i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 7 8 7 3 e1 7 8 8 3

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

On the comparison and the complementarity

of batteries and fuel cells for electric driving

Alain Le Duigou a,*, Aimen Smatti b

a
CEA/DEN/DANS/I-t
es
e e Saclay, 91191 Gif Sur Yvette Cedex, France
b
Arts et M
etiers ParisTech e Internship at CEA/DEN/DANS/I-t
es
e, France

article info abstract

Article history: This paper considers different current and emerging power train technologies (ICE, BEV,
Received 24 February 2014 HEV, FCEV and FC-RE) and provides a comparison within a techno-economic framework,
Received in revised form especially for the architectures of range-extender power trains. The economic benefits in
29 July 2014 terms of Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) are based on forecasts for the major TCO-
Accepted 17 August 2014 influencing parameters up to 2030: electric driving distances, energy (fuel, electricity,
Available online 22 September 2014 hydrogen) prices, batteries and fuel cell costs. The model takes into account functional
parameters such as the battery range as well as daily trip segmentation statistics.
Keywords: The TCOs of all the vehicles become similar in 2030, given a 200 km battery range for
Mobility BEVs. BEVs are profitable for yearly mileages of 30,000 km and over, and for higher battery
Powertrains ranges.
Battery The competitiveness of FCEVs is examined through the H2 target price at the pump.
Hydrogen There is a very significant effect of the fuel cell cost on the TCO. A FCEV with a fuel cell cost
Economics of 40 V/kW will be competitive with a similar ICE car for a 1.75 V/l fuel cost and ca. 7 V/kg
Range-extender hydrogen cost. This depends too to a great extent on possible ICE cars' CO2 taxes. As regard
the FC-RE electric car, the hydrogen target price at the pump is noticeably higher (ca 10 V/
Kg). FC-RE cars TCOs are strongly affected by the FC power, the discount rate chosen and
the yearly mileage. Moreover, it therefore seems reasonable to confine FC-RE battery
ranges in the region of 60 km.
Copyright © 2014, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights
reserved.

reduction is anticipated in 2050 compared with the baseline

Introduction
In 2010, the IEA Energy Technology Perspectives [1] presented
various scenarios for the amounts of reduction for the major
sectors emitting CO2, in particular: buildings, transport, in-
dustry, power generation and others. With regard to the so-
called BLUE Map scenario, the power generation sector is
most concerned, and in the transport sector, more than 50%
scenario by the deployment of plug-in hybrid, electric or fuel-
cell vehicles. Passenger road usage represents about 60e70%
of total CO2 emissions in the transport sector, which means
that even with a 30%e50% increase in fuel economy for in-
ternal combustion engines, conventional vehicles alone will
be unable to reach the EU CO2 reduction goal for 2050 [2],
especially as CO2 capture technology is not even being
considered at the moment. With the soaring price of gasoline,

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ33 1 6908 3659.

E-mail addresses: alain.le-duigou@cea.fr (A. Le Duigou), aimen.smatti@gmail.com (A. Smatti).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.08.077
0360-3199/Copyright © 2014, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
17874 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 7 8 7 3 e1 7 8 8 3

hydrogen fuel cell vehicles after a “hybrid vehicle” transition

Glossary phase [4]. Many countries have announced national plans to
deal with the issue (Fig. 1). As shown in this figure, China and
BEV battery and electric motor
^te Nationale Transports De
placements the United States have both announced objectives of
ENTD Enque
achieving more than 30% market share in 2020.
ETP energy technology perspectives
FCEV fuel cell, hydrogen tank and electric motor
FC-RE the fuel cell is designed to charge the battery or
to drive the electric motor directly. The power
Aims and scientific approach
of the fuel cell is 40% of that of the motor.
GHG green house gases
The literature already considers the fuel cell and battery ve-
HEV the combustion engine and the electric motor
hicles, as competing or combined systems, from experimental
can operate at the same time. They provide 70%
as well as economic points of view. The major developments
and 30% respectively of the total hybrid power
are given below.
ICE combustion engine and fuel tank
As regards separate batteries and fuel cells systems, ac-
IEA International Energy Agency
cording to Dijk et al. [5], battery and fuel cell technologies
LDV light duty vehicle
must face the increasing sales and preferences for cheaper
PEM proton exchange membrane
ICE cars in emerging markets such as China, as compared
PEMFC proton exchange membrane fuel cell
with more expensive electric and hybrid vehicles that can be
RE-EV the ICE is only used to charge the battery. Its
sold in western countries. These authors recently considered
power is 40% of that of the main engine (the
BEVs, PHEVs and FCEVs; they assert that electric mobility has
electric motor)
crossed a critical threshold and is mainly benefitting from
R&D research & development
high oil prices and carbon constraints. A. Zubaryeva et al. [6]
RFC regenerative fuel cell
say that a large scale deployment of hydrogen vehicles and
TCO total cost of ownership
the related infrastructure need to develop with lead markets
WEO world energy outlook
as nuclei for further market replication and spread. They
showed that in 2030 the EU15 countries have a higher
hydrogen FCEV lead market score than EU12, with the dif-
energy dependence has long become an important issue in all ference of the lead market potential between EU15 and EU12
countries' national strategies. Global transportation and fossil reduced in 2050. They noticed that most regions with a high
fuels are inextricably linked. More than 60% of the 87 million lead market score have on average high population density
barrels of oil is consumed every day in the world's trans- and therefore well-developed infrastructure and known
portation system, while liquid fossil fuels account for more automotive market size. Streimikiene et al. [7] performed a
than 96% of the current energy supply to the transport sector, multi-criteria assessment of road transport technologies BEV,
and within the transport sector, road transport accounts for PHEV and ICE with petroleum-based fuels and bio-fuels)
more than 70% of total transport final energy consumption which were ranked with respect to five emission indicators
(2% for light duty vehicles [3]). and private cost criterion. The analysis showed that the best
Data from the IEA BLUE Map scenario shows that Electric option according to an ‘equal weight’ and environmental
Vehicles (EVs) and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) approach was renewable-based battery-electric vehicles (Re-
contribute to a reduction of approximately 30% in light-duty BEVs), whereas customers would prefer biodiesel from rape-
vehicle CO2 emissions by 2050, assuming the deployment of seed. Bento [8] addressed the issue of the diffusion of
20 million EVs/PHEVs and Fuel Cell Vehicles by 2020.4 Fig. 1 hydrogen cars in the market, particularly the competition
shows that the market share of electric vehicles should be with electric cars for the replacement of conventional vehi-
greater after 2015, decreasing gasoline vehicle deployment, cles. He used the multi-technological competition model
and paving the way for extensive deployment of electric and developed by Le Bas and Baron-Sylvestre [9], which shows

Fig. 1 e Stated national EV and PHEV sales targets in the short term (1-A), and annual light-duty vehicle sales by technology
type (BLUE Map scenario) (1-B) (from Ref. [1]).
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 7 8 7 3 e1 7 8 8 3
that the early deployment of plug-in hybrid vehicles (the only
electric technology which can compete with fuel cell cars in
the multipurpose vehicle field) risks closing the market for
hydrogen in the future. He points out the importance of the
starting points, particularly the early existence of a hydrogen
infrastructure with a sufficient coverage. C.E. Thomas [10]
showed that there are two primary options for all-electric
vehicles, batteries or fuel cells, and that for any vehicle
range greater than 160 km fuel cells are superior to batteries
in terms of mass, volume, cost, initial greenhouse gas re-
ductions, refueling time, well-to-wheels energy efficiency
using natural gas or biomass as the source and life cycle
costs. Besides that, all-electric vehicles will be powered by
either batteries (or possibly ultracapacitors) or by fuel cells
with peak power augmentation batteries, and a major
breakthrough in battery technology is required before a long-
range battery EV could satisfy customer's needs for conven-
tional passenger cars, particularly with respect to battery
recharging times.
But on the other hand, adoption of electric driving is not
obvious. Then, as said by Egbue and Long who analyzed the
barriers preventing the widespread adoption of electric vehi-
cles [11], policy decisions must take into account the natural
resistance to new technologies that are always considered
alien or unproved, even if early adopters of EVs who are highly
connected to technology already exist. Nonetheless, they need
to perceive EVs to be superior in performance compared with
ICEs. In particular, the notion of ‘range anxiety’ is strongly
linked to the use of pure electric cars. Then a growing number
of car manufacturers take an interest in possible solutions to
increase substantially the electric cars driving ranges. The
phenomenon of range anxiety has been discussed in the
literature. According to T. Franke et al. [12], the range barrier
experienced by many novices may be successfully overcome
by practice in dealing with range. As a first step, a highly
accessible option for users would be to simulate their daily
mobility behavior, for example, using a travel diary. The
opinion that range anxiety is more psychological than prac-
tical reality is shared by C. Thompson [13]: average electric
cars, with a 50-mile range, can cover most daily driving needs
without difficulty. Furthermore, the ‘range extender’ solution
may become a common feature in the coming wave of electric
cars, because it solves range anxiety in a way that is both
elegant and emission-free. Tolj I. et al. [14] integrated a 1.2 kW
fuel cell system in a light electric vehicle (5 kW motor power)
and noticed that the operation of the hybrid (battery þ fuel
cell) power mode resulted in a more stable driving perfor-
mance, as well as a noticeable increase in the range capacity.
In addition, they say that the increase of the fuel cell power
could avoid the interruption of the vehicle operation for bat-
tery recharge which in this case could be provided only by the
fuel cell during the driving.
Then range-extending by combining plug-in batteries and
fuel cell systems as battery charging, seems to appear more
and more as a very promising solution. F. Barreras et al. [15]
developed a multipurpose hybrid vehicle hybrid powertrain
based on commercial lead-acid batteries and specifically
developed PEM fuel cell stacks, mainly to overcome the
problem of the limited range of classical battery electric ve-
hicles, together as performing zero emission in confined
17875
areas. This is a solution that integrates a battery pack that can
be charged either from the electricity grid or from the energy
produced by an embarked fuel cell system, which can also be
used to power the vehicle. This is an innovative prototype in
the field of the fuel-cell powered vehicles. It presents good
maneuverability, excellent traction performance in off-road
driving, and good slope-climbing capability. C. Sapienza
et al. [16] developed fuel cellebattery hybrid powertrains to be
used in vehicles designed for niche markets. They showed
that the hybrid powertrain has shown a fast response even at
extreme and impulsive loads and a wider range compared to a
battery vehicle, without compromising the weight limitations
on the vehicles. L. Xu et al. [17] combined fuel cells and bat-
teries in hybrid ‘‘China city bus typical cycle’’. They mainly
found that the braking energy regeneration strategy (BERS)
was the most efficient control strategy, that lower hydrogen
consumption by 15.3%, while the equivalent consumption
minimization strategy (ECMS) contributed to a consumption
reduction ca. 2.5%. J.-J. Hwang et al. [18] used the GREET
(Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in
Transportation) model to analyze the fuel-cycle energy con-
sumption and GHG emissions for battery electric and fuel cell
electric vehicles. As they considered various driving cycles,
they showed that the hybrid-power dynamics of the FCV have
clearly revealed that the power from the lithium-ion battery
could compensate for the transient inability of the fuel cell to
provide sufficient power for the system during the accelera-
tion period. Conversely, it could store the extra power from
the fuel cell during the slowdown periods. In 2004, G.J. Suppes
[19] proposed a new approach on vehicular fuel cell technol-
ogy, which uses an on-board regenerative fuel cell (RFC) stack
as a battery charger. The RFC's electrolyzer uses grid elec-
tricity to produce hydrogen and oxygen during an overnight
charging process. By using the RFC to recharge the vehicle's
battery pack during the day, the size of the battery pack can be
reduced by more than 50%. Vehicles using so-called “tribrid
power systems” based on the combination of RFCs, battery
packs, and internal combustion engines (ICE) could be viable
decades before vehicles powered solely by fuel cells that rely
on a hydrogen refueling infrastructure. Substantially
petroleum-free automobiles can spontaneously evolve from
hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) based solely on the economic
viability of replacing batteries with RFCs as fuel cell prices
decrease. The evolution can be projected first to plug-in HEVs
(PHEVs) and finally to a substantially hydrogen-based trans-
portation system (G.J. Suppes, [20]). J.-J. Hwang et al. [21]
modeled a hybrid electric vehicle, based on a primary PEMFC
and an auxiliary Li-ion battery. MATLAB/Simulink software
was used to simulate the fuel cell hybrid vehicle under a
driving cycle, and to evaluate the overall energy efficiency at
various hybrid ratios. The results show that the increased
power in the fuel cell results in increased hydrogen con-
sumption, thus decreasing efficiency. In the experiment,
because a high level of power was not required in the driving
cycle, a high-power fuel cell had no effect on performance.
This paper considers various present and future power
train technologies, to achieve the competitiveness limits,
based on both component costs and, that is not considered by
the referenced papers above, the mobility segmentation: In-
ternal Combustion Engine (ICE), Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV),
17876 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 7 8 7 3 e1 7 8 8 3
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV), Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV),
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) and Range-Extender
Electric Vehicles (RE-EV and FC-RE). ICE and HEV are mainly
powered by a thermal engine, with an electric motor as an
auxiliary (they are only refueled with diesel and gasoline),
while FCEV, BEV, PHEV, RE-EV and FC-RE are powered by both
thermal and electric engines. Note that electric power trains
are 2 or 3 times more fuel-efficient than internal combustion
engines (ICEs), and have the potential of achieving zero CO2
emissions.
A model named TrHyBaL (Transports Hydrogen Batteries
and Liquids) simulates the economic benefits in terms of total
cost of ownership (TCO) of all classes of LDV, based on the
major TCO-influencing parameters: electric driving distances,
energy (fuel, electricity, hydrogen) prices, batteries and fuel
cell costs, and the other major components and economic
costs (including taxes, insurance and maintenance). To
simulate electric driving distances, the model takes into ac-
count on the one hand the characteristics of plug-in batteries,
mainly their range, and on the other hand operating param-
eters such as the assumption of recharging once a day (during
the night), and according to yearly mileages and daily trip
segmentation statistics.
Data, assumptions and calculations
Consumers' driving characteristics
BEVs are disadvantaged by their limited ranges (the McKinsey
analysis [22] gives a maximum range value of around 200 km
in 2050), but can really benefit from mobility habits. Sup-
porters of electric vehicles argue that the poor range of electric
vehicles is not a disadvantage; they insist on the fact that most
daily journeys are short distance trips. The recent IEA report
[4] indicates that in the United Kingdom, 97% of trips are
estimated to be less than 80 km. In Europe, 50% of trips are less
than 10 km and 80% of trips are less than 25 km. In the United
States, about 60% of vehicles are driven less than 50 km daily,
and about 85% are driven less than 100 km [4].
The average mobility patterns in France are shown in Fig. 2
below, based on the ENTD 2008 database (Enqu^ete Nationale
Transports et D
eplacements in France) [23] which recorded dis-
tances traveled each trip (from the starting point to the
destination) each day for a whole week. Only passenger
Fig. 2 e Distribution (2-A) and cumulated distribution (2-B) of travel frequency by mileage per vehicle per day.[23].
vehicles and the light duty vehicles (LDV) were investigated,
and the statistics were based on a sample of 10,179 vehicles.
The distances recorded are those driven on the road, and
40,518 observations were processed by the Odomatrix soft-
ware. Fig. 2 shows that around 92% of daily travel is less than
100 km, which means that a 100 km range battery could meet
the requirements for 92% of daily trips. According to the data
on average distance per journey (10.3 km) and average num-
ber of trips per day (2.04), the average distance traveled per
day is 21 km. Overall, this shows that 80% of vehicles have a
daily driving distance of less than 55 km. A battery with a
40 km range could cover 67% of daily travel requirements.
Fig. 2 (ENTD 2008 data) shows the distribution of private
vehicle trips, but it could also be interpreted as the probability
of occurrence of variable driving distances per day per vehicle.
Then, assuming uniform driving behavior, the annual trav-
eling distance can be calculated, and would be about
15,500 km. This is consistent with the data given by several
organizations in the literature, obtained by means of national
questionnaires and statistical analysis in France, which
describe the change in annual average mileage of private ve-
hicles (reference [24]: from 12,000 km/year to 15,000 km/year
between 1976 and 1999, a 2% increase in annual driving
distance).
As Fig. 2 shows the distribution of travel frequency for
average yearly mileage (15,500 km/year), using a bottom-up
method, we have come up with a new distribution of travel
frequency by split km when given another yearly distance. For
this purpose, we assume uniform driving behavior for
different vehicles, and multiply each split km by a factor
which is the division of the given annual distance by 15,500.
This homothetic transformation assumption gives the distri-
bution of split km for each yearly distance segment; of course
real segmentations and more complete and precise statistics
will be better for further studies.
The following must also be added. Although 92% of daily
travel in France is less than 100 km, the total distance traveled
above 100 km remains significant [23]: around 35% of the
yearly mileage. The average “long distance trip” (over 100 km/
day) is around 265 km.
Characteristics of LDV
Two items of information are needed to build the character-
istics of current and future vehicles: an accurate description of
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 7 8 7 3 e1 7 8 8 3 17877

Fig. 3 e Diagrams of the vehicles/power trains studied.

current vehicles, and the probable trends or improvements in
the characteristics of the vehicles' components. This study
provides a factual comparison of six different power trains e
HEVs, BEVs, FCEVs, RE-EVs, FC-REs and ICEs in terms of
economy, viability and performance across the whole value
chain between now and 2030.
Fig. 3 shows the different types of power train studied.1 In
the study, the economic comparison between the vehicles is
based on the total cost of ownership (TCO), which describes all
the costs during the lifetime of the vehicle. The characteristics
of the vehicles of the future have been defined according to
the expected gradual improvements (performance). These
vehicles have been divided into three groups - small city cars
(A&B), medium sized vehicles (C&D) and large vehicles (E&H).
Then the costs and performance of an “average” vehicle in
each group have been calculated based on publicly available
data.
The purchase cost of conventional vehicles (ICE) is given in
the literature2,3 (average price per category). The costs of the
alternative vehicles are calculated by adding the components
of the power train concerned to a standard vehicle body,
which includes the chassis, the bodywork and other compo-
nents common to all types (eg: the internal trim, the steering
and the braking system). The cost model is based on six main
components of the vehicle: taxes and margins, chassis-
bodywork, internal combustion engine, electric motor, bat-
tery, fuel cell and hydrogen tank.
The cost projections for ICEs, electric motors and batteries
have been made up to 2030 based on various bibliographic
sources [22,25e30]. Fig. 4 shows the cost forecasts for the
hydrogen tank and fuel cell components (complete system,
including the control system, the FC stack, the air humidifi-
cation system, the hydrogen recirculation system, and the
capacitor) [22,31].
The range of pure electric vehicles is however assumed to
increase between 2012 and 2030, but will still remain signifi-
cantly lower than that of a conventional vehicle. The McKinsey
study [22] does not anticipate electric vehicle battery ranges of
more than 250 km, even by 2050. This is the maximum range
taken into consideration in this study for category C&D vehi-
cles (maximum 300 km for category E&H in 2030). The range of
the plug-in batteries of rechargeable hybrid vehicles (HEV, RE-
EV, FC-RE) is limited to 60 km.4
Fuel and other cost characteristics
For pure electric vehicles, and also those using hydrogen, it is
assumed that the infrastructures are in place. The McKinsey
study [22] values the share of the TCO accounted for by the
infrastructures at between 1500 and 2500 V/vehicle for BEVs,
and between 1000 and 2000 V/vehicle for FCEVs (the McKinsey
study does not include range-extender vehicles), which only
weights the results of the study slightly. The McKinsey study
include the infrastructure and costs distribution in the
hydrogen costs, it represents 5% of the overall TCO.

1
http://www.voiture-electrique-populaire.fr/tag/toyota-prius,
http://www.nissan.fr/FR/fr/inside-nissan/innovation-and-
technology/ev.html, http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity,
http://www.automobile-magazine.fr/les_plus/lexique/range_
extender_prolongateur_d_autonomie, http://www.nissanusa.
com/leaf-electric-car/index#/leaf-electric-car/range-disclaimer/
index.
2
Given by http://www.caradisiac.com/.
3
Ultra Low Emission Vans study, Appendix 2, Element Energy
2012.
4
http://www.automobile-magazine.fr/les_plus/lexique/range_
extender_prolongateur_d_autonomie, http://www.carfutur.com/ Fig. 4 e Fuel cell and hydrogen tank cost forecasts up to
tag/tco/. 2030 [22,31].
17878 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 7 8 7 3 e1 7 8 8 3

0,45
0,40 Price
(€/kWh)
0,35
------- ICE Fuel -------- Electricity -------- Hydrogen
0,30
0,25
0,20
0,15
0,10
0,05
0,00
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Fig. 5 e Fuels prices and evolutions considered.
It is assumed that fuel prices will rise by 0.6% a year in
relation to 2012 prices, which corresponds to the increase in
the IEA/WEO 2010 “New Policies Scenario” [32].
Electricity prices are assumed to rise by 3% a year, which is
a very different increase from the previous reference value for
conventional fuels. There may well also be additional costs
resulting from the development of renewable energies and
energy storage mechanisms. However this assumption of a
large annual increase enables us to remain “conservative” in
relation to the competitiveness of vehicles equipped with
rechargeable batteries.
The prices and changes in hydrogen prices are taken from
the McKinsey study [22]. The change in the price of hydrogen
at the pump is thus linked to the various production and
transport mixes considered in this study, as well as to their
projected changes up to 2050 [22].
Fig. 5 gives the fuels prices and evolutions considered.
The insurance costs are assumed to increase with the time
(3% per year), and to be the same for all types cars.5
The maintenance costs are assumed to remain constant
with the time, but are slightly higher for ICE cars than for the
others.6
The question of taxation on hydrogen at the pump is not
covered in this study, nor are the tax and price incentives
which could be introduced in the context of the deployment of
new forms of electrical mobility.
Results
Changes in total cost of ownership
The current total cost of ownership for electric vehicles is
much higher than for conventional vehicles. A pure BEV costs
20% more than a combustion engine vehicle over 10 years. The
cost of the battery (30 kWh) is responsible for most of this
additional cost.
Rechargeable hybrid vehicles and RE-EVs have lower
ownership costs than BEV, because the savings made on their
low capacity batteries are greater than the fuel costs used to
5
Given by http://www.caradisiac.com/.
6
Given by http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/resource-library/reports-
and-studies.htm.
run them in combustion engine mode. Fig. 6 shows the TCO
for a category C&D vehicle, traveling 15,000 km/year, for 10
years (discount rate 5%). The range of the rechargeable bat-
teries of BEVs increases from 160 km in 2012 to 240 km in 2030.
Fig. 6 shows the significant differences in the total cost of
ownership of EVs in comparison with ICE vehicles, consid-
ering the mobility segments for rechargeable hybrids
described at the beginning of the report. The total cost of
ownership of electric vehicles in comparison with ICE vehicles
decreases considerably over the next decade. This is
explained by the decrease in the purchase costs of vehicles.
2040 Generally speaking, projections up to 2030 become very
favorable for electric vehicles with batteries and/or fuel cells.
The differences in TCO are in any case within the range of
even the most modest subsidies that are currently offered to
those purchasing EVs, even though in the long term they could
be due to disappear, or at least be adjusted according to price
changes that actually occur. In terms of markets, it should be
pointed out that government subsidies and grants for pur-
chase are not included. With this help, the market for EVs
should increase in the coming years.
Sensitivity analyses
Fig. 7 shows the differences in TCO between a BEV and an ICE
vehicle, according to the battery range (autonomy) for a class
C&D vehicle. In 2020, the increase in range from 200 km to
300 km increases the TCO loss from 3000 V to 9000 V.
In 2030, the differences are considerably less, mainly due to
the decrease in the costs of batteries by this time. A BEV is
more economical if it is equipped with a battery with a 150 km
range. The TCO is similar for a 200 km range and remains
reasonable up to 250 km. It can also be noted that up to a
400 km range, the differences remain within the amounts of
the subsidies currently offered in France for purchasing an
electric vehicle. But there is currently no evidence that these
incentives will continue.
Fig. 8 shows the effect of the yearly mileage. The total cost
of ownership of vehicles in 2030 is calculated for three
different yearly mileages: 10,000 km, 15,000 km and 30,000 km.
The main effect of an increase in the yearly mileage is the
increase in the TCO for all power trains, because the overall
fuel consumption increases. This increase in TCO is more
marked in the rechargeable hybrid sector, where the fuel cost
per kilometer is the highest, in other words more mileage is
done in combustion engine mode. It can also be seen that the
differences between the various types of power train are
markedly greater than for lower yearly mileages. In particular,
electric vehicles (battery and/or hydrogen) become noticeably
more cost-effective than those using conventional fuel for all
or part of their mileage.
Competitiveness of electric vehicles using hydrogen
We compare first two power train technologies, Internal
Combustion Engines (ICE), and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles
(FCEV), to calculate the competitiveness limits based on both
components and energy costs. Fig. 9 illustrates the power-
trains considered.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 7 8 7 3 e1 7 8 8 3 17879

Fig. 6 e Changes in the total cost of ownership of category C&D vehicles with various types of power train, between 2012 (6-
A) and 2030 (6-B).

Fig. 9 e Simplified description of the compared

powertrains ICE vehicle vs. FC electric vehicle.
Fig. 7 e TCO differences between BEV and ICE vehicles in
2020 and 2030, vs. battery ranges (C&D).
The hydrogen target price is given using TCO comparisons
of FCEVs and ICEs, based on the assumptions on components
and fuels given above, but varying the fuel cell cost, then
Electric driving with FCEVs does not consider any daily trip
leading to the dependency of these two parameters on each
segmentation or range limit, as the ranges of FCEVs are
other. No government subsidies are considered here. Fig. 10
significantly higher than those of BEVs, and hydrogen refuel-
gives the H2 target prices as against FC costs, according to
ing is feasible quickly in stations similar to the present ones.
the fuel price at the pump for a similar ICE.
The comparisons between the ICE and FCEV technologies are
This figure shows the very significant effect of the fuel cell
based on the technological components on the one hand, as
cost on the H2 target price at the pump, for a given ICE fuel
R&D is being carried out on fuel cells and hydrogen tanks, and
price: significant slope. This figure shows that the TCO of a
fuel costs/prices on the other hand. The literature references
70 kW FCEV with a fuel cell cost of 40 V/kW will be the same as
are similar to the ones used for the TCO calculations above.
that of a similar ICE car that uses 5.6 l/100 km if the ICE fuel
Instead of a direct comparison of the economic differences
and FCEV hydrogen costs are respectively 1.75 V/l and around
between the use of the two power trains (investments and
6.8 V/100 km at the pump (1 kgH2/100 km). If the FC cost is
operating costs), here we give the hydrogen target prices at the
pump based on two parameters: fuel cell costs (V/kW) and fuel
price at the pump (V/l) for ICE cars. The other assumptions
and forecasts of R&D progress are the same than those given
above (same references).

Fig. 8 e TCO differences between the different vehicles vs. Fig. 10 e H2 target prices vs. FC costs, depending on the fuel
yearly mileages (C&D). price at the pump for a similar ICE (C&D class).
17880 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 7 8 7 3 e1 7 8 8 3

120 V/kW, for the same gasoline price, the hydrogen should be Hydrogen target price (at the pump - €/kg)
around 2 V/kg to achieve the same operational cost as gaso- FC RE 25 kW (80 kW Full H2), 15 000 km/y, 10 years, discount rate 5%
12
line. The cost reduction of fuel cells depends to a large extent
on economy of scale, and the U.S. Department of Energy has 10
FCRE electric car
already set a fuel cell target price of 30 $/kW (23 V/kW) by 2015. 8

€/kg
Applying this assumption, and with a gasoline price of 1.75 V/
6
l, the hydrogen price should be around 8 V/kg, a target that Full H2 electric car
seems achievable. 4
No tax is considered here. But if we assume a 100 V/t CO2
2
tax for ICE cars, FCEV cars will have an additional advantage of Fuel Cell cost (€ / kW)
around 1.5 V/kg H2 at the pump, which is not insignificant. 0

However, those values depend to a great extent on car size, 145

yearly mileage, lifetime and the discount rate considered. It is
therefore very likely that specific mobility markets could take
advantage of developing FCEV.
Let's now consider the benefit of combining the perfor-
mance levels of fuel cells and batteries in an electric
car. Fig. 11 illustrates the powertrains considered.
In fact, by assigning the “power” part to the battery, in the
case of the FC-RE (Fuel Cell as Range Extender), the continuous
recharging of the battery by the fuel cell only requires a
limited size of cell at least 3 time smaller than that required
for fuel cell only architectures: the maximum size required
only therefore depends on the average speed of the vehicle,
and not the power peaks which are only rarely needed. In
addition, the battery can be plugged to the network, then it
can provide the travels that correspond to its range; the daily
trips segmentation given by Fig. 2 is taken into account.
Figs. 12 and 13 show the savings in terms of acceptable
price of hydrogen at the pump, both for FC-RE powertrain and
Full H2 powertrain. For the FC-RE powertrain, as previously for
rechargeable hybrid architectures, the calculation is based on
the average distance and segmentation of the mileages
covered by private light duty vehicles in France.
As regard the FC-RE electric car, and for a 40 V/kW FC
system cost, the hydrogen target price at the pump (ca 10 V/
Kg) is noticeably higher than for the full H2 electric car one (ca.
7 V/Kg). It is mainly because the FC power is at least three time
smaller, and one third of the yearly mileage is driven with the
electricity grid which price remains low (3.2 V/100 km) as
compared with the other fuels prices. In addition, the differ-
ence increases with the fuel cell system cost, which means a
smaller effect of the fuel cell system techno-economic
1 130
2 115
3 100
4 585 670 55
7 40
8 25
9
-2
Fig. 12 e H2 target prices vs. FC costs, depending on the fuel
price at the pump for a similar ICE. Electric engine 70 kW,
Full H2 powertrain: FC 80 kW, FC-RE powertrain: FC 25 kW,
5000 km/y with plug-in battery (range 40 km, 20 kW h/
100 km, 200 V/kW h) e 160 V/MW h electricity cost.
performance on the overall competitiveness of the fuel cell car
vs. a similar ICE car.
Sensitivity analyses
The discount rate represents the required rate of return to make
a business acquisition worthwhile [33]. It is the factor by
which a future cash flow must be multiplied in order to obtain
the present value; the higher discount rate, the lower corre-
sponding present value for a future expenditure. The idea is to
look at a business purchase as an investment decision. Given
that point of view, the business purchase investment must be
compared against other, possibly safer, alternatives. In our
case, we consider that the customer must buy a car (he can
only choose between different powertrains), and can antici-
pate either a higher, or a similar or even a lower income in the
future. Then, all other things being equal, we respectively
considered 3 values for the discount rate: 5% (referent case),
0% and 3%. Fig. 13 shows the impact of the discount rate
values.
We notice that the impact of the discount rate choice may
have a great impact on the hydrogen target price at the pump,
ca. 1 to 3 V/kg given our assumptions, mainly for higher fuel

Fuel Hydrogen target price (at the pump - €/kg)

ICE vehicle
tank
ICE FC RE 25 kW (80 kW Full H2), 15 000 km/y, 10 years, discount rate 5%, 0% and -3%
12 FCRE
-3% electric car
10
0%
FC electric vehicle
H2 tank Electric
Full H2
8 5% electric car
+ FC powertrain
€/kg

-3%
6
0%
Plug-in battery + 4
H2 tank Electric 5%
FC range extender + FC powertrain
2
Fuel Cell cost (€ / kW)
Plug-in
0
Battery
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
-2
Fig. 11 e Simplified description of the compared
powertrains ICE vehicle vs. FC, and battery þ FC electric Fig. 13 e Fig. 12, given different values for the discount
vehicle (FC-RE). rate: 5%, 0%, ¡3%.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 7 8 7 3 e1 7 8 8 3 17881

cell costs. If the discount rate decreases, the present value of

the future expenses increase. In our case, the FC and ICE ve-
hicles TCOs are supposed to be the same (we calculate the
hydrogen target price at the pump), and the assumptions lead
to a cost sharing for which the future expenses of a ICE car
(fuel) are higher: Fig. 6. Then the impact of lower discount
rates is higher for the ICE fuel, therefore leading to higher
hydrogen target prices at the pump. And the curves meet at
the point that correspond to the same ICE and FC vehicles fuel
expenses.
Fig. 14 shows that Fig. 12 outcome is noticeably amplified if
the grid derived yearly mileage is higher (8000 km), or if the
fuel cell size is lower (FC-RE 10 kW instead of 25 kW) then
leading to a lower average speed. In the latter case, the
competitiveness is again less dependent on the fuel cell sys-
tem cost.
Let's now consider the impact of the (plug-in) battery
range. All in all, a greater range leads to a higher price of the
vehicle, and in the same time to an increase in the yearly
mileage driven with grid electricity. But we must take into
account the distribution of the travel frequency by mileage per
vehicle per day (Fig. 2), which shows that after a peak, the
frequency of longer daily trips decreases. Fig. 15 shows that,
by combining all the assumptions and parameters, optima
systems exist that depend on the Fuel Cell cost, the battery
cost, and the battery range.
This figure shows the advantage of combining these two
power supplies for the electric motor: the battery, whose cost
Fig. 15 e H2 target prices when combining plug-in batteries
is essentially determined by the energy storage capacity, and
and fuel cells in range-extender cars to fit the TCOs of
the fuel cell whose cost is essentially determined by the
similar ICE cars (C&D class). Electric engine 70 kW, plug-in
deliverable power. It is also noted that optimum battery ca-
battery mileage given by the battery range and Fig. 2,
pacities can emerge, showing the additional cost that can
batteries 20 kW h/100 km, costs 200 (15-A) and 300 V/kW h
result from oversizing a battery for a given average yearly
(15-B). 160 V/MW h electricity cost.
usage (limited use of the “extra” kW h). Noticeably different
values and curves are given by this figure:

- The higher battery price here considered (300 V/kW h), the acceptable price of hydrogen at the pump can be lowered to
lower battery range is profitable: consequence of the ca. 2 V/kg, which is not feasible.
mileage distribution (Fig. 2); for a 40 V/kW fuel cell cost, it is - On the other hand, if the battery cost is 200 V/kW h, it is
better not to exceed a 60 km battery range; the maximum better to take advantage of the (relatively) reduced price of
electricity and then use batteries with higher ranges, even
Hydrogen target price (at the pump - €/kg) when the fuel cell cost is higher (up to 100 V/kW); the
FC RE 25 and 10 kW (80 kW Full H2), 15 000 km/y, 10 years, discount rate 5% saving is brought about by the maximum acceptable price
12
FC 25 kW, 8000 km/y FC 10 kW, 5000 km/y of hydrogen at the pump, which may increase to around
10 12 V/kg applying the “best case” assumption: FC-RE cost
FCRE electric car
25 V/kW.
8
€/kg

FC 25 kW, 5000 km/y

6 If we refer to Fig. 10, then we consider a fuel cell system
4 cost ca. 40 V/kW, it therefore seems reasonable to confine
Full H2 electric car ourselves to capacities in the region of 60 km, at least with the
2
assumptions chosen in this study.
Fuel Cell cost (€ / kW)
0 The results given in Figs. 10e15 can also be read consid-
145
1 130
2 115
3 100
4 585 70
6 55
7 40
8 259 ering that markets favorable to the development of hydrogen
-2
electric mobility may emerge in the short or even very short
Fig. 14 e H2 target prices vs. FC costs, depending on the fuel term, as a result of a combination of battery and fuel cell
price at the pump for a similar ICE. Electric engine 70 kW, technologies which has not yet reached the ideal performance
Full H2 powertrain: FC 80 kW, FC-RE powertrain: FC 25 kW levels required for separate uses. The synergy of these two
and 10 kW, 5000 km/y and 8000 km with plug-in battery components is clearly demonstrated here.
(range 40 km, 20 kW h/100 km, 200 V/kW h) e 160 V/MW h In any case, when we consider the only hydrogen supply to
electricity cost. assess the hydrogen market prices for the transport sector
17882 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 7 8 7 3 e1 7 8 8 3
[34], and not the various powertrains and uses, it must be of
course a very first step, a complete techno-economic analysis
gives very different results.
Conclusions
This paper considered different emerging power train tech-
nologies (ICE, BEV, HEV, FCEV and FC-RE) with potential re-
ductions of CO2 emissions, and provides a comparison within
a techno-economic framework, especially for the architec-
tures of range-extender power trains.
The economic benefits in terms of total cost of ownership
(TCO) are discussed, based on forecasts for the major TCO-
influencing parameters up to 2030: electric driving distances,
energy (fuel, electricity, hydrogen) prices, batteries and fuel
cell costs. The model takes into account functional parame-
ters such as the battery range as well as daily trip segmenta-
tion statistics, and potential electric driving distances are
evaluated. We notice that the TCOs of the various powertrains
aim at similar values in 2030, in any case within the range of
even the most modest subsidies that are currently offered to
those purchasing EVs. It seems that BEV TCOs remain
reasonable up to 250 km battery ranges at that date, since
there is no subsidy, and even profitable for longer yearly
mileages due to a greater combustion engine use. Both battery
and fuel cell electric vehicles are almost cost-competitive in
relation to conventional vehicles between 2020 and 2030. The
purchase price of electric vehicles remains high during the
next decade with a high dependency on battery energy ca-
pacity and FC power, but the benefits from saved fuel cost
(gasoline costs assumed to be higher than electricity) during
usage may be considerable. All the systems seem to be
competitive by 2030.
The competitiveness of FCEVs is examined, as well as the
H2 target price at the pump, as against the fuel cell cost, for a
given ICE vehicle and fuel price. The ICE fuel price, as well as
the fuel cell system cost, have a major impact on the hydrogen
target price at the pump.
A FCEV with a fuel cell cost of 40 V/kW will be competitive
with a similar ICE car for a 1.75 V/l fuel cost and ca. 7 V/kg
hydrogen cost, which is a reachable value. This depends too to
a great extent on possible ICE cars’ CO2 taxes. In all the cases
analyzed, the hydrogen target price at the pump vary between
ca. 2 and 12 V/kg. The profitability of a FC and hydrogen sys-
tem as a range extender for a plug-in battery for an electric
power train is demonstrated, as well as an optimum battery
range for EV battery cars. As regard the FC-RE electric car, the
hydrogen target price at the pump (ca 10 V/Kg) is noticeably
higher than for the full H2 electric car one. FC-RE cars TCOs are
strongly affected by the FC power, the discount rate chosen
and the yearly mileage. Moreover, it therefore seems reason-
able to confine FC-RE battery ranges in the region of 60 km, at
least with the assumptions chosen in this study, value that
depends noticeably on battery prices.
The results can also be read considering that markets
favorable to the development of hydrogen electric mobility
may emerge in the short or even very short term, as a result of
a combination of battery and fuel cell technologies which has
not yet reached the ideal performance levels required for
separate uses.
However, those values depend to a great extent on car
size, yearly mileage and travels segmentation, lifetime and
the discount rate considered. But it is therefore very likely
that specific mobility markets could take advantage of
developing FCEVs, especially as range-extender of BEVs in
the short term.
references
[1] IEA/ETP (Energy Technology Perspectives) 2010/Scenarios &
Strategies to 2050 OECD/IEA, 2010 International Energy
Agency (9 rue de la Fe
de
ration, 75739 Paris Cedex 15, France).
[2] Reducing transport greenhouse gas emissions e trends &
data 2010 international transport forum e ©OECD/ITF 2010.
[3] Repowering transport, project white paper, April 2011 (page
11) World Economic Forum, Geneva, Copyright© 2011.
[4] Technology roadmap, electric and plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles. Int Energy Agency June 2011. http://www.iea.org/
publications/freepublications/publication/EV_PHEV_
Roadmap.pdf.
[5] Dijk M, Orsato R, . Kemp R. The emergence of an electric
mobility trajectory. Energy Policy 2013;52:135e45. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.024.
[6] Zubaryeva A, Thiel Ch. Analyzing potential lead markets for
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Europe: expert views and
spatial perspective. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2013;38(36):15878e86.
[7] Streimikiene D, Balezentis T, Balezentien L. Comparative
assessment of road transport technologies. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2013;20:611e8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2012.12.021.
[8] Bento N. Dynamic competition between plug-in hybrid and
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles for personal transportation. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2010;35:11271e83. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.07.103.
[9] Le Bas C, Sylvestre Baron P. Non-binary technological
diffusion and epidemic model: a reconsideration. Econ
Applique
e 1995;48(3):71e101.
[10] Thomas CE. Fuel cell and battery electric vehicles compared.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:6005e20. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.06.003.
[11] Egbue O, Long S. Barriers to wide spread adoption of electric
vehicles: an analysis of consumer attitudes and perceptions.
Energy Policy 2012;48:717e29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.enpol.2012.06.009.
[12] Franke T, Neumann I, Bühler F, Cocron P, Krems JF.
Experiencing range in an electric vehicle e understanding
psychological barriers. Appl Psychol Int Rev 2012;61(3):368e91.
[13] Thompson C. Batteries not included the green issue. The
New-York Times; April 19, 2009.
[14] .Tolj I, Lototskyy MV, Davids MW, Pasupathi S, Swart G,
Pollet BG. Fuel cell-battery hybrid powered light electric
vehicle (golf cart): influence of fuel cell on the driving
performance. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2013;38(25):10630e9.
[15] Barreras F, Maza M, Lozano A, Ba
scones S, Roda V,
Barranco JE, et al. Design and development of a multipurpose
utility AWD electric vehicle with a hybrid powertrain based
on PEM fuel cells and batteries. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2012;37:15367e79.
[16] Sapienza C, Andaloro L, Matera FV, Dispenza G, Creti P,
Ferraro M. Batteries analysis for FC-hybrid powertrain
optimization. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33:3230e4. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.01.023.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 7 8 7 3 e1 7 8 8 3
[17] Xu L, Li J, Hua J, Li X, Ouyang M. Optimal vehicle control
strategy of a fuel cell/battery hybrid city bus. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2009;34:7323e33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2009.06.021.
[18] Hwang J-J, Kuo J-K, Wu W, Chang W-R, Lin C-H,
Wang S-E. Life cycle performance assessment of fuel
cell/battery electric vehicles. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2013;38:3433e46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2012.12.148.
[19] Suppes GJ. Plug-in hybrid with fuel cell battery charger. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2005;30:113e21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2004.04.017.
[20] Suppes GJ. Roles of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in the
transition to the hydrogen economy. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2006;31:353e60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2005.06.026.
[21] Hwang J-J, Chen Y-J, Kuo J-K. The study on the power
management system in a fuel cell hybrid vehicle. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2012;37:4476e89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2011.11.127.
[22] McKinsey & Company. A portfolio of power-trains for
Europe: a fact-based analysis. The role of battery electric
vehicles, plug-in hybrids and fuel cell electric vehicles;
November 2010.
17883
[23] Commissariat Ge
ne

ral au De

veloppement Durable. Les

hicules e
ve
lectriques en perspective, analyse coût-avantages
et demande potentielle; May 2011. p. 33e4.
[24] Girault M, Fosse M, Jeger F. Circulation et consommation de
carburant en France estimation de
taille

e par type de

hicule; Sept. 2000.
ve
[25] EUCAR-CONCAWE, TTW report, appendix 1.
[26] EPRI 2001, Comparing the benefits and impacts of hybrid
electric vehicle options.
[27] EPRI 2002, Comparing the benefits and impacts of hybrid
electric vehicle options for compact sedan and SUV.
[28] MIT, On the road in 2035.
[29] Lotus Engineering (2010), an assessment of mass reduction
opportunities.
[30] Battery prices for electric vehicles fall 14%. BNEF; 2012.
[31] The European hydrogen roadmap. HyWays; 2008.
[32] IEA crude oil import price/International Energy Agency,
World energy outlook 2010 (Paris, France, November 2010).
[33] http://www.valuadder.com/glossary/discount-rate.html.
[34] Mansilla C, Avril S, Imbach J, Le Duigou A. CO2-free hydrogen
as a substitute to fossil fuels: what are the targets?
Prospective assessment of the hydrogen market
attractiveness. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012;37(12):9451e8.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.03.149.