% and 60% on the majority of cases. The paper
also investigates the feasibility of applying a fuel cell system of similar characteristics for commercial urban and
rural applications, the Vehicle Energy Consumption Calculation TOol (VECTO), as a possible alternative solution
to a battery electric equivalent vehicle.

1. Introduction one-third of energy consumption and approximately one-fourth of

The Paris Agreement targets call for drastic reductions of greenhouse
gas (GhG) emissions by 2030 and to reach net zero by 2050 (Amanatidis,
2020). The European Union (EU) Climate Law (EU, 2022) sets a legally
binding target of net zero GhG emissions by 2050, and an intermediate
target of 55% reduction by 2035, with efforts made by all sectors (Heaps
et al., ). To this end, the Union aims for a decarbonised energy (Parra
et al., 2019) and transport system (COMMUNICATION FROM THE
COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, 2023). Reducing the
CO2 emissions, the predominant GhG, from transportation sector is
essential in achieving an effective and sustainable development model
(Abanades et al., 2017). Passenger vehicles in Europe are responsible for
greenhouse gas emissions (A European Strategy for Low-Emission
Mobility — European Environment Agency, 2023). Freight trans­
portation of goods and people with the use of heavy-duty vehicles
(HDVs) accounts for 27% of the total road transport emissions (Carbon
dioxide emissions from Europe’s heavy-duty vehicles — European
Environment Agency,.). It is essential to promote the use of alternative
energy sources (Han et al., 2020) and accelerate the introduction of
zero- and low-emission vehicle (ZLEV) technologies (EU, 2023).
Hydrogen (H2) is a potential alternative to fossil fuels, with a substan­
tially lower or even carbon neutral footprint, that can be used in various
applications, from transportation to electricity generation (Sinigaglia
et al., 2017). Significant challenges need to be addressed for widespread

Abbreviations: 4WD, 4-Wheel Drive; BEV, Battery Electric Vehicle; BHDC, Bi-Directional AC/DC Converter; BoP, Balance of Plant; CAN, Controller Area Network;
EEA, European Environmental Agency; EM, Electric Motor; EMEP, European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme; EU, European Union; FC, Fuel Cell; FCEV, Fuel
Cell Electric Vehicle; GHG, Green House Gas; HDV, High Duty Vehicle; HEV, Hybrid Electric Vehicle; HV, High Voltage; I/O, Input/output; ICE, Internal Combustion
Engine; IFPEN, IFP Energies Nouvelles; JEC, JRC,EUCAR and Concawe; JRC, Joint Research Centre; LCA, Life Cycle Assessment; LDC, Low Power DC/DC Converter;
LHV, Lower Heating Value; NREL, National Renewable Energy Laboratory; OBD, On-Board Diagnostic; OEM, Original Equipment Manufacturer; PID, Parameter ID;
PM, Permanent Magnet; RD, Regional Delivery; RDC, Real Driving Cycle; REESS, Rechargeable Energy Storage System; SAE, Society of Automotive Engineers; SFTP,
Supplemental Federal Test Procedure; SOC, State of Charge; SOF, State of Filling; TA, Type Approval; TEN-T, Trans-European Transport Network; TPMLM, Tech­
nically Permissible Maximum Laden Mass; TTW, Tank to Wheel; UD, Urban Delivery; VECTO, Vehicle Energy Consumption Calculation TOol; VELA, Vehicle Emission
LAboratory; WLTC, Worldwide Harmonized Light-duty Test Cycle; WLTP, Worldwide Harmonized Light-duty Test Procedure; ZLEV, Zero- and Low-Emission
Vehicles.
☆
The views expressed in the paper are purely those of the authors and should not be interpreted as an official position of the European Commission.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Georgios.FONTARAS@ec.europa.eu (G. Fontaras).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.12.013
Received 29 August 2023; Received in revised form 13 November 2023; Accepted 4 December 2023
Available online 18 December 2023
2352-4847/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
G. Di Pierro et al.
uptake of H2 solutions such as storing and transporting hydrogen safely
and efficiently, as well as the necessary economies of scale that will
increase cost-effectiveness of hydrogen production and infrastructure
development (Rivard et al., 2019). Despite these challenges, a growing
body of research and development focused on hydrogen and its potential
applications (Kluschke et al., 2019; Stančin et al., 2020; Soone, 2021;
Viesi et al., 2017; Gómez Vilchez et al., 2022), highlighting hydrogen’s
potential for zero GhG emissions and that the fuel can be produced from
various sources, including renewables such as wind and solar power
(Wee, 2010) and concluding that it may constitute a pivotal solution to
reduce GhG emissions (EU hydrogen policy and Briefing, 2021; Fragia­
como et al., 2022a; Singh et al., 2021).
In the mobility sector H2 has been highlighted for years (Agnolucci,
2007) as a possible energy carrier and an enabler of new zero-emission
propulsion technologies, such as Fuel Cells (FC). Also in this case various
blockers have restricted its widespread diffusion (lower energy density
relative to liquid hydrocarbon fuels, relatively high costs of transport,
storage and dispensing in compressed or liquefied form and the lack of
infrastructure) (Greene et al., 2020). The main hydrogen-based tech­
nology of relevance to transport are Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs).
Commercial FCEV car models have been introduced in the global market
since 2002 but with very limited uptake due to a series of challenges
such as optimising the design and operation of FCEVs and developing
reliable fault detection systems, integrating FCEVs with existing trans­
portation systems while ensuring compatibility and efficient operation
(Fragiacomo et al., 2022b; Iranzo et al., 2020) durability and lifetime of
the fuel cell stack, which a critical component of FCEVs (İnci et al.,
2021). Despite the fact that technology has overcome several of these
issues and achieved interesting characteristics in the meantime, with
claimed volume-power density of 3 kW/L and weight-power density of
2 kW/kg (Tanaka et al., 2020) still only a handful of models are
commercially available with marginal sales numbers worldwide. Recent
research shows that consumers are also ready to accept the transition to
alternative technologies such as FCEV but policy steps need to be taken
regarding setting up price and making it at par with conventional ICE
vehicles (Harichandan and Kar, 2023). The main obstacle for more
extensive uptake of FCEV technologies is arguably the lack of available
infrastructure, with the global availability of hydrogen stations esti­
mated in 2021 at a marginal 385 active and 167 stations in deployment
phase (Greene et al., 2020). To address this issue, the EU is currently
revising its alternative fuels infrastructure regulation, with new targets.
To that end European Member States are required by the end of 2030 to
ensure that publicly accessible H2 refuelling stations equipped with at
least a 700 bar dispenser are deployed with a maximum distance of 200
km between them along the trans-European transport network (TEN-T)
(Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND
OF THE COUNCIL, 2023; Alternative fuel infrastructure, 2023).
In the meantime research on FC based vehicle powertrains has been
ongoing (Li and Taghizadeh-Hesary, 2022; Ajanovic and Haas, 2021;
Duan et al., 2022; Fan et al., 2021) highlighting the improvements
achieved in overcoming various challenges, increasing reliability
(Becherif et al., 2018) and the efficiency of FCEVs. At the same time
many countries globally work on standardization and homologation
processes (Lan et al., 2022). Although FCEVs offer a higher range and
quicker refuelling, they remain less energy-efficient than Battery Elec­
tric Vehicles (BEVs), the main antagonist technology for transport
decarbonisation. Compared to the rapidly increasing BEV recharging
infrastructure, higher production prices and undeveloped fueling net­
works put FC technology at a disadvantage but high production volumes
could significantly contribute to its future uptake (Usai et al., 2021),
particularly in niche applications like the one investigated in this study.
Lately research on FCEV focuses on novel elements that combine fuel
cell technologies with established vehicle electrification solutions, such
as extensive hybridisation (Peng et al., 2021) and powertrain manage­
ment strategies (Lin et al., 2022; Jiang et al., 2019) in an effort to further
improve their efficiency. Gains in fuel consumption of 1.45–13.14% are
612
Energy Reports 11 (2024) 611–623
reported (Gao et al., 2021) based solely on cell optimisation. Still, it is
essential to understand the energy consumption of FCEVs and optimise
the energy usage on board (Liu et al., 2020; Rout et al., 2022; Fernández
and Pérez-Dávila, 2022), and of various auxiliary systems (Mohammed
et al., 2023). For example, it is reported that the compressor and the
12-V accessories, the most energy-consuming devices among the Bal­
ance of Plant (BoP) components, account for approximately 2–3% of the
total fuel-cell-generated electric energy (Sery and Leduc, 2022). In a
more general context, BoP consists of all the supporting components and
auxiliary systems of a power plant needed to deliver the energy, other
than the generating unit itself.
The use of FCEVs is expected to grow significantly in the European
transport sector; according to (European Parliament, 2023) a rapid
introduction of the technology could result in a fleet of approximately
3.7 million FC passenger vehicles and 500,000 FC light commercial
vehicles on the road. Additionally, there is projected to be around 45,
000 FC trucks and buses in operation. FC technology is also expected to
make its way into the railway sector, with the potential to replace diesel
trains (Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking, 2019). Hence, it is
necessary to obtain a comprehensive and detailed understanding of the
true potential of the technology under realistic operating conditions. So
far the certification tests only cover a fraction of the possible operating
conditions encountered in real-life, while for mature technologies such
as internal combustion engine vehicles the discrepancy between official
and actual energy consumption is thoroughly researched (Fontaras
et al., 2017). The available literature on FCEVs operation either under
chassis dynamometer testing or in real-world conditions, is relatively
limited: a study by the Argonne U.S. DOE laboratory on a Toyota Mirai is
notable (Lohse-Busch et al., 2020, 2018), while NREL and Green NCAP
conducted on-road evaluations, but the results were anonymised and
normalised (Jennifer Kurtz (PI) et al.; Green NCAP assessment of the
Hyundai NEXO hydrogen 4×4 automatic, 2021). An interesting study
has been recently published by IFPEN (Sery and Leduc, 2022) which
shows relevant information. Still the research question remains on how
transport modellers, researchers and policy makers ought to approach
and evaluate this technology, particularly in view of future scenarios
focusing on broad market penetration of FCEVs or their in-use perfor­
mance for life-cycle analysis applications.
The depicted scenario encompasses several sub-problems; first of all,
the assessment of real-world FCEV performance trying to assess how
FCEVs perform under a wide range of operating conditions, and how
their energy consumption and efficiency vary under these conditions.
Secondly, novel metrics and methodologies are thus needed to evaluate
FCEVs comprehensively, especially considering various energy sources
(fuel, electrical, mechanical); moreover, it is crucial to understand in
what scenarios FCEVs can offer advantages over other vehicle technol­
ogies, particularly BEVs, in terms of performance, energy consumption,
and environmental impact. Additionally, researchers need to focus on
how to optimize FCEV performance for different driving mission pro­
files, loading levels, and range requirements. Finally, the foreseen sig­
nificant growth of FCEVs requires recommendations and policy
implications for encouraging the adoption and efficient use of FCEVs. By
addressing these sub-problems, researchers can contribute to a more
comprehensive understanding of FCEV technology and help inform
future policies and strategies related to sustainable transportation.
In this framework, the present study aims to give further contribu­
tions to research on FCEVs building upon a previous activity from the
same research group at the Joint Research Centre (JRC) (Di Pierro et al.,
2022). The present research tested market-available FCEV on different
driving mission profiles on a chassis dynamometer and on the road. In
addition to the hydrogen consumption results over different driving
paths, the measurements made it possible to yield the vehicle’s overall
efficiency according to a newly derived formulation that accounts for
different energy sources (fuel, electrical, mechanical). The study focused
on producing novel energy and hydrogen consumption factors under
various operating conditions that would enable further modelling and
G. Di Pierro et al. Energy Reports 11 (2024) 611–623

research in the area. For doing so, the study extends the existing SAE Table 1
vehicle efficiency method for vehicle in-use operation. Finally, as an Test vehicle characteristics.
additional novelty element, hydrogen consumption has been bench­ Fuel Cell Stack (FCS)
marked against the main vehicle technologies available in the EU market
Cell Type Proton exchange membrane (PEM)
for investigating plausible scenarios where FCEV technology could Output Voltage 250 – 450 V
already offer benefits compared to battery electric propulsion. A com­ Max Output 95 kW
parison between the performance of an FCEV commercial vehicle was Hydrogen Tank 156.6 liters / 6.33 kg @ 700bars
evaluated against a battery electric (BEV) equivalent van of various with Power Electronics (PE)
Inverter 250 – 450 V
various levels of range using simulation under different driving profiles BHDC 160 – 275.2 V Input
and loading levels. 250 – 450 V Output
LDC 250 – 450 V Input
2. Methodology 12.8 – 13.9 Output
Electric Motor (EM)
Type PM Synchronous motor
2.1. Case study Max Power / Max Torque 120 kW / 395 Nm
High Voltage Battery
The test vehicle is an FCEV available in the European market, Type Lithium-ion Polymer
equipped with a 95 kW fuel cell stack and a 1.56kWh Li-ion battery. Rated Voltage 240 V
Capacity 1.56kWh / 6.5Ah
FCEVs are classified, together with battery-electric ones, as fully elec­ Weight 51.2 kg
trified vehicles. However, seen from a powertrain perspective, the test Performance parameters
vehicle features a series-hybrid architecture, similar to that of internal H2 consumption WLTP 0.95 kg/100 km
combustion hybrid-electric vehicles where fuel is consumed within a Range 666 km
conversion unit with the goal of producing electric energy that is later
used by the electric machines for propulsion. In this case, the fuel cell
were:
stack replaces the internal combustion engine while the relatively small
High Voltage (HV) battery mainly assists during transient and low load
• 12 V battery voltage
operation and enables regenerative braking. The powertrain architec­
• Output voltage at BHDC
ture is illustrated in Fig. 1, while Table 1 summarises of relevant vehicle
• Input voltage and current at BHDC
characteristics. The test vehicle integrates a Bi-Directional DC/DC con­
• vehicle speed
verter (BHDC) to convert voltage level between the HV battery, FC stack
• air compressor speed
and inverter.
• H2 tank State of Filling (SOF)
The focus of physical measurements was to capture the power flows
• H2 fuel rate
between the major powertrain components; in this regard, various types
• HV Battery State of Charge (SOC)
of measurements can be arranged. The test campaign collected data
from standard and extended Parameter IDs (PIDs) On-Board Diagnostics
Regarding the actual measurements, electrical currents and voltages
(OBD) logging, Controller Area Network (CAN) data logging, and power
of the following components have been measured in the electric
analysers for electrical measurements. These three methods facilitated
powertrain:
the acquisition of instantaneous data for characterising powertrain op­
erations, reconstructing energy flow, and assessing fuel and energy
• HV battery DC input/output (I/O)
consumption.
• High Voltage FC Stack output
An ad-hoc OBD device connected to the OBD-II plug/SAE J1979
• DC/DC Low Voltage output
(Council of the European Union, 2008) was used to communicate with
• Electric motor (EM) current
the vehicle’s control units through the CAN bus and collect data. Rele­
• 12 V battery output
vant data can be found in the extended PIDs, while some information
needs to be taken directly from the control modules available in the
Voltage probes and current clamps readings are collected and pro­
vehicle (Corrigan,.). Using a database-can (DBC) file and a CAN interface
cessed by adopting a power analyser that can elaborate the sampled
makes it possible to read from the CAN network. In this case study, the
current and voltage to calculate the instantaneous power (active,
most relevant signals gathered from the OBD/CAN communication bus

Fig. 1. Powertrain architecture (Di Pierro et al., 2022).

613
G. Di Pierro et al. Energy Reports 11 (2024) 611–623

reactive, apparent), integrals (cumulative energy, cumulative charge)

and other relevant quantities. In this activity, the Dewesoft Sirius was
used. To simplify post-processing work the data obtained from CAN/
OBD and the power analyser were combined, synchronised, and
adjusted to a 4 Hz time resolution.

2.2. Test protocol

The tests were conducted at the JRC’s Vehicle Emission Laboratory

(VELA), in Ispra, Italy. The laboratory houses a four-wheel-drive (4WD)
chassis dynamometer in a climatic chamber that allows for controlled
humidity testing of any passenger car between − 30 ◦ C to + 50 ◦ C. The
laboratory features scientific instrumentation for testing vehicles pow­
ered by different fuels, including the necessary technical and safety
provisions for H2 (Tansini, 2020).
Fig. 2. Correlation between delta SOF [%] and total H2 consumed [g] derived
The activity included both chassis-dyno and on-road tests (Table 2). from laboratory experiments and used to characterise the on-road trips.
For tests on the chassis dyno, provisions from the Worldwide Harmo­
nized Light-duty Test Procedure (WLTP) were used (United Nations,
Value (LHV). In this study, the efficiency calculations reflect the fuel cell
2014; UNECE, 2013), (Table A supplementary material). To expand the
stack performance; due to limitations of instrumentation, the total
powertrain operating range and enhance the component characterisa­
fuel-cell efficiency, comprising different BoP components, was not
tion process, the US06 Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP)
investigated. Eq. 1 defines the FC stack efficiency η, calculated over a
cycle was employed, which features a more intense, high-speed, and
driving cycle:
high-acceleration driving behaviour (Han et al., 2020). The Real Driving
∫ tf
Cycle (RDC) is a chassis dynamometer test that was obtained by trim­
VFC (t) • IFC (t) dt
ming a real-world speed profile in a way to obtain a duration of 30 min
with a mix of urban, rural and motorway conditions. Each cycle repe­ ηFC = ∫t0 tf (1)
tition includes a cold and a warm start. The former requires that the ṁH2 (t) • LHV dt
t0
powertrain is thermally balanced with test cell temperature at the start
of the test. The latter is carried out right after having warmed up the Where VFC V is the FC voltage, IFC I is FC current, ṁH2 is the hydrogen fuel
components and the whole powertrain through the cold-start cycle, rate and LHV is the fuel low heating value for which the authors assumed
which could potentially improve the overall powertrain efficiency a value of 119.96 MJ/kg (Hydrogen Tools Portal,.).
(DiPierro et al., 2019). Finally, four different on-road tests were carried
out in the JRC area to characterise the vehicle performance in real-world 2.3.3. Hydrogen consumption correction with battery SOC
conditions: Esperia, Labiena, Casale and Milano, as described in (Bonnel When evaluating the hydrogen fuel consumption, particularly under
et al., 2022). reference laboratory conditions (European Commission, 2017), the fuel
consumption must be corrected taking into account the HV battery en­
2.3. Data processing ergy content variation during the test. The fuel consumption acquired by
CAN (H2raw ) is later corrected using the following equation according to
2.3.1. Hydrogen consumption EU Regulation 2017/1151:
The instantaneous H2 consumption rate in mg/s, recorded from CAN,
H2corr = H2raw + Kfuel,FCHV • ECDC,CS (2)
was used to characterise the tests carried out in the laboratory, using
time integration to return the total mass of H2 consumed (grams). On the Where H2corr [kg/100 km] is the corrected hydrogen consumption,
other hand, the instantaneous H2 consumption rate was unavailable for Kfuel,FCHV [kg/Wh] is the correction factor, ECDC,CS [Wh/km] is the
the on-road tests because of technical limitations. The total H2
electrical energy consumption per km calculated as the ratio between
consumed over the on-road trips was calculated from SOF variation
HV battery energy (integral of voltage multiplied by current) and the
using a linear relationship as presented in Fig. 2. The formula was
cycle distance. Kfuel,FCHV is taken from a study available in the literature
derived from laboratory data correlating the SOF variation of each trip
for the same vehicle (Sery and Leduc, 2022).
(difference between final and initial value) to the H2 consumed obtained
from the integration of the instantaneous CAN signal.
2.3.4. Vehicle efficiency
In the standard way to determine a vehicle’s efficiency, the fuel
2.3.2. Fuel cell stack efficiency
energy is divided by the positive energy required to drive the entire
Fuel cell stack efficiency is calculated by dividing the given elec­
cycle, as shown in Eq. (3) according to SAE J2951 (J2951_201401 SAE
tricity output by the hydrogen energy input (fuel) (Harrison et al., ),
standard). This standard provides guidelines for generating the positive
being the hydrogen energy content derived from the Lower Heating
cycle energy parameter and other relevant testing parameters, and it
was initially designed for conventional vehicles.
Table 2
∫ tf
Test campaign summary.
Pwheel positive
Conditions Driving cycle Start Speed Temperature ηSAE = ∫ ti
(3)
Vehicle tf
LABORATORY WLTC Cold/Warm 46 km/h 23 ◦ C ṁfuel (t) • LHV dt
US06 Cold/Warm 77.9 km/h 23 ◦ C ti
RDC Cold 56 km/h 23 ◦ C/35 ◦ C
WLTC Cold/Warm 46 km/h 35 ◦ C Aux On/Off Where Pwheel positive is the positive power requested at the wheels, ṁfuel is
ON ROAD Esperia Cold 54 km/h 14–24 ◦ C the fuel flow rate.
Labiena Cold 56 km/h
Casale Cold 91 km/h
In this study the SAE vehicle efficiency was extended to additionally
Milano Cold 67 km/h account for electric energy balance and the difference in potential and

614
G. Di Pierro et al. Energy Reports 11 (2024) 611–623

kinetic energy, which are relevant aspects when addressing real-world annual mileage of 58,000 km. Assuming 215 working days results to
driving cycles. Thus, the useful vehicle energy at the denominator can about 270 km daily. These daily kilometres are driven combining the
be expressed as follows: four missions mentioned above in balanced shares accounting for 2.7
repetitions of the average cycle result (100 km cycle distance).
ΔEVehicle = ΔEfuel + ΔEREESS + ΔEpotential + ΔEkinetic =
∫ ∫ tf The analysis covers the performance of group 53 BEVs for various
( )
levels of installed battery capacity and their comparison with an FC-
tf ( ) 1
ṁfuel (t) • LHV dt + Pel dt − m • g • hf − hi − • m • v2f − v2i
ti ti 2 adapted equivalent vehicle. The BEV reference vehicles featured a
(4) generic electric motor model as well as a resized battery pack that can be
found in the generic vehicles of VECTO. As presented in Table 3, the
That can be rearranged as in the following formula:
vehicle aerodynamic drag surface (CdxA) was set to 2.5 m2, the standard

∫ tf
Pwheel positive
ηSAE
Vehicle
ext.
=∫ tf ∫ tf
ti
( ) (5)
( ) 1
ṁfuel (t) • LHV dt + Pel dt − m • g • hf − hi − • m • v2f − v2i
ti ti 2

value for the group, and the total weight to 3000 kg. The battery pack is
Where Pel is the combined electric power flowing in or out of all added to the latter in order to account for the extra weight. The added
Rechargeable Energy Storage System (REESS), m is the vehicle mass, g is mass associated to the installed battery capacity was calculated through
the gravitational acceleration, hf and hi the final and initial geodetic the generic assumption of 6.7 kg/kWh for the battery system as assumed
altitude, vf and vi the final and initial vehicle speed, respectively. The by VECTO. Six vehicles cases with 1–6 battery packs of 30kWh each
extended SAE vehicle efficiency allows us to consider all energy sources were constructed.
and cover more vehicle technologies (full hybrids, plug-in hybrids, A 95 kW FC stack is assumed for the FCEV equivalent, with a 6.33 kg
electrics, fuel cell electrics) both in the laboratory and on the road, tank capacity, as for the tested vehicle. The battery size is increased at
where trips might include significant altitude loss or gain. 10kWh compared to the test vehicle because of the higher total mass
causing higher instantaneous power values for both propulsion and
2.4. VECTO model for a commercial delivery vehicle recuperation. Another reason for using a bigger battery is to sustain the
short-term fluctuations in power request and stabilise the behaviour of
Based on the experimental data collected, the study team assessed the FC, which will be able to work in more stable conditions and increase
the benefits of the technology in commercial applications using VECTO, longevity of the system. This seems to be the preferred solution from the
the official simulation software introduced by EU regulation for certi­ first vehicles that are presented to enter the market. The weight of the
fying HDVs’ energy consumption and CO2 emissions (Fontaras et al., vehicle is set equal to the 60kWh BEV equivalent assuming 335 kg for
2016; Vehicle Energy Consumption calculation TOol, 2023). VECTO is the FC system and storage.
an open-source backward-looking forward propagation simulation The simulation results of the equivalent in terms of mass BEV were
model tailored to calculate the energy consumption and CO2 emissions used as a reference basis. The battery terminal power simulated for that
of HDVs equipped with various powertrains, conventional internal 60kWh BEV was filtered with an exponential rolling average filter with a
combustion, hybrid-electric, battery electric, and fuels. At every simu­ decay value of α = 0.0015 (Figure A supplementary material) and the
lation step, VECTO calculates the power demand of the vehicle taking result was used as an input power request to the fuel cell system. This
into account aerodynamic losses, inclination, rolling resistance and ac­ filtering approach ensures a smooth power request to the fuel cell system
celeration profile. The resulting power demand is propagated through which is still reactive to load transitions. A comparison between the raw
the component models of the powertrain and each one is adding its own power at the battery terminals and the fictive filtered power request to
losses to it. The total mechanical power is then reaching to the electric the FC (Figure B supplementary material). The positive portion of this
motor, which through an efficiency map is requesting the respective was then used to calculate the H2 consumption through an efficiency
electrical power to the battery terminals additionally to any modelled map as presented in (Sery and Leduc, 2022). The amount of energy from
electric auxiliaries. VECTO has been validated against real world mea­ the FC calculated ex-post was then corrected to achieve a neutral electric
surements and various studies demonstrate its capacity to reproduce
real-world vehicle performance within a ± 5% (Bitsanis et al., 2023;
Table 3
Broekaert et al., 2020; Zacharof et al., 2023). A functional version of
Simulated reference vehicle characteristics.
VECTO covering FCEV is at the time of writing under development.
Vehicle Characteristics Battery electric vehicle FCEV
Hence, the study team utilised a prototype adapted to capture the
operation of a heavy-duty commercial vehicle. CdxA 2.5 [m2] 2.5 [m2]
An adapted version of the vehicle system tested is envisioned for Vehicle mass (wo. 3000 [kg] 3000 [kg]
battery)
small HDVs (N class). Vehicle group 53 according to (EU) 2017/2400 Electric motor 125 [kW]/ 485 [Nm]/ 95 kW
(EU, 2017) refers to vans with a Technically Permissible Maximum 2460 [rpm]
Laden Mass (TPMLM) of 5–7.4 tonnes; their CO2 emissions and energy Fuel Tank N/A 156.6 litres / 6.33 kg
demand are certified with VECTO. The vehicle is simulated in the @ 700bars
Final drive ratio 11 [-] 11 [-]
Regional Delivery (RD) and the Urban Delivery (UD) cycles in two
Battery capacity 30/60/90/120/ 10 [kWh]
different payload levels, low load (L) and reference load (R), for a total 150/180 [kWh]
of four simulated missions. Group 53-vans are delivery vehicles carrying Total vehicle mass (w. 3201/3402/3603/3804/ 3402 [kg]
heavy goods for a big portion of the day, making their full electrification battery) 4006/4207 [kg]
challenging unless enough battery storage capacity is installed. Ac­ Payload (Low/ 240/1210 [kg] 240/1210 [kg]
Reference)
cording to (Regulation (EU) 2019/1242) group 53 vehicles have an

615
G. Di Pierro et al.
energy balance between the start and the end of each mission profile.
The correction factor was also applied to the H2 consumption. This is a
simulation method which cannot return the same result as a full simu­
lation environment with a dedicated controller for this technology, but it
should give a very good indication as the FC efficiency is relatively stable
from medium loads and above, i.e. the operating conditions evaluated in
our analysis would largely overlap with the ones resulting from a
dedicated ad-hoc operational strategy.
3. Results
This section discusses the results from the test campaign both from
laboratory and road. Tests aggregated results were obtained from the
time series to highlight the FCEV performance over different drives and
their sub phases to extract the performance variations according to the
driving conditions. The test results are provided in Table 4.
3.1. FCEV consumption and overall performance
The average fuel consumption under different driving conditions is
hereafter analysed. As already investigated in (Di Pierro et al., 2022),
the FCEV is expected to be more efficient in those cycles where low
average power at the wheels is requested. Therefore, as illustrated in
Fig. 3 (left), in these experiments the vehicle consumed 0.99 kg/100 km
on average in the warm type-approval (TA) WLTP cycle. As expected,
the vehicle consumes more fuel over highly dynamic cycles like the
US06 and the RDC on dyno, resulting in a 34.4% and 5.5% increase in
cold conditions at 23 ◦ C, respectively. Overall, the effect of the cold start
on fuel consumption is below 5%, as detected over the WLTP and US06.
Interestingly, the average fuel consumption is very much affected when
the vehicle is tested at 35 ◦ C and the air conditioning is turned off ("Aux"
vs “noAux”): this results in a drop of 11.4% and 12.1% in cold and warm
start conditions, respectively. Otherwise, high external temperature of
35 ◦ C has a negligible impact if the cabin cooling is intentionally turned
off.
Fig. 3 (right) shows the average fuel consumption measured over on-
road tests. In the Esperia, the study team tested the impact of setting the
maximum level of regenerative braking available, which resulted in a
3.9% decrease in fuel consumption. In the Labiena, it was tested the
impact of a more dynamic driving (VA95 as described in EU Regulation
2017/1151 increased from 12.0 to 21.1 m2/s3), resulting in a 31.2%
increase in consumption. Finally, the last comparison aimed at charac­
terising the fuel consumption over a balanced condition that includes
urban driving (Milano) and another condition prevailing of motorway
driving (Casale), for which an increase of 18.2% was obtained.
Lastly, Fig. 4 gives an overview of the cycles performed and the
dependency between average speed and hydrogen consumption. A
correlation can be identified, with the fuel consumption increasing with
higher average speed. The cycles characterised by active auxiliaries
(Aux, ’x’ used as a marker in the plot) appear to lay outside of the overall
trend identified by the other tests, and this can be associated to the
testing conditions demanding extra energy for the cabin conditioning.
The same discussion applies to the Labiena, which is driven in a very
dynamic way making this test significantly different from others. In
motorway conditions (Casale), the FCEV achieves 1.506 kg/100 km of
fuel consumption (+58.5% compared to the WLTP TA value).
3.2. Laboratory versus real-world operation
The WLTP H2 certified consumption of the vehicle is 0.95 kg/100 km
as reported in Table 1. The corrected H2 consumption was measured at
1.015 kg/km over the cold-start WLTP according to the CAN signal, a
value that is 6.8% higher than the official one. This variation albeit
relatively high, is not unrealistic considering factors such as vehicle
condition and age compared to the one used for certification, test
reproducibility and possible differences in the experimental set up. The
616
Energy Reports 11 (2024) 611–623
JRC measured value is used as reference subsequently.
Considering the dependency between driving conditions and H2
consumption described in the previous section, the estimation the
discrepancy between real-world operation and the laboratory test value,
requires a careful selection of the tests to compare against which the
comparison will be made. The on-road test in the campaign that
exhibited the most comparable characteristics (average speed and level
of dynamicity) to the cold-start WLTC is the Labiena driven with the
normal level of dynamicity. The corrected H2 consumption value for this
test is 1.070 kg/100 km which is 5.4% higher than the cold-start WLTC
and 8.1% higher than the warm-start WLTC. Under these circumstances,
more favourable H2 consumption values might be expected because of
the powertrain operating for a large of the test in warmed-up conditions
(longer duration than a WLTC, 99 km, 106 min), therefore positively
contributing to an increased the vehicle efficiency as it will be presented
later. On the other hand, on-road trips are typically associated with
higher energy consumption because active auxiliaries are not used in
laboratory testing counterbalancing the positive contribution
mentioned before.
Similar real-world discrepancies are reported by private drivers on
Spritmonitor database (Spritverbrauch berechnen und Autokosten ver­
walten - Spritmonitor.de, 2023), a platform where users can freely insert
their driven distance and refuelling events to obtain fuel consumption
statistics. In May 2023 data from three different vehicles were available,
matching the same model, with reported average real-world consump­
tion between 1.00 and 1.06 kg/100 km. The average of
1.027 kg/100 km is 8.0% higher than the value declared by the OEM
and of the same order (1.5% higher) as the measurement. Given the
limited deviation which are well below the discrepancy range identified
for conventional (Pavlovic et al., 2020) and plug-in hybrid vehicles
(Tansini et al., 2022; Ktistakis et al., 2022), the indications suggest that
no excessive real-world energy consumption increase, as the declared
WLTP value was 0.95 kg/100 km, the JRC reproduced WLTP value was
1.015 kg/100 km (+6.8%), whereas the JRC tested real-world average
value was 1.070 kg/100 km (+12.6%) fully comparable with the1.027
(+8.1%) value retrieved from Spritmonitor.
It is essential that future campaigns identify the most common
operating conditions and validate the representativeness of the certifi­
cation process.
3.3. Efficiency benchmarking and consumption factors definition
3.3.1. Efficiency under different conditions and driving patterns
In Fig. 5 vehicle efficiency calculated according to the extended SAE
approach described in Eq. 5, is displayed and it ranges from 50.2% to
61.1% depending on cycle type and auxiliaries power demand values
comparable to those reported in recent literature (Fan et al., 2021). The
minimum value is obtained in the 35 ◦ C cold-start WLTP with active
auxiliaries (the most unfavourable conditions), since more electric en­
ergy is required to cool down the cabin. In the on-road tests vehicle
efficiency is never below 51.2%, reaching its lowest value in highway
driving (Casale) as it could be expected: higher FC power output is
associated to lower FC efficiency (Di Pierro et al., 2022) and little
contribution comes from braking energy regeneration due to the
motorway drive. Interestingly, there is almost no difference in vehicle
efficiency between the Esperia standard and with high regeneration since
the effect of recovery energy is included in the denominator of the
formula.
3.3.2. H2 and energy consumption factors
To demonstrate the influence of the driving conditions on energy
consumption, the different trips were split into sub phases and the H2
consumption from each segment was calculated together with other
relevant parameters. The results are plotted in Fig. 6 versus the average
velocity (left subplot), an approach typically adopted in many macro­
scopic emissions and consumption calculation models and inventories;
 G. Di Pierro et al.
Table 4
Aggregated data from test campaign on the FCEV.
Test name Type Temperature Ground Cycle Average Speed Distance FC Stack FC Energy H2 Motive Positive traction VA95 Vehicle SAE ext.
[◦ C] [km/h] [km] Eff [-] [kWh] consumption power [kW] Energy [kWh] [m2/s3] efficiency [-]
corrected
[kg/100 km]

CASALE_RDE Cold - road CAS 90.7 187.86 0.532 50.64 1.506 48.42 16.74 0.512
21.14
ESPERIA_R1_RDE Cold - road ESP 53.4 90.21 0.601 21.35 1.170 19.09 13.11 0.539
8.30
ESPERIA_R3_RDE Cold - road ESP 54 96.41 0.588 21.75 1.125 19.58 11.81 0.536
7.34
LABIENA_RDE Cold - road LAB 55.3 99.20 0.568 20.19 1.070 21.70 12.02 0.611
9.13
LABIENA_RDE_DYN Cold - road LAB 57.7 99.29 0.562 26.36 1.404 24.51 21.08 0.523
9.52
MILANO_RDE Cold - road MIL 66.9 129.61 0.550 30.52 1.274 31.20 12.87 0.565
13.40
RDC_35deg Cold 35 lab RDC 55.1 27.80 0.592 6.17 1.121 5.43 9.55 0.522
617

8.37
RDC_23deg Cold 23 lab RDC 55.1 27.90 0.590 5.81 1.071 5.41 9.58 0.545
8.36
US_06_Cold Cold 23 lab US06 76.9 12.80 0.585 3.75 1.364 3.22 20.39 0.534
14.36
US_06_Hot Warm 23 lab US06 76.6 12.60 0.589 3.32 1.309 3.20 19.38 0.576
14.26
WLTP_Cold Cold 23 lab WLTC 46.3 22.90 0.590 4.62 1.015 4.47 8.98 0.575
6.64
WLTP_Cold_Aux Cold 35 lab WLTC 46.3 22.90 0.598 5.39 1.164 4.48 9.02 0.502
6.64
WLTP_Cold_noAux Cold 35 lab WLTC 46.3 22.80 0.601 4.78 1.031 4.47 8.90 0.568
6.64
WLTP_Hot Warm 23 lab WLTC 46.55 22.95 0.602 4.56 0.990 4.49 9.02 0.593
6.69
WLTP_Hot_Aux Warm 35 lab WLTC 46.2 22.80 0.596 5.03 1.109 4.45 9.04 0.527
6.62
WLTP_Hot_noAux Warm 35 lab WLTC 46.3 22.80 0.603 4.48 0.975 4.48 8.59 0.605
6.63

Energy Reports 11 (2024) 611–623

G. Di Pierro et al. Energy Reports 11 (2024) 611–623

Fig. 3. Comparison of H2 consumption over different driving and test conditions in the laboratory (left) and on the road (right).

Fig. 4. Hydrogen consumption versus average speed in the test (blue=cold-start tests, orange=warm-start tests).

Fig. 5. Comparison of SAE extended efficiency over different driving and test conditions in the laboratory (left) and on the road (right).

618
G. Di Pierro et al. Energy Reports 11 (2024) 611–623

Fig. 6. H2 consumption factors as a function of average speed (left) and specific positive traction energy (right).

Fig. 7. Comparison of light-duty vehicles energy consumption factors from different powertrain technologies.

in this analysis it is also compared the H2 consumption with the specific

Table 5
positive energy request at wheels (right subplot). A second degree
FCEV energy consumption Wh/km fitting parameters ac­
polynomial function was fitted to the data and the fitting parameters
cording to the EMEP/EEA methodology.
derived are presented within the respective subplots.
The energy-based function from the right subplot better correlates to Fitting parameters Speed-based

the experimental data (higher R2 value). The different colours for Alpha 2.317E-02
markers are used to differentiate the type of trip, showing standard in Beta -2.179E-01
Gamma 2.728E+ 02
lab (blue), extended in lab (orange) and the real driving cycles (RDCs)
Delta 0
(green). The plot highlights, as expected, a positive correlation between Epsilon 0
the overall fuel consumption and the average vehicle speed or specific Zeta 0
positive traction energy at the wheels. The results are in line with the Eta 1
findings from other studies that highlighted the different trend of elec­ RF 0

trified vehicles compared to the U-shape of conventional vehicles (Fiori

et al., 2019; Mamikoglu et al., 2017).
To this extent, Fig. 7 gives a comparison of the required energy in
Wh/km between the case study FCEV (blue), an average for conven­
tional Diesel vehicles (brown), a HEV (orange) and a PHEV used only in
charge depleting conditions, presenting the absolute values (left sub­
plot) and the relative values compared to the FCEV case (right subplot).
Data for Diesel vehicles and petrol Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) come
from the EMEP/EEA methodology emissions guidebook 2019 - 1.A.3.b.i-
iv Road Transport Appendix 4 (European Environment Agency, 2023)
by selecting from the database a similar vehicle type (SUV/Executive)
complying with the most recent emissions standard (Euro 6 d). The
FCEV curve was obtained by converting the hydrogen consumption from

619
G. Di Pierro et al.
our tests and their sub-phases to specific energy consumption in Wh/km
by multiplying with LHV. The parameters for the fitting using the for­
mula from the EMEP/EEA methodology (Tansini et al., 2022) are pro­
vided in Table 5. The PHEV curve was obtained by combining the
charge-depleting electric energy consumption in Wh/km and the charge
depleting fuel energy in Wh/km from Tansini et al (Tansini et al., 2022).
The overall PHEVs energy consumption cannot be generalised at this
stage because of a knowledge gap on the real-world utility factor to
properly weigh the charge depleting and charge sustaining phases. The
FCEV characteristic energy consumption is always below the Diesel and
the HEV ones. The PHEV curve intersects with the FCEV one for inter­
mediate speed values, behaviour that can be explained by the PHEV
acting more as an energy-efficient BEV for low speeds and more as a
gasoline HEV for high speeds, where the energy associated to fuel being
consumed adds up to the electric energy from the battery. Overall, the
FCEV technology seems to represent a valid opportunity to limit the
energy consumption in vehicles regardless of the usage conditions.
4. Discussion
The debate on the adoption and diffusion of H2 technology, partic­
ularly FC-propelled vehicles, revolves around two main aspects: the high
cost and the lack of infrastructure that would make their use seamless
and efficient. High costs limit the accessibility to the technology to very
high-income consumers or companies that aim for specific niche appli­
cations and case-specific investment opportunities. On the other hand,
the lack of fuelling infrastructure is a major stumbling block to the up­
take of the technology, inhibiting further large-scale investments in it.
This section outlines a possible use case that could harness the benefits
of the technology while remaining viable under the current conditions,
particularly when compared to the battery-electric alternative. For this
purpose, it is supposed that any investment in FCEVs, to be viable and
maintain a relevant volume of vehicles, would need to come from
commercial fleet operators that, under a certain partnership or invest­
ment scheme, can combine a small FCEV captive fleet with the devel­
opment of dedicated fuelling infrastructure. The latter assumption
inevitably points to two major characteristics of the use case: a) com­
mercial application and b) urban-regional operation profile. The com­
mercial nature of the use-case stems not only from the investment
viability needs, for example, the higher number of vehicles, reduced
capital expenditure, combination with corporate decarbonisation stra­
tegies, to name a few, but also the need to ensure a high use rate and
annual mileage, as it will be presented onwards, that eventually maxi­
mise cost benefits from fuel and energy savings. The likely urban-rural
application originates from the requirement of self-developed and
operated refuelling infrastructure, which essentially, in the case of a
captive commercial fleet, limits the range of operation and implies a sort
of depot or a small network of fixed refuelling spots, where eventually all
vehicles begin from and finish. One should always assess the benefits
and limitations of any approach with respect to the most prominent
alternative, which in this case would be BEVs, at least when viewed from
a decarbonisation and energy-saving perspective.
Considering the above as a test case, an FCEV application on a small
heavy duty vehicle (HDV) is assumed, as described in the methodology
Table 6
Mean value and standard deviation of fuel cell system efficiency over the
simulated mission profile.
Mission Regional Regional Urban Urban delivery
profile delivery low delivery delivery low reference load
load (RDL) reference load load (UDL) (UDR)
(RDR)
Efficiency 0.61 0.61 0.66 0.66
mean
Efficiency 0.026 0.028 0.013 0.015
STD
620
Energy Reports 11 (2024) 611–623
Fig. 8. Calculated range for battery electric vehicles with different battery
capacity and applied charging.
section. For urban delivery operation (UD) the density diagram
(Figure B supplementary material) is concentrated in a quite favourable
area of the system efficiency map, whereas in the regional delivery (RD)
case, the operation goes across a much bigger range of the system. The
efficiency mean value and standard deviation are presented in Table 6.
The resulting ranges for a storage capacity of 6.33 kg (and ac­
counting for a 6 kg usable capacity of hydrogen fuel) for each cycle and
for the average mission profile were 300 km for RDL, 290 km for RDR,
470 for UDL, 435 for UDR and about 370 km on average, well above the
270 km assumption, even in the most unfavourable case, giving opera­
tors room for flexibility. As a second step, BEVs with different battery
capacities and weights were simulated. The red dashed line on Fig. 8
shows the average range of the FCEV (376 km) for direct comparison
with the calculated ranges of the BEV. The black dashed line shows the
required installed vehicle range for a day’s mission (270 km) without
any charging events. In the case of a BEV a battery capacity of about
130kWh would be necessary to fulfil the requirement (intersection point
of red line with black dashed line). A battery capacity of more than
180kWh would be required to reach the FCEV range.
The average mission profile duration spans between 9695 and 9710 s
for 100 km, the assumption of 270 km of total distance returns a total
driving time, including stops, of about 7.3 h, a reasonable average daily
operation time with the required breaks for loading and unloading or
changing driver(s), and 30 min charging. The required installed range is
lower in the cases of charging events than when assuming no charging.
In the case of low-power charging (22 kW) one would need a battery of
about 110kWh, and in case of higher-power charging (65 kW), a battery
of about 80kWh. It is evident that even in the last case, on days with a
high degree of RD driving, even the 90kWh battery system would not be
enough. Given these figures, operating electric vans in these kinds of
conditions requires very precise handling of shifts, breaks, loads and
routes and possibly a higher number of vehicles. It is important to note
that the analysis has been conducted with the assumptions made within
the certification regulation framework. VECTO offers the possibility to
operate in the so-called “engineering mode” with which analysts can set
their own driving and loading assumptions called mission profiles that
can represent better their own use-case to evaluate what is the best
solution.
To create a fair comparison, it is assumed that the equivalent BEV to
the FCEV is the one with 180kWh installed battery. The energy demand
of the two vehicles in Wh/km over different mission profile is shown in
Fig. 9a. The difference between the two vehicles is well correlated with
G. Di Pierro et al.
Fig. 9. a) FCEV and BEV specific energy consumption comparison over
different mission profiles, b) Equivalent CO2 emissions for the BEV and the
FCEV under different carbon intensity scenarios).
the FC system efficiency, but less prominent especially in the low
loading cases as a result of the difference of total vehicle weight due to
the battery. In summary the ratio between the energy consumption of
the BEV and the FCEV was 0.63 over RDL, 0.61 over RDR, 0.71 over UDL
and 0.7 over UDR.
To compare the equivalent CO2 of the two vehicles per kilometre we
need to look at different carbon intensities of producing H2 and elec­
tricity used for charging (Fig. 9b). From the JEC v5 report (Prussi et al.,
2020), two scenarios for the production of H2 are used, one assuming
hydrogen from electrolysis on retail site with use of medium voltage EU
average electricity with 175.2 gCO2eq./kWh (FCEV high case) and one
with central electrolysis, hydrogen pipeline transport and energy com­
ing from wind with 9.5 gCO2eq./kWh (FCEV low case). With regards to
the electricity use for the BEV equivalent we are assuming three levels of
carbon intensity from Scarlat et al (Scarlat et al., 2022)., a country with
1100 gCO2eq./kWh (BEV high case), the average of EU27 with 334
gCO2eq./kWh (BEV mid case) and a country with 31 gCO2eq./kWh (BEV
low case). For the BEV case we apply a charging efficiency of 92.5%
which is a bit better than what is normally measured currently (Tren­
tadue et al., 2018), in order to account for improvements. It is important
to mention that no CO2 for battery or fuel cell production was accounted
for in this analysis. As seen from the result, the highest case regarded for
H2 production to make sense gives lower specific equivalent CO2 emis­
sions than the case of electricity from high carbon intensity mixes.
Currently, only two different models of FCEV are available on the
market, hence the selected test case represents the state of the art and it
can be considered a valuable basis for experimental benchmarking and
model calibration and validation. Anyways, for light commercial
621
Energy Reports 11 (2024) 611–623
vehicles or HDVs the powertrain under consideration is likely under­
sized, but it can be assumed that the efficiency will increase when
scaling-up the entire system to freight transport application. Thus, the
results obtained via the simulation tool represent a conservative esti­
mation of the real capabilities of this technology. Moreover, the test
campaign shows a good coverage of trip driving conditions (speed,
dynamicity) but it can be definitely improved as for the thermal testing
conditions during future activities. To this regard, similar activities are
under consideration on the other vehicle available on the market in
order to enhance the internal knowledge and database.
5. Conclusions
This study focused on testing an FCEV passenger car under different
driving conditions on a chassis dynamometer and the road. Overall,
FCEV technology appears to be a promising solution for reducing energy
consumption in vehicles compared to internal combustion engines or
hybrid vehicles, and the study findings confirmed observations from
other researchers also at non-standard operating conditions with wide
temperature variations and auxiliaries use. H2 consumption varies from
0.975 to 1.506 kg/100 km; in the cold-start WLTP, consumption is
1.015 kg/100 km, 6.8% higher than the declared value. The on-road test
conducted recorded consumption of 1.070 kg/100 km, showing a 5.4%
increase compared to the cold-start WLTC and an 8.1% increase
compared to the warm-start WLTC. Existing databases indicate that the
real-world average consumption is 1.027 kg/100 km, which is only
8.0% higher than the official value and 1.5% higher than JRC laboratory
measurements. The latter is an important finding suggesting that the
current certification framework adequately reflects the operation of
FCEV vehicles and in the short term no particular dedicated monitoring
would be needed. However, given the small sample of vehicles available
in the EU the conclusion needs to be confirmed with follow up studies.
The calculated extended vehicle efficiency ranges from 50.2% to
61.1% depending on auxiliary systems’ cycle type and power demand.
Additionally, a positive correlation between hydrogen consumption and
average vehicle speed was found and the emission factor formula
derived to serve as a tool for modelling FCEV fuel and energy con­
sumption can be representative for operation in the EU. The application
of the extended vehicle efficiency calculation has proven a useful tool for
characterising and comparing different operating conditions hence it
could be used for future vehicle benchmarking and cross technology
comparison in real world operation. Further research is necessary to
fully capture FCEV technology’s real world performance, particularly
under extreme ambient conditions.
The comparative evaluation between the performance of an FCEV
van and BEV van with different battery capacities showed that operating
BEV vans in prescribed conditions requires precise shifts, breaks, loads,
and routes management. The FCEV van proves suitable for lower-end
HDV categories when adapted properly. FCEV technology can benefit
the lower ends of the HDVs categories with the correct adaptations,
which can have high potential in the future for scaling up the technology
provided that the operator has access to low carbon intensity H2. It offers
advantages such as higher flexibility in scheduling due to extended
range and increased loading capacity resulting from a lower vehicle
mass. Access to fully renewable hydrogen further enhances its benefits.
As a next step, on the experimental side, the study group plans to
investigate tailored manoeuvres, encompassing steady-state driving,
accelerations, and elasticity tests. These will allow a thorough explora­
tion of the powertrain’s operational scope and replicate component
testing. Furthermore, the testing campaign will potentially involve the
measurement of electrical consumption from various components
within the FC system BoP, with a specific focus on the electric
compressor in the air intake, as it significantly affects power consump­
tion. This data will enable the accurate computation of the overall FC
system efficiency. Forthcoming activities will also encompass a
comprehensive examination of thermal management at the vehicle
G. Di Pierro et al.
level, involving laboratory tests at both cold and warm room tempera­
tures. To conclude, this analysis will be used to feed the use-phase
dataset for the life cycle assessment (LCA) characterization of a FCEV
which has the broader target of evaluating the environmental impact of
such vehicle and the comparison with other mobility options that
instead are widely available at this point in time. Indeed, the authors
believe that for all the new technology available on the market, it is
crucial to perform an impact assessment and look at the LCA perfor­
mance in order to have a better understanding of their impact on climate
change. Hence, it represents a very important milestone in the Tank-to-
Wheel (TTW) benchmarking of FCEVs, something that will definitely be
considered for future LCA studies.
Authors contributions
The authors, Giuseppe Di Pierro (GP), Evangelos Bitsanis (EB),
Alessandro Tansini (AT), Christian Bonato (CB), Giorgio Martini (GM),
and Georgios Fontaras (GF) contributed to the paper as follows: Study
conceptualisation: GF, CB, GM; Methodology: GP, AT, EB, GF; data
collection, curation, and analysis: CB, GP, AT; model simulations: AT,
EB; interpretation of results: GP, AT, EB, GF; manuscript preparation:
GP, EB, AT; revision and comments: GF, GM; research coordination: GF,
GM. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of
the manuscript.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data Availability
Data will be made available on request.
Appendix A. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
online version at doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2023.12.013.
References
A European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility — European Environment Agency’. 〈htt
ps://www.eea.europa.eu/policy-documents/a-european-strategy-for-low〉 (accessed
Feb. 16, 2023).
Abanades, J.C., Rubin, E.S., Mazzotti, M., Herzog, H.J., 2017. On the climate change
mitigation potential of CO2 conversion to fuels. Energy Environ. Sci. vol. 10 (12),
2491–2499. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7EE02819A.
Agnolucci, P., 2007. Hydrogen infrastructure for the transport sector. Int. J. Hydrog.
Energy vol. 32 (15), 3526–3544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2007.02.016.
Ajanovic, A., Haas, R., 2021. Prospects and impediments for hydrogen and fuel cell
vehicles in the transport sector. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy vol. 46 (16), 10049–10058.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.03.122.
Alternative fuel infrastructure: Provisional agreement for more recharging and refuelling
stations across Europe’. 〈https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-release
s/2023/03/28/alternative-fuel-infrastructure-provisional-agreement-for-more-re
charging-and-refuelling-stations-across-europe/〉 (accessed Jul. 18, 2023).
G. Amanatidis, ‘European policies on climate and energy towards 2020, 2030 and 2050′,
2020.
Becherif, M., Péra, M.-C., Hissel, D., Zheng, Z., 2018. Determination of the health state of
fuel cell vehicle for a clean transportation. J. Clean. Prod. vol. 171, 1510–1519.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.072.
Bitsanis, E., Broekaert, S., Tansini, A., Savvidis, D., Fontaras, G., 2023. Experimental
evaluation of VECTO hybrid electric truck simulations. Presente WCX SAE World
Congr. Exp., Detroit, Mich., U. S. https://doi.org/10.4271/2023-01-0485.
Bonnel, P., et al., 2022. European market surveillance of motor vehicles. JRC Publ.
Repos. 〈https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC128360〉
accessed May 11, 2023.
Broekaert, S., Grigoratos, T., Fontaras, G., 2020. Experimental evaluation and modeling
of waste heat recovery in VECTO’, warrendale. PA: SAE Int. https://doi.org/
10.4271/2020-01-1287.
622
Energy Reports 11 (2024) 611–623
Carbon dioxide emissions from Europe’s heavy-duty vehicles — European Environment
Agency’, Briefing. [Online]. Available: 〈https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/trans
port/heavy-duty-vehicles/carbon-dioxide-emissions-europe〉.
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , THE
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy – putting
European transport on track for the future. 2020. Accessed: Apr. 27, 2023. [Online].
Available: 〈https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%
3A52020DC0789〉.
‘COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2017/ 2400 - of 12 December 2017 - implementing
Regulation (EC) No 595 / 2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as
regards the determination of the CO2 emissions and fuel consumption of heavy-duty
vehicles and amending Directive 2007/ 46/ EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council and Commission Regulation (EU) No 582 / 2011′
S. Corrigan, ‘Introduction to the Controller Area Network (CAN)’, p. 17.
Council of the European Union, ‘Directive 2008/70/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 13 October 2008’, in Core EU Legislation, pp. 423–426. doi: 〈10.
1007/978–1-137–54482-7_44〉.
Di Pierro, G., Tansini, A., Fontaras, G., Bonato, C., 2022. Experimental assessment of
powertrain components and energy flow analysis of a fuel cell electric vehicle
(FCEV). Presente CO2 Reduct. Transp. Syst. Conf. https://doi.org/10.4271/2022-37-
0011.
DiPierro, G., Millo, F., Cubito, C., Ciuffo, B., Fontaras, G., 2019. Analysis of the impact of
the WLTP procedure on CO 2 emissions of passenger cars. Presente Conf. Sustain.
Mobil. https://doi.org/10.4271/2019-24-0240.
Duan, Z., et al., 2022. Research on hydrogen consumption and driving range of hydrogen
fuel cell vehicle under the CLTC-P condition. World Electr. Veh. J. vol. 13 (1)
https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj13010009.
EU hydrogen policy, Briefing, 2021. European Union. Available: 〈https://www.europarl.
europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2021)689332〉.
European Commission., Regulation (EU) 2017/1151 of 1 June 2017 supplementing
Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on
type-approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and
commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and
maintenance information, amending Directive 2007/46/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council, Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 and
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1230/2012 and repealing Commission Regulation
(EC) No 692/2008. 2017, p. 643.
European Environment Agency., EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook
2019: technical guidance to prepare national emission inventories. LU: Publications
Office, 2019. Accessed: May 05, 2023. [Online]. Available: 〈https://data.europa.
eu/doi/10.2800/293657〉.
European Parliament. Directorate General for Parliamentary Research Services., The
potential of hydrogen for decarbonising EU industry. LU: Publications Office, 2021.
Accessed: Feb. 16, 2023. [Online]. Available: 〈https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2861
/271156〉.
Fan, L., Tu, Z., Chan, S.H., . 2021. Recent development of hydrogen and fuel cell
technologies: a review’. Energy Rep. vol. 7, 8421–8446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egyr.2021.08.003.
Fernández, R.Á., Pérez-Dávila, O., 2022. ‘Fuel cell hybrid vehicles and their role in the
decarbonisation of road transport. J. Clean. Prod. vol. 342, 130902 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130902.
Fiori, C., et al., 2019. The effect of electrified mobility on the relationship between traffic
conditions and energy consumption. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. vol. 67,
275–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.11.018.
Fontaras, G., et al., 2016. An experimental evaluation of the methodology proposed for
the monitoring and certification of CO2 emissions from heavy-duty vehicles in
Europe. Energy vol. 102 (Supplement C), 354–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2016.02.076.
Fontaras, G., et al., 2017. The difference between reported and real-world CO2 emissions:
how much improvement can be expected by WLTP introduction? Transp. Res.
Procedia vol. 25, 3933–3943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.333.
Fragiacomo, P., Genovese, M., Piraino, F., Corigliano, O., De Lorenzo, G., 2022.
Hydrogen-fuel cell hybrid powertrain: conceptual layouts and current applications.
Machines vol. 10 (12). https://doi.org/10.3390/machines10121121.
Fragiacomo, P., Piraino, F., Genovese, M., Corigliano, O., Lorenzo, G.D., 2022. Strategic
overview on fuel cell-based systems for mobility and electrolytic cells for hydrogen
production. Procedia Comput. Sci. vol. 200, 1254–1263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
procs.2022.01.326.
Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking, ‘Hydrogen roadmap Europe: a sustainable
pathway for the European energy transition’, 2019, doi: 〈https://data.europa.eu/d
oi/10.2843/341510〉.
Gao, W., et al., 2021. All-condition economy evaluation method for fuel cell systems:
System efficiency contour map. eTransportation vol. 9, 100127. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.etran.2021.100127.
Gómez Vilchez, J.J., Julea, A., Lodi, C., Marotta, A., 2022. An analysis of trends and
policies promoting alternative fuel vessels and their refueling infrastructure in
Europe. Front. Energy Res. vol. 10. 〈https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/
fenrg.2022.904500〉.
Green NCAP assessment of the Hyundai NEXO hydrogen 4×4 automatic, 2021’, Green
NCAP. 〈https://www.greenncap.com/assessments/hyundai-nexo-2021–0069/〉
(accessed Feb. 08, 2023).
Greene, D.L., Ogden, J.M., Lin, Z., 2020. Challenges in the designing, planning and
deployment of hydrogen refueling infrastructure for fuel cell electric vehicles.
eTransportation vol. 6, 100086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etran.2020.100086.
G. Di Pierro et al.
Han, J., Han, J., Yu, S., 2020. Investigation of FCVs durability under driving cycles using
a model-based approach. J. Energy Storage vol. 27, 101169. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.est.2019.101169.
Harichandan, S., Kar, S.K., 2023. An empirical study on motivation to adopt hydrogen
fuel cell vehicles in India: Policy implications for stakeholders. J. Clean. Prod. vol.
408, 137198 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137198.
K.W. Harrison, R. Remick, and G.D. Martin, ‘Hydrogen Production: Fundamentals and
Case Study Summaries; Preprint’, p. 21.
C. Heaps, P. Erickson, S. Kartha, and E. Kemp-Benedict, ‘Europe’s Share of the Climate
Challenge’.
Hydrogen Tools Portal’. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. [Online]. Available: 〈htt
ps://h2tools.org/〉.
İnci, M., Büyük, M., Demir, M.H., İlbey, G., 2021. A review and research on fuel cell
electric vehicles: Topologies, power electronic converters, energy management
methods, technical challenges, marketing and future aspects. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. vol. 137, 110648 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110648.
Iranzo, A., Arredondo, C.H., Kannan, A.M., Rosa, F., 2020. Biomimetic flow fields for
proton exchange membrane fuel cells: a review of design trends. Energy vol. 190,
116435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116435.
J2951_201401: Drive Quality Evaluation for Chassis Dynamometer Testing - SAE
International’. 〈https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j2951_201401/〉 (accessed
Mar. 07, 2023).
Jennifer Kurtz (PI), Chris Ainscough, Genevieve Saur, Sam Sprik, Shaun, June.
OnoratoFuel Cell Electric Vehicle Evaluation. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory 13 (2018).
Jiang, S., Wang, C., Zhang, C., Bai, H., Xu, L., 2019. Adaptive estimation of road slope
and vehicle mass of fuel cell vehicle. eTransportation vol. 2, 100023. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.etran.2019.100023.
Kluschke, P., Gnann, T., Plötz, P., Wietschel, M., 2019. Market diffusion of alternative
fuels and powertrains in heavy-duty vehicles: a literature review (Nov). Energy Rep.
vol. 5, 1010–1024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.07.017.
Ktistakis, M. , Tansini, A. , Marin, A.L. , Suarez, J. , Komnos, D. , and Fontaras, G. ,
Understanding the fuel consumption of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles: a real-world
case study. 2022.
Lan, H., Hao, D., Hao, W., He, Y., 2022. Development and comparison of the test methods
proposed in the Chinese test specifications for fuel cell electric vehicles. Energy Rep.
vol. 8, 565–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.02.006.
Li, Y., Taghizadeh-Hesary, F., 2022. The economic feasibility of green hydrogen and fuel
cell electric vehicles for road transport in China. Energy Policy vol. 160, 112703.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112703.
Lin, X., Xu, X., Lin, H., 2022. Predictive-ECMS based degradation protective control
strategy for a fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle considering uphill condition.
eTransportation vol. 12, 100168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etran.2022.100168.
Liu, X., Reddi, K., Elgowainy, A., Lohse-Busch, H., Wang, M., Rustagi, N., 2020.
‘Comparison of well-to-wheels energy use and emissions of a hydrogen fuel cell
electric vehicle relative to a conventional gasoline-powered internal combustion
engine vehicle’. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy vol. 45 (1), 972–983. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.10.192.
Lohse-Busch, H., et al., 2020. Automotive fuel cell stack and system efficiency and fuel
consumption based on vehicle testing on a chassis dynamometer at minus 18 ◦ C to
positive 35 ◦ C temperatures. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy vol. 45 (1), 861–872. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.10.150.
Lohse-Busch, H., Stutenberg, K., Duoba, M., Iliev, S., 2018. Technology assessment of a
fuel cell vehicle: 2017 Toyota Mirai. Argonne Natl. Lab. (ANL), Argonne, IL. https://
doi.org/10.2172/1463251.
Mamikoglu, S., Andric, J., Dahlander, P., 2017. Impact of conventional and electrified
powertrains on fuel economy in various driving cycles. SAE Int., Warrendale, PA,
SAE Tech. 2017–01–0903. https://doi.org/10.4271/2017-01-0903.
Mohammed, A.S., Atnaw, S.M., Salau, A.O., Eneh, J.N., 2023. ‘Review of optimal sizing
and power management strategies for fuel cell/battery/super capacitor hybrid
electric vehicles’. Energy Rep. vol. 9, 2213–2228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egyr.2023.01.042.
Parra, D., Valverde, L., Pino, F.J., Patel, M.K., 2019. A review on the role, cost and value
of hydrogen energy systems for deep decarbonisation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
vol. 101, 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.11.010.
Pavlovic, J., et al., 2020. Understanding the origins and variability of the fuel
consumption gap: lessons learned from laboratory tests and a real-driving campaign.
Environ. Sci. Eur. vol. 32 (1), 53 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-020-00338-1.
Peng, H., et al., 2021. A comparison of various universally applicable power distribution
strategies for fuel cell hybrid trains utilizing component modeling at different levels
of detail: from simulation to test bench measurement. eTransportation vol. 9,
100120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etran.2021.100120.
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure, and repealing Directive 2014/
94/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. 2021. Accessed: May 02,
2023. [Online]. Available: 〈https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?ur
i=CELEX%3A52021PC0559〉.
Prussi, M., Yugo, M., De, P.L., Padella, M., Edwards, R., 2020. JEC Well-To-Wheels report
v5. JRC Publ. Repos. 〈https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JR
C121213〉 accessed May 10, 2023.
623
Energy Reports 11 (2024) 611–623
Regulation (EU ) 2023/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 April
2023 amending Regulation (EU) 2019/631 as regards strengthening the CO2
emission performance standards for new passenger cars and new light commercial
vehicles in line with the Union’s increased climate ambition (Text with EEA
relevance), vol. 110. 2023. Accessed: Apr. 27, 2023. [Online]. Available: 〈http://
data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/851/oj/eng〉.
Regulation (EU) 2019/1242 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June
2019 setting CO2 emission performance standards for new heavy-duty vehicles and
amending Regulations (EC) No 595/2009 and (EU) 2018/956 of the European
Parliament and of the Council and Council Directive 96/53/EC EUR-Lex -
32019R1242 - EN - EUR-Lex’. 〈https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/1242/oj?
locale=en〉 (accessed May 08, 2023).
, 2022Regulation (EU)2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30
June 2021establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and
amendingRegulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate
Law’), vol. 243. 2021. Accessed: Jan. 14, 2022.[Online]. Available: http://data.europa.
eu/eli/reg/2021/1119/oj/eng.
Rivard, E., Trudeau, M., Zaghib, K., 2019. Hydrogen storage for mobility: a review (Jan).
Materials vol. 12 (12). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12121973.
Rout, C., Li, H., Dupont, V., Wadud, Z., 2022. A comparative total cost of ownership
analysis of heavy duty on-road and off-road vehicles powered by hydrogen,
electricity, and diesel. Heliyon vol. 8 (12), e12417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
heliyon.2022.e12417.
Scarlat, N., Prussi, M., Padella, M., 2022. Quantification of the carbon intensity of
electricity produced and used in Europe. Appl. Energy vol. 305, 117901. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117901.
Sery, J., Leduc, P., 2022. Fuel cell behavior and energy balance on board a Hyundai
Nexo. Int. J. Engine Res. vol. 23 (5), 709–720. https://doi.org/10.1177/
14680874211059046.
Singh, R., Singh, M., Gautam, S., 2021. Hydrogen economy, energy, and liquid organic
carriers for its mobility. Mater. Today.: Proc. vol. 46, 5420–5427. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matpr.2020.09.065.
Sinigaglia, T., Lewiski, F., Santos Martins, M.E., Mairesse Siluk, J.C., 2017. Production,
storage, fuel stations of hydrogen and its utilization in automotive applications-a
review. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy vol. 42 (39), 24597–24611. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2017.08.063.
J. Soone, ‘Deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure: Fit for 55 package’, Nov. 2021,
Accessed: May 02, 2023. [Online]. Available: 〈https://policycommons.net/artifacts
/1896972/deployment-of-alternative-fuels-infrastructure/2647509/〉.
Spritverbrauch berechnen und Autokosten verwalten - Spritmonitor.de’. 〈https://www.
spritmonitor.de/〉 (accessed May 08, 2023).
Stančin, H., Mikulčić, H., Wang, X., Duić, N., 2020. A review on alternative fuels in future
energy system (Aug). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. vol. 128, 109927. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109927.
Tanaka, S., Nagumo, K., Yamamoto, M., Chiba, H., Yoshida, K., Okano, R., 2020. Fuel cell
system for Honda CLARITY fuel cell. eTransportation vol. 3, 100046. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.etran.2020.100046.
Tansini, A., 2020. Flexible calculation approaches to support the European CO2
emissions regulatory scheme for road vehicles. Politec. di Torino.
Tansini, A., Pavlovic, J., Fontaras, G., 2022. Quantifying the real-world CO2 emissions
and energy consumption of modern plug-in hybrid vehicles. J. Clean. Prod. vol. 362,
132191 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132191.
Trentadue, G., Lucas, A., Otura, M., Pliakostathis, K., Zanni, M., Scholz, H., 2018.
Evaluation of fast charging efficiency under extreme temperatures. Energies vol. 11
(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/en11081937.
UNECE, Regulation No. 101 Uniform provisions concerning the approval of passenger
cars powered by an internal combustion engine only, or powered by a hybrid electric
power train with regard to the measurement of the emission of carbon dioxide and
fuel consumptio. 2013.
United Nations, Addendum 15: Global technical regulation No. 15 - Worldwide
harmonized Light vehicles Test Procedure, vol. ECE/TRANS/. 2014, pp. 1–234.
Usai, L., Hung, C.R., Vásquez, F., Windsheimer, M., Burheim, O.S., Strømman, A.H.,
2021. Life cycle assessment of fuel cell systems for light duty vehicles, current state-
of-the-art and future impacts. J. Clean. Prod. vol. 280, 125086 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125086.
Vehicle Energy Consumption calculation TOol - VECTO’, 2023. 〈https://climate.ec.euro
pa.eu/eu-action/transport-emissions/road-transport-reducing-co2-emissions-vehic
les/vehicle-energy-consumption-calculation-tool-vecto_en〉 (accessed May 02, 2023).
Viesi, D., Crema, L., Testi, M., 2017. The Italian hydrogen mobility scenario
implementing the European directive on alternative fuels infrastructure (DAFI 2014/
94/EU). Int. J. Hydrog. Energy vol. 42 (44), 27354–27373. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.08.203.
Wee, J.-H., 2010. Contribution of fuel cell systems to CO2 emission reduction in their
application fields. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. vol. 14 (2), 735–744. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.10.013.
Zacharof, N., Özener, O., Broekaert, S., Özkan, M., Samaras, Z., Fontaras, G., 2023. The
impact of bus passenger occupancy, heating ventilation and air conditioning systems
on energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Energy vol. 272, 127155. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.127155.