Electric and hybrid vehicles : Power sources, modles, sustainability, infrastructure and the market

ELECTRIC AND HYBRID

VEHICLES

POWER SOURCES, MODELS,

SUSTAINABILITY, INFRASTRUCTURE

AND THE MARKET

Gianfranco Pistoia

Consultant, Rome, Italy

Gianfranco.pistoia0@alice.it

Amsterdam • Boston • Heidelberg • London • New York • Oxford

Paris • San Diego • San Francisco • Singapore • Sydney • Tokyo

Elsevier

Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Linacre House, Jordan Hill, Oxford OX2 8DP, UK

First edition 2010

Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system

or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying,

recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher

Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Science & Technology Rights

Department in Oxford, UK: phone (+44) (0) 1865 843830; fax (+44) (0) 1865 853333;

email: permissions@elsevier.com. Alternatively you can submit your request online by

visiting the Elsevier web site at http://elsevier.com/locate/permissions, and selecting

Obtaining permission to use Elsevier material

Notice

No responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons

or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use

or operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material

herein.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

ISBN: 978-0-444-53565-8

For information on all Elsevier publications

visit our website at books.elsevier.com

Printed and bound in the Great Britain

10 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Working together to grow

libraries in developing countries

www.elsevier.com | www.bookaid.org | www.sabre.org

CONTRIBUTORS

Paul Albertus

Department of Chemical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA

James E. Anderson

Systems Analytics and Environmental Sciences Department, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn,

Michigan, USA

Ashish Arora

Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, 23445 North 19th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85027, USA

Jonn Axsen

Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis, 2028 Academic Surge, One

Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA

Thomas H. Bradley

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523­

1374, USA

Michel Broussely

Formerly Scientific Director of Specialty Battery Division at Saft, France, 53 Avenue de Poitiers,

86240 Ligugé, France

Andrew F. Burke

Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis, 2028 Academic Surge, One

Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA

Mark A. Delucchi

Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA, 95616, USA

Ibrahim Dincer

Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario, Institute of Technology

(UOIT), Oshawa, Ontario, Canada

Matthieu Dubarry

Hawai’i Natural Energy Institute, SOEST, University of Hawai’i at Manoa Honolulu, HI 96822,

USA

Ulrich Eberle

Hydrogen, Fuel Cell & Electric Propulsion Research Strategy, GM Alternative Propulsion

Center Europe, Adam Opel GmbH, IPC MK-01, 65423 Rüsselsheim, Germany

Tiago Farias

Department of Mechanical Engineering, IDMEC/IST, Instituto Superior Técnico, Technical

University of Lisbon, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1 Pav. Mecânica I, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal

Horst E. Friedrich

Institute of Vehicle Concepts, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Stuttgart, Germany

xiii

xiv Contributors

Daniel D. Friel

Battery Management Solutions, Texas Instruments, Inc., 607 Herndon Parkway, Suite 100,

Herndon, VA 20170, USA

John Garbak

U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585, USA

Benjamin Geller

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO

80523-1374, USA

Maria Grahn

Department of Energy and Environment, Physical Resource Theory, Chalmers University of

Technology, Göteborg, Sweden

Rittmar von Helmolt

Hydrogen, Fuel Cell & Electric Propulsion Research Strategy, GM Alternative Propulsion

Center Europe, Adam Opel GmbH, IPC MK-01, 65423 Rüsselsheim, Germany

Mohammed M.Hussain

National Research Council – Institute of Fuel Cell Innovation, Vancouver, British Columbia,

Canada

Kenneth S. Kurani

Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis, 2028 Academic Surge, One

Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA

Jennifer Kurtz

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401, USA

Bor Yann Liaw

Hawai’i Natural Energy Institute, SOEST, University of Hawai’i at Manoa Honolulu, HI 96822,

USA

Timothy E. Lipman

Transportation Sustainability Research Center, University of California–Berkeley, 2614 Dwight

Way, MC 1782, Berkeley, CA, 94720-1782, USA

Thomas Livernois

Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, 39100 Country Club Drive, Farmington Hills, MI 48331,

USA

Chris Manzie

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Tony Markel

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401, USA

Julien Matheys

Department of Electrical Engineering and Energy Technology (ETEC), Vrije Universiteit

Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, Brussels, Belgium

Contributors xv

Noshirwan K. Medora

Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, 23445 North 19th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85027, USA

Peter Mock

Institute of Vehicle Concepts, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Stuttgart, Germany

John Newman

Department of Chemical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA

Fabio Orecchini

GRA (Automotive Research Group) and CIRPS (Interuniversity Research Centre for Sustain￾able Development), “La Sapienza” University of Rome, Piazza S. Pietro in Vincoli 10, 00184

Rome, Italy

Ahmad A. Pesaran

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401, USA

Casey Quinn

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO

80523-1374, USA

Todd Ramsden

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401, USA

Marc A. Rosen

Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario, Institute of Technology

(UOIT), Oshawa, Ontario, Canada

Adriano Santiangeli

GRA (Automotive Research Group) and CIRPS (Interuniversity Research Centre for Sustain￾able Development), “La Sapienza” University of Rome, Piazza S. Pietro in Vincoli 10, 00184

Rome, Italy

Stephan A. Schmid

Institute of Vehicle Concepts, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Stuttgart, Germany

Carla Silva

Department of Mechanical Engineering, IDMEC/IST, Instituto Superior Técnico, Technical

University of Lisbon, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1 Pav. Mecânica I, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal

Kandler Smith

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401, USA

Bent Sørensen

Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change, Bld. 11.1, Universitetsvej 1, Roskilde

University, PO Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark

Sam Sprik

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401, USA

Jan Swart

Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, 23445 North 19th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85027, USA

Peter Van den Bossche

Erasmus Hogeschool Brussel, Nijverheidskaai 170, Anderlecht, Belgium

xvi Contributors

Joeri Van Mierlo

Department of Electrical Engineering and Energy Technology (ETEC), Vrije Universiteit

Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, Brussels, Belgium

Timothy J. Wallington

Systems Analytics and Environmental Sciences Department, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn,

Michigan, USA

Keith Wipke

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401, USA

Calin Zamfirescu

Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario, Institute of Technology

(UOIT), Oshawa, Ontario, Canada

PREFACE

In the last 10–15 years, people have become acquainted with vehicles powered not only

by an internal combustion engine (using gasoline, diesel or gas), but also by an electric

motor. These hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) afford a reduction of fuel consumption in

city driving and reduce emissions, but this is only the first stretch of a long road that will

hopefully end with zero-emission electric vehicles (EVs) allowing long-range driving.

The first vehicles produced at the beginning of the last century were electric,

powered by lead-acid batteries, but they were soon abandoned because of the limited

battery performance and the availability of fossil fuels at reasonable costs. However, the

situation has radically changed in recent years; high fuel price and dramatic environ￾mental deterioration have led to reconsider the use of batteries, whose performance, on

the other hand, has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.

Nickel-metal hydride (almost exclusively used to the end of 2009, e.g. in Toyota

Prius and Honda Insight) and the forthcoming Li-ion batteries (now used in recently

produced electric vehicles, e.g. Nissan Leaf and Mitsubishi i-MiEV) have satisfactory

energy and power features. In this book, the performance, cost, safety and sustainability

of these and other battery systems for HEVs and EVs are thoroughly reviewed (parti￾cularly in Chapters 8 and 13–19).

Attention is also given to fuel cell systems, as research in this area is more active than

ever, and prototypes of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are already circulating (e.g. Honda

FCX Clarity and GM Hydrogen4), although their cost places commercialization a long￾way ahead (Chapters 9–12).

Throughout this book, especially in the first chapters, alternative vehicles with

different powertrains are compared in terms of lifetime cost, fuel consumption and

environmental impact. The emissions of greenhouse gases have been particularly dealt

with.

In general, how far is, and how much substantial will be, the penetration of alter￾native vehicles into the market? The answer to this question has to be based on the

assumption of models taking into account such factors as the fraction of electricity

produced by renewable sources and the level of CO2 considered acceptable (as is done

especially in Chapters 4 and 21). However, according to some surveys, many drivers

seem less attracted by environmental issues and more by vehicle performance and cost. In

this respect, improvement of the battery, or fuel cell, performance and governmental

incentives will play a fundamental role.

An adequate recharging infrastructure is also of paramount importance for the

diffusion of vehicles powered by batteries and fuel cells, as it may contribute to overcome

xvii

xviii Preface

the so-called “range anxiety”. The battery charging techniques proposed are summarized

in Chapter 20, while hydrogen refueling stations are described in Chapter 12.

Finally, in Chapter 22, the state of the art of the current models of hybrid and electric

vehicles (as of the beginning of 2010) is reviewed along with the powertrain solutions

adopted by the major automakers.

Gianfranco Pistoia

CHAPTER ONE

Economic and Environmental

Comparison of Conventional and

Alternative Vehicle Options

Ibrahim Dincer1

, Marc A. Rosen and Calin Zamfirescu

Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario, Institute of Technology (UOIT), Oshawa, Ontario, Canada

Contents

1. Introduction 1

2. Analysis 2

2.1 Technical and economical criteria 3

2.2 Environmental impact criteria 5

2.3 Normalization and the general indicator 10

3. Results and Discussion 11

4. Conclusions 15

Acknowledgement 15

Nomenclature 16

Greek symbols 16

Subscripts 16

References 16

1. INTRODUCTION

Of the major industries that have to adapt and reconfigure to meet present

requirements for sustainable development, vehicle manufacturing is one of the more

significant. One component of sustainability requires the design of environmentally

benign vehicles characterized by no or little atmospheric pollution during operation.

The design of such vehicles requires, among other developments, improvements in

powertrain systems, fuel processing, and power conversion technologies. Opportunities

for utilizing various fuels for vehicle propulsion, with an emphasis on synthetic fuels

(e.g., hydrogen, biodiesel, bioethanol, dimethylether, ammonia, etc.) as well as electri￾city via electrical batteries, have been analyzed over the last decade and summarized

in Refs [1–3].

In analyzing a vehicle propulsion and fueling system, it is necessary to consider all

stages of the life cycle starting from the extraction of natural resources to produce

1 Corresponding author: Ibrahim.Dincer@uoit.ca

Electric and Hybrid Vehicles © 2010 Elsevier B.V.

ISBN 978-0-444-53565-8, DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53565-8.00001-4 All rights reserved. 1

2 Ibrahim Dincer et al.

materials and ending with conversion of the energy stored onboard the vehicle into

mechanical energy for vehicle displacement and other purposes (heating, cooling,

lighting, etc.). All life cycle stages preceding fuel utilization on the vehicle influence

the overall efficiency and environmental impact. In addition, vehicle production stages

and end-of-life disposal contribute substantially when quantifying the life cycle envir￾onmental impact of fuel-propulsion alternatives. Cost-effectiveness is also a decisive

factor contributing to the development of an environmentally benign transportation

sector.

This chapter extends and updates the approach by Granovskii et al. [1] which

evaluates, based on actual cost data, the life cycle indicators for vehicle production and

utilization stages and performs a comparison of four kinds of fuel-propulsion vehicle

alternatives. We consider in the present analysis two additional kinds of vehicles, both of

which are zero polluting at fuel utilization stage (during vehicle operation). One uses

hydrogen as a fuel in an internal combustion engine (ICE), while the second uses

ammonia as a hydrogen fuel source to drive an ICE. Consequently, the vehicles analyzed

here are as follows:

• conventional gasoline vehicle (gasoline fuel and ICE),

• hybrid vehicle (gasoline fuel, electrical drive, and large rechargeable battery),

• electric vehicle (high-capacity electrical battery and electrical drive/generator),

• hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (high-pressure hydrogen fuel tank, fuel cell, electrical

drive),

• hydrogen internal combustion vehicle (high-pressure hydrogen fuel tank and ICE),

• ammonia-fueled vehicle (liquid ammonia fuel tank, ammonia thermo-catalytic

decomposition and separation unit to generate pure hydrogen, hydrogen-fueled

ICE).

The theoretical developments introduced in this chapter, consisting of novel economic

and environmental criteria for quantifying vehicle sustainability, are expected to prove

useful in the design of modern light-duty automobiles, with superior economic and

environmental attributes.

2. ANALYSIS

We develop in this section a series of general quantitative indicators that help

quantify the economic attractiveness and environmental impact of any fuel-propulsion

system. These criteria are applied to the six cases studied in this chapter. The analysis is

conducted for six vehicles that entered the market between 2002 and 2004, each

representative of one of the above discussed categories. The specific vehicles follow:

• Toyota Corolla (conventional vehicle),

• Toyota Prius (hybrid vehicle),

• Toyota RAV4EV (electric vehicle),

Economic and Environmental Comparison of Conventional and Alternative Vehicle Options 3

• Honda FCX (hydrogen fuel cell vehicle),

• Ford Focus H2-ICE (hydrogen ICE vehicle),

• Ford Focus H2-ICE adapted to use ammonia as source of hydrogen (ammonia-fueled

ICE vehicle).

Note that the analysis for the first five options is based on published data from manu￾facturers, since these vehicles were produced and tested. The results for the sixth case,

namely, the ammonia-fueled vehicle, are calculated, starting from data published by

Ford on the performance of its hydrogen-fueled Ford Focus vehicle. It is assumed that

the vehicle engine operates with hydrogen delivered at the same parameters as for the

original Ford design specifications. However, the hydrogen is produced from ammonia

stored onboard in liquid phase. Details regarding the operation of the ammonia-fueled

vehicle are given subsequently.

The present section comprises three subsections, treating the following aspects:

economic criteria, environmental criteria, and a combined impact criterion. The latter

is a normalized indicator that takes into account the effects on both environmental and

economic performance of the options considered.

2.1 Technical and economical criteria

A number of key economic parameters characterize vehicles, like vehicle price, fuel cost,

and driving range. In the present analysis, we neglect maintenance costs; however, for

the hybrid and electric vehicles, the cost of battery replacement during the lifetime is

accounted for. Note also that the driving range determines the frequency (number and

separation distance) of fueling stations for each vehicle type. The total fuel cost and the

total number of kilometers driven are related to the vehicle life.

The technical and economical parameters that serve as criteria for the present

comparative analysis of the selected vehicles are compiled in Table 1.1. For the Honda

FCX the listed initial price for a prototype leased in 2002 was USk$2,000, which is

estimated to drop below USk$100 in regular production. Currently, a Honda FCX can

be leased for 3 years with a total price of USk$21.6. In order to render the comparative

study reasonable, the initial price of the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is assumed here to be

USk$100.

The considered H2-ICE was produced by Ford during the years 2003–2005 in

various models, starting with model U in 2003 which is based on a SUV body style

vehicle with a hybrid powertrain (ICE + electric drive) and ending with the Ford Focus

Wagon which is completely based on a hydrogen-fueled ICE (this last model is included

in the analysis in Table 1.1). The H2-ICE uses a shaft driven turbocharger and a 217 l

pressurized hydrogen tank together with a specially designed fuel injection system. The

evaluated parameters for a H2-ICE Ford Focus Wagon converted to ammonia fuel are

listed in the last row of Table 1.1. The initial cost is lower than that of the original ICE

Ford Focus due to the fact that the expensive hydrogen fuel tank and safety system are

4 Ibrahim Dincer et al.

Table 1.1 Technical and economical characteristics for selected vehicle technologies

Vehicle type Fuel Initial Specific fuel Specific fuel Driving Price of battery

price consumptiona price range changes during

(USk$) (MJ/100 km) (US$/100 km) (km) vehicle life cycleb

(USk$)

Conventional Gasoline 15.3 236.8c 2.94 540 1
0.1

Hybrid Gasoline 20.0 137.6 1.71 930 1
1.02

Electric Electricity 42.0 67.2 0.901 164 2
15.4

Fuel cell

H2-ICE

NH3–H2-ICE

Hydrogen

Hydrogen

Ammonia

100.0 129.5

60.0d 200

40.0e 175

1.69

8.4

6.4f

355

300

430

1
0.1

1
0.1

1
0.1

a

Fuel consumption based on driving times divided as 45% on highway and 55% in city.

b Life cycle of vehicle is taken as 10 years.

c

Heat content of conventional gasoline is assumed to be its lower heating value (LHV=32 MJ/l).

d Estimated based on gasoline ICE to H2-ICE conversion data from Atlantic Hydrogen [4].

e

Estimated based on assumption that the costs of the fuel tank+fuel distribution+fuel safety systems are negligible with

respect to the H2-ICE vehicle. f

Estimated for US$6.4/kg of ammonia.

replaced with ones with negligible price, because ammonia can be stored in ordinary

carbon steel cylinders. Moreover, NH3 is a refrigerant that satisfies onboard cooling

needs, reducing the costs of the balance of plant.

For the ammonia-fueled vehicle, previous results of Zamfirescu and Dincer [3] are

considered. Based on a previous study [1], it is estimated for the electric vehicle that the

specific cost is US$569/kWh of nickel metal hydride (NiMeH) batteries which are

typically used in hybrid and electric cars. The specific cost of an electric car vehicle

decreased in recent years to below US$500/kWh (and in some special cases to below

US$250/kWh). Here, we assume the same figure as Granovskii et al. [1], that is,

US$570/kWh, which is considered more conservative. For gasoline and hybrid vehicles,

a 40 l fuel tank is assumed, based on which determines the driving range.

Annual average prices of typical fuels over the last decade are presented in Fig. 1.1,

based on Energy Information Administration (EIA) [5]. Few and approximate data are

available for historical trends of hydrogen fuel prices, so the results by Granovskii et al.

[1, 6] are considered to obtain hydrogen price trends.

Here, hydrogen price trends are derived based on the assumption that the price of

low-pressure hydrogen, per unit energy content, is about the same as the price of

gasoline [3]. The hydrogen fuel price accounts for the cost of energy required to

compress the hydrogen from 20 bar, the typical pressure after natural gas reforming

[7], to the pressure of the vehicle tank, which is on the order of 350 bar. The

compression energy is estimated to be approximately 50 kJ of electricity per MJ of

hydrogen in the vehicle. The cost of ammonia is taken from the analysis by Zamfirescu

and Dincer [3].

Economic and Environmental Comparison of Conventional and Alternative Vehicle Options 5

35

30

Gasoline 25

US$/GJ

Crude oil

20

Natural gas

15

Electricity

10 Hydrogen

5

0

Year

1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Figure 1.1 Historical price trends of selected energy carriers.

2.2 Environmental impact criteria

Two environmental impact elements are accounted for in this study of fuel-powertrain

options for transportation: air pollution (AP) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The

main GHGs are CO2, CH4, N2O, and SF6 (sulfur hexafluoride), which have GHG

impact weighting coefficients relative to CO2 of 1, 21, 310, and 24,900, respectively [8].

SF6 is used as a cover gas in the casting process for magnesium, which is a material

employed in vehicle manufacturing. Impact weighting coefficients (relative to NOx) for

the airborne pollutants CO, NOx, and VOCs (volatile organic compounds) are based on

those obtained by the Australian Greenhouse Office [9] using cost–benefit analyses of

health effects. The weighting coefficient of SOx relative to NOx is estimated using the

Ontario Air Quality Index data developed by Basrur et al. [10]. Thus, for considerations

of AP, the airborne pollutants CO, NOx, SOx, and VOCs are assigned the following

weighting coefficients: 0.017, 1, 1.3, and 0.64, respectively.

The vehicle production stage contributes to the total life cycle environmental impact

through the pollution associated with the extraction and processing of material resources

and manufacturing. As indicated in Table 1.2, it is also necessary to consider the

pollution produced at the vehicle disposal stage (i.e., at the end of life). The data in

Table 1.2 Gaseous emissions per kilogram of curb mass of a typical vehicle

Life cycle stage CO (kg) NOx (kg) GHGs (kg)

Materials extraction 0.0120 0.00506 1.930

Manufacturing

End-of-life disposal

Total

0.000188

1.77
10–6

0.0122

0.00240

3.58
10–5

0.00750

1.228

0.014

3.172

6 Ibrahim Dincer et al.

Table 1.2 are on the basis of the curb mass of the vehicle (i.e., the vehicle mass without

any load or occupants).

The AP emissions per unit vehicle curb mass, denoted APm, are obtained for a

conventional car case by applying weighting coefficients to the masses of air pollutants in

accordance with the following formula:

4

APm ¼ ∑ miwi ð1:1Þ

1

Here, i is the index denoting an air pollutant (which can be CO, NOx, SOx, or VOCs),

mi is the mass of air pollutant i, and wi is the weighting coefficient of air pollutant i.

The results of the environmental impact evaluation for the vehicle production stage

are presented in Table 1.3 for each vehicle case. The curb mass of each vehicle is also

reported. We assume that the ammonia-fueled vehicle has the same curb mass as the H2­

ICE vehicle from which it originates. The justification for this assumption comes from

the fact that the ammonia and hydrogen vehicles have system components of similar

weight, because the car frame is the same, the engine is the same, and the supercharger of

the hydrogen vehicle likely has a similar weight as the ammonia decomposition and

separation unit of the ammonia-fueled vehicle, etc. Since the engines of the hydrogen

and ammonia-fueled vehicles are similar to that of a conventional gasoline vehicle, the

environmental impact associated with vehicle manufacture is of the same order as that for

the conventional vehicle.

We assume that GHG and AP emissions are proportional to the vehicle mass, but the

environmental impact related to the production of special devices in hybrid, electric and

fuel cell cars, for example, NiMeH batteries and fuel cell stacks, are evaluated separately.

Accordingly, the AP and GHG emissions are calculated for conventional vehicles as

AP ¼ mcarAPm ð1:2aÞ

Table 1.3 Environmental impact associated with vehicle production stages

Vehicle type Curb GHG AP emissions GHG emissions per AP emissions per

mass (kg) emissions (kg) 100 km of travela 100 km of travel

(kg) (kg/100 km) (kg/100 km)

Conventional 1,134 3,595.8 8.74 1.490 0.00362

Hybrid 1,311 4,156.7 10.10 1.722 0.00419

Electric 1,588 4,758.3 15.09 1.972 0.00625

Fuel cell 1,678 9,832.4 42.86 4.074 0.0178

H2-ICE 1,500 3,600 9.00 1.500 0.00400

NH3–H2-ICE 1500 3,500 8.00 1.400 0.00300

a

During vehicle lifetime (10 years), an average car drives 241,350 km (DoE Fuel Economy [11]).