hydrogen transport in european cities hytec - fch.europa.eu · roberta pacciani (matgas)2 laura...

Hydrogen Transport in European Cities

HyTEC

Project No: 278727

Deliverable No. 6.8

Final Life Cycle Assessment Report

Status: F

(D-Draft, FD-Final Draft, F-Final)

Dissemination level: PU

(PU – Public, RE – Restricted, CO – Confidential)

D6.8 – Final environmental impact assessment report

Project no: 2/124 29.10.2015

278727

Authors:

Aleksandar Lozanovski (Fraunhofer)1

Michael Baumann (Fraunhofer)1

Lourdes F. Vega (MATGAS)2

Gabriel Blejman (MATGAS)2

Patricia Ruiz (MATGAS)2

Acknowledged contributions:

Roberta Pacciani (MATGAS)2

Laura Gelabert (MATGAS)2

1 Fraunhofer IBP, Wankelstraße 5, 70563 Stuttgart, Germany

[email protected]

+49 711 / 970 - 3163

2 MATGAS Research Center, Campus UAB, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain

[email protected]

+34 935929950

Note: Author printed in bold is the contact person for this document.

Date of this document:

29th October 2015

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Project no: 3/124 29.10.2015

278727

Executive Summary

Sustainability has become an integral part of most business models today and

companies are finding it to be a pathway to new business opportunities and a source

of competitive advantage. One of the goals of HyTEC, corresponding to this

deliverable from Work Package 6, was to provide a quantitative assessment on the

environmental impacts of both the infrastructures and the vehicles involved in the

project. For this purpose a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of hydrogen vehicles in

urban fleets compared with other fuel and driving options was conducted.

This deliverable compiles the results obtained from task 6.3 entitled “Environmental

impact assessment and reporting”. In this task, we have calculated the environmental

profile of hydrogen vehicles regarding the production of the vehicles, vehicle

operation including hydrogen infrastructure (HRS) and vehicle end of life. The study

was focused on the CO2-Equiv. emissions (or Global Warming Potential category) as

the main environmental impact category. By way of an example, when a FC taxi was

compared to a diesel taxi, on the same day, using the same routes, in mixed driving

conditions, the FC taxi was shown to have lower overall GWP impacts over all drive

cycles. When fuelled with fossil based H2, a reduction of up to 28% GWP is possible.

If H2 is produced through low carbon processes such as using an electrolyser

powered by renewables energy (e.g. wind), this reduction could be as high as 83%.

Additionally three other environmental impact categories (Acidification Potential,

Eutrophication Potential and Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential) were also

calculated for the vehicles and the stations.

The assessment for the HRSs involved in HyTEC, carried out by MATGAS, was

performed considering the current status and corresponding electricity mix, with data

gathered from the HyTEC partners. In addition, the environmental impact of these

stations has been compared to electric vehicle charging stations, to a diesel

refuelling station and a hypothetical electrolysis HRS for the case of London, and to

electric charging, petrol and diesel stations, for the case of Copenhagen. A state of

the art review was carried out for comparative purposes. CO2-Equiv. emission results

from the London HRS are in the lower range of GWP values compared to available

literature data for the same type of HRSs.


Project no: 4/124 29.10.2015

278727

London results obtained by this study indicate that best fuel supply technology,

regarding the environmental performance, is the electrolysis HRS with only wind and

66.5% efficiency, followed by diesel and the current HRS.

The main contributor to the environmental impact of the HRS in Copenhagen is the

electricity used to carry out the electrolysis. Three scenarios of electricity grid mix

were studied, as well as two different electrolyser efficiencies. The HRSs used in the

HyTEC project operate with a certified 100% RE energy. Using 100% RE versus the

current electricity mix reduces the GWP by an order of magnitude, while the influence

of the electrolyser efficiency is much lower. These results are in line with some other

published results, being the ones for the HRS in the lower impact values.

The LCA of the vehicles in London and Copenhagen and the integration of the fuel

supply LCA into the use phase was carried out by Fraunhofer.

In the case of London two London taxis (so-called Black Cabs) were assessed. One

was a diesel TX4 taxi and the other a fuel cell (FC) taxi. The FC taxi was converted

to a fuel cell hybrid drivetrain by the project partner Intelligent Energy (IE). IE

provided a bill of materials on the FC taxi as well as information on conventional

parts to be removed from the diesel taxi, such as the internal combustion engine and

gear box before being equipped with the FC system. Hence, the Life Cycle

Assessment of the FC taxi was performed on a detailed level. Results on the

production of the vehicles show that the FC taxi has higher impacts than the diesel

taxi. This was expected, as the FC system with the platinum load, battery, H2 tank

and the power electronics is more energy and resource intensive in the production

than a conventional drivetrain. The platinum and the high-tech and rare materials of

the FC and the battery show an especially high impact due to the resource intensive

extraction and processing compared to the standard materials in a normal drivetrain,

such as steel, iron, non-ferrous metals and plastics. In the production phase a clear

shift of burden takes place from the locally emission free use phase of the FC taxi

towards a higher impact production phase.

For the evaluation of the use phase in London two consumption runs were

undertaken with the FC and the diesel taxi. Both vehicles were run together on the

same day, under the same weather conditions and the same route. This was done to


Project no: 5/124 29.10.2015

278727

obtain comparable consumption values for both vehicles. One route was a fast outer

urban run with constant speed and few stops resulting in a low consumption called

“Min” (FC: 1.31 kg H2/100 km; diesel: 8.51 l/100 km). The other was an inner urban,

heavy traffic route with many stops called “Max” (FC: 1.63 kg H2/100 km; diesel:

11.97 l/100 km). The FC taxi had lower overall GWP impacts in all combinations.

Even with the fossil based H2 via SMR a reduction of 16 to 28% is possible. With

green H2 produced via a wind power driven electrolyser the reduction is in between

78 to 83%. The larger reductions were achieved in the heavy-traffic inner urban

route. Here the FC electric drivetrain achieved a higher efficiency than the diesel taxi.

15 Hyundai ix35 FC (called SUV FC within this report) are operated in Copenhagen.

These vehicles are commercially produced by Hyundai in serial production. Hyundai

provided some information on technical specifications of the vehicles, regarding the

FC, the tank and the battery for example. These vehicles were compared to generic

vehicles with different drivetrain options like diesel, petrol, battery electric (BEV) and

plug-in hybrid vehicle (PHEV). In terms of the production phase the SUV FC has the

highest impact followed by the BEV and the PHEV. The conventional drivetrains

have the lowest impacts. Again a shift of burden is visible between the electric

propelled local emission free vehicles and the higher impact production phase.

In Copenhagen only the SUV FC had real life consumption measurements

(1.28 kg/100 km). The other vehicles were generic and hence there were no real-life

consumption measurements. Therefore, NEDC consumption values were used for

the comparison, which are 0.95 kg H2/100 km for the SUV FC, 6.8 l/100 km for the

SUV petrol, 5.4 l/100 km for the SUV diesel, 16.9 kWh/100 km and 5.0 l/100 km for

the PHEV and 14.3 kWh/100 km for the BEV. These values were combined with the

different fuel supply routes mentioned above. When the conventional Danish energy

mix is used for the H2 production the SUV FC has the highest overall impacts of all

vehicles. This changes when renewable power is used as it is actually done in

HyTEC in Copenhagen. Then all electric propelled vehicles have lower GWP impacts

than the conventional vehicles with the BEV being slightly the lowest. However, the

BEV is not directly comparable as it has a lower range than all other vehicles.

Generally the FC vehicles show a better environmental performance when fuelled

with green H2 and are locally emission free. The emissions are shifted to the location


Project no: 6/124 29.10.2015

278727

where the H2 is produced or in the case of the electrolyser towards the electricity

production. This is especially important for metropolitan areas like London and

Copenhagen with high local emission exposures.


Project no: 7/124 29.10.2015

278727

Content

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 3

CONTENT .................................................................................................................. 7

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... 9

LIST OF TABLES .....................................................................................................12

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................13

1 OBJECTIVES OF THE REPORT .......................................................................15

1.1 DOCUMENT SCOPE AND STRUCTURE ........................................................................ 15

1.2 DISCLAIMER ............................................................................................................. 16

2 STATE OF THE ART .........................................................................................17

2.1 PREVIOUS STUDIES ON LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF H2 PRODUCTION/HRS ............... 17 2.1.1 Hydrogen production from Steam Methane Reforming ............................................... 18 2.1.2 Hydrogen production by electrolysis ........................................................................... 18 2.1.3 Petrol and diesel production ........................................................................................ 20 2.1.4 Previous Life Cycle Assessment of Hydrogen Refuelling Stations ............................. 21 2.1.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 23

2.2 PREVIOUS STUDIES ON LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF FC VEHICLES............................ 23 2.2.1 LCA studies on vehicles .............................................................................................. 23 2.2.2 LCA studies on fuel cells and FC vehicles .................................................................. 24

3 GOAL OF THE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT ...................................................27

3.1 INTENDED APPLICATION ............................................................................................ 27

3.2 REASONS FOR CARRYING OUT THE STUDY ................................................................. 27

3.3 TARGET AUDIENCE ................................................................................................... 27

3.4 COMPARISONS ......................................................................................................... 28

3.5 COMMISSIONER OF THE STUDY ................................................................................. 28

4 SCOPE OF THE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT .................................................29

4.1 METHOD, ASSUMPTIONS AND IMPACT LIMITATIONS ..................................................... 29

4.2 FUNCTIONAL UNIT / REFERENCE FLOW ...................................................................... 29

4.3 MULTI-FUNCTIONALITY .............................................................................................. 30

4.4 SYSTEM BOUNDARY .................................................................................................. 30

4.5 CUT-OFF CRITERIA.................................................................................................... 31

4.6 LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODS AND CATEGORIES ................................... 31

4.7 TYPE, QUALITY AND SOURCES OF REQUIRED DATA AND INFORMATION ........................ 32

4.8 COMPARISONS BETWEEN SYSTEMS ........................................................................... 33

4.9 IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL REVIEW NEEDS .............................................................. 33

5 LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY ANALYSIS – LONDON ..........................................34

5.1 REFUELLING STATIONS ............................................................................................. 34 5.1.1 Hydrogen Production ................................................................................................... 35 5.1.2 Hydrogen Transportation ............................................................................................. 37 5.1.3 Hydrogen Fuelling Stations ......................................................................................... 38

5.2 VEHICLES ................................................................................................................. 40 5.2.1 Production ................................................................................................................... 41 5.2.2 Use phase ................................................................................................................... 46


Project no: 8/124 29.10.2015

278727

5.2.3 End of life ..................................................................................................................... 48

6 LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY ANALYSIS – COPENHAGEN ................................52

6.1 HYDROGEN REFUELLING STATIONS ........................................................................... 52 6.1.1 On-site hydrogen production within the HRS .............................................................. 53 6.1.2 HRS operation ............................................................................................................. 55 6.1.3 Electric Charging Station ............................................................................................. 56 6.1.4 Electricity mixes ........................................................................................................... 57

6.2 VEHICLES ................................................................................................................. 58 6.2.1 Production ................................................................................................................... 60 6.2.2 Use phase ................................................................................................................... 62 6.2.3 End of life ..................................................................................................................... 64

7 RESULTS – LONDON .......................................................................................66

7.1 HYDROGEN REFUELLING STATIONS ........................................................................... 66

7.2 VEHICLES ................................................................................................................. 68 7.2.1 Production ................................................................................................................... 68 7.2.2 Sensitivity analysis – Pt loading of fuel cell ................................................................. 70 7.2.3 Life cycle ...................................................................................................................... 71 7.2.4 End of life ..................................................................................................................... 74

8 RESULTS – COPENHAGEN .............................................................................77

8.1 HYDROGEN REFUELLING STATIONS ........................................................................... 77 8.1.1 Environmental impact of the HRS in 2014 and 2023 .................................................. 77 8.1.2 Comparison of HRS with petrol and ECS for Copenhagen ........................................ 78

8.2 VEHICLES ................................................................................................................. 79 8.2.1 Production ................................................................................................................... 80 8.2.2 Sensitivity analysis – Platinum loading of fuel cell ...................................................... 81 8.2.3 Life cycle ...................................................................................................................... 82 8.2.4 End of life ..................................................................................................................... 91

9 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................94

9.1 LONDON ................................................................................................................... 94 9.1.1 Hydrogen refuelling station .......................................................................................... 94 9.1.2 Vehicle production ....................................................................................................... 95 9.1.3 Life cycle ...................................................................................................................... 96

9.2 COPENHAGEN .......................................................................................................... 97 9.2.1 Hydrogen refuelling station .......................................................................................... 97 9.2.2 Vehicle production ....................................................................................................... 97 9.2.3 Life cycle ...................................................................................................................... 98

9.3 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 99

10 REFERENCES .................................................................................................100

11 ANNEX .............................................................................................................108

11.1 LONDON RESULTS .................................................................................................. 108 11.1.1 Hydrogen refuelling stations ...................................................................................... 108 11.1.2 Vehicles ..................................................................................................................... 112

11.2 COPENHAGEN RESULTS .......................................................................................... 116 11.2.1 Hydrogen refuelling stations ...................................................................................... 116 11.2.2 Vehicles ..................................................................................................................... 122


Project no: 9/124 29.10.2015

278727

List of figures

Figure 1: GWP of H2 production by electrolysis technologies using different energy sources. ....................................................................................................19

Figure 2: GWP values of different H2 production technologies. ...............................19

Figure 3: Results of the LCA for different hydrogen production processes, including the HRS. ...................................................................................................22

Figure 4: System boundary for the study. ................................................................31

Figure 5: Centralized SMR plant layout and process schematic view (courtesy of Air Products). .................................................................................................36

Figure 6: Basic hydrogen transport pathway selected for the LCA study: tube trailer transport of gaseous H2. ...........................................................................37

Figure 7: Heathrow HRS, Air Products Series 125 ..................................................38

Figure 8: Comparison of FC and diesel taxi. ............................................................41

Figure 9: Material mix of the fuel cell system. ..........................................................43

Figure 10: Weight distribution of the 14 kWh battery in the FC taxi. ..........................44

Figure 11: Production LCA model. .............................................................................46

Figure 12: Basic H2 production infrastructure selected for the Copenhagen case study. ........................................................................................................52

Figure 13: Copenhagen HRS, HySTAT®-10-25. .......................................................53

Figure 14: Alkaline water electrolysis scheme. ..........................................................54

Figure 15: ECS technology scope. ............................................................................56

Figure 16: Hyundai ix35 FC. ......................................................................................59

Figure 17: Contributions of the different phases of fuel production for the London case to the GWP, measured in kg of CO2-Equiv. / MJ of energy. .............67

Figure 18: Comparison of the production of a London diesel TX4 and FC TX4. ........69

Figure 19: Results of the detailed evaluation of the FC system. ................................70

Figure 20: Sensitivity analysis of FC with Pt loadings of 1 and 0.5 g Pt/kW...............71

Figure 21: Comparison of the FC and diesel taxi combining the min consumption with fossil and green H2. ..................................................................................72

Figure 22: Comparison of the FC and diesel taxi combining the Max consumption with fossil and green H2. ...........................................................................73

Figure 23: Comparison of end of life impacts with production and use phase impacts of the FC and diesel taxi (Min fuel consumption). .....................................75

Figure 24: End of life impacts of the FC and diesel taxi. ............................................76

Figure 25: Contribution of the different efficiency ratios and energy sources to the GWP for the three electricity mixes proposed for Denmark. .....................78


Project no: 10/124 29.10.2015

278727

Figure 26: Contributions of the different phases of fuel production for the Copenhagen case, to the GWP category, measured in kg of CO2-Equiv. /MJ of energy. ...........................................................................................79

Figure 27: Comparison of the production of the SUV FC and equivalent vehicles. ....80

Figure 28: Sensitivity analysis of the SUV FC with platinum loadings of 1 and 0.5 g Pt/kW. .......................................................................................................82

Figure 29: Comparison of the SUV FC combining the measured consumption with H2 from 2014 Danish present and renewable electricity mix. .........................83

Figure 30: Comparison of the SUV FC combining the measured consumption with H2 from 2014 Danish present and renewable electricity mix with increased electrolyser efficiency. ..............................................................................85

Figure 31: Comparison of the SUV FC combining measured and the NEDC consumption with H2 from 2014 Danish current and renewable electricity mix. ...........................................................................................................86

Figure 32: Comparison of the SUV FC with the SUV petrol and the SUV diesel using H2 from 2014 Danish present and renewable electricity mix (NEDC consumption). ...........................................................................................88

Figure 33: Comparison of the SUV FC with all equivalent vehicles using H2 and electricity from 2014 Danish present electricity mix (NEDC consumption). 89

Figure 34: Comparison of the SUV FC with all equivalent vehicles using H2 and electricity from 2014 Danish renewable electricity mix (NEDC consumption). ...........................................................................................90

Figure 35: Comparison of end of life impacts with production and use phase impacts of the SUV FC and equivalent vehicles (NEDC fuel consumption). ..........92

Figure 36: End of life impacts of the SUV FC and equivalent vehicles. .....................93

Figure 37: Contributions of the different phases of fuel production for the London case, to the Acidification Category, measured in kg of SO2-Equiv../ MJ of energy. ....................................................................................................108

Figure 38: Contributions of the different phases of fuel production for the London case, to the EP Category, measured in kg of PO4-Equiv./ MJ of energy. 110

Figure 39: Contributions of the different phases of fuel production for the London case, to the POCP, measured in kg of Ethene-Equiv./ MJ of energy. .....111

Figure 40: Comparison of the production of a London diesel TX4 and an FC TX4. .112



Figure 43: Comparison of the FC and diesel taxi combining the min consumption with fossil and green H2. ................................................................................113



Project no: 11/124 29.10.2015

278727


Figure 46: Comparison of the FC and diesel taxi combining the max consumption with fossil and green H2. .........................................................................115



Figure 49: Contribution of the different efficiency ratios and energy sources to the AP for the three electricity mixes proposed for Denmark. .............................117

Figure 50: Contribution of the different efficiency ratios and energy sources to the EP for the three electricity mixes proposed for Denmark. .............................117

Figure 51: Contribution of the different efficiency ratios and energy sources to the POCP for the three electricity mixes proposed for Denmark. .................118

Figure 52: Contributions of the different phases of fuel production for the Copenhagen case, to the AP Category, measured in kg of SO2-Equiv./ MJ of energy. ................................................................................................119

Figure 53: Contributions of the different phases of fuel production for the Copenhagen case, to the EP Category, measured in kg of PO4-Equiv./ MJ of energy. ................................................................................................120

Figure 54: Contributions of the different phases of fuel production for the Copenhagen case, to the POCP Category, measured in kg of Ethene-Equiv./ MJ of energy. ..............................................................................121

Figure 55: Comparison of the production of the SUV FC and equivalent vehicles. ..122



Figure 58: Comparison of the SUV FC with all equivalent vehicles using H2 and electricity from 2014 Danish present and renewable electricity mix (NEDC consumption). .........................................................................................123




Project no: 12/124 29.10.2015

278727

List of tables

Table 1: A comparison of the GWP for hydrogen produced by SMR from different literature sources. .....................................................................................18

Table 2: GWP values of different H2 production technologies. ...............................20

Table 3: GWP for petrol and diesel. ........................................................................21

Table 4: Overview recent studies on GHG of FC stacks. .......................................25

Table 5: Overview LCA results of studies on FC vehicles. .....................................26

Table 6: Relevant parameters for delivering 1 MJ H2 at 25ºC and 99.9995% purity, including H2 production, transportation, HRS construction and operation phases. Data is presented per FU. ...........................................................39

Table 7: Vehicle specifications of the London taxis. ...............................................40

Table 8: Overview mass of the main vehicle parts. ................................................41

Table 9: Assumed material mix of NMC battery cell. ..............................................44

Table 10: Conditions for consumption measurements for London taxi operation. ....47

Table 11: Main parameters for HRS referred to the delivery of 1 MJ of energetic content (hydrogen) at 25ºC, 700 bar with a purity of 99.9995%. ...............55

Table 12: Main parameters for ECS referred to the delivery of 1 MJ of electricity. ..56

Table 13: Share of energy sources in Danish electricity mix according to the three scenarios studied. .....................................................................................57

Table 14: Vehicle specifications of the FC, petrol and diesel compact SUV. ............58

Table 15: Data basis for the generic vehicles. ..........................................................59

Table 16: Vehicle specifications of compact plug-in hybrid and battery electric average vehicles. ......................................................................................60

Table 17: NEDC consumption values and mileage of the compared vehicles. .........62

Table 18: Assumptions on driving operation of the plug-in hybrid average vehicle. .63

Table 19: Overview LCA results of FC and diesel taxi. .............................................74

Table 20: Overview LCA results of SUV FC with different H2 production routes. .....85

Table 21: Overview LCA results of SUV FC and SUVs petrol/diesel. .......................88

Table 22: Overview LCA results of SUV FC, BEV and PHEV (different electricity mixes). ......................................................................................................91


Project no: 13/124 29.10.2015

278727

List of abbreviations

AP Acidification Potential

BEV Battery Electric Vehicle

BoM Bill of Materials

CO Carbon Monoxide

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

COTS Components-Off-The-Shelf

CPH Copenhagen City

DEA Danish Energy Agency

DK Denmark

DoW Description of Work

ECS Electric Charging Station

EP Eutrophication Potential

Equiv. Equivalents

EREV Extended-Range Electric Vehicles

EU European Union

EV Electric Vehicle

FC Fuel Cell

FCH JU Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking

FCV Fuel Cell Vehicle

FU Functional Unit

GHG Greenhouse Gas emissions

GWP Global Warming Potential

H2 Hydrogen

HBEFA Handbook Emission Factors for Road Transport

HDPE High Density Polyethylene

HHV Higher Heating Value

HPPT High Pressure Tube Trailer

HRS Hydrogen Refuelling Station

HV High Voltage

ICE Internal Combustion Engine

IE Intelligent Energy

ISO International Organization for Standardization


Project no: 14/124 29.10.2015

278727

Khs Kilo hours

LCA Life Cycle Assessment

LCI Life Cycle Inventory

LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment

LHV Lower Heating Value

Li Lithium

LPG Liquid Petroleum Gas

LV Low Voltage

MJ Mega Joule

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheets

NEDC New European Driving Cycle

NG Natural Gas

NMC Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt oxide

NMVOC Non-Methane Volatile Organic Compounds

PEM Polymer Electrolyte Membrane

PEMFC Polymer Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell

PHEV Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle

PMSM Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor

POCP Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential

PS Pumping Station

Pt Platinum

RE Renewable Energy

RS Refuelling Station

SMR Steam Methane Reforming

SOFC Solid Oxide Fuel Cell

STOC Steam-to-Carbon

SUV Sports Utility Vehicle

UCTE Union for the Co-ordination of Transmission of Electricity

UK United Kingdom

VOCs Volatiles Organic Compounds


Project no: 15/124 29.10.2015

278727

1 Objectives of the report

1.1 Document Scope and Structure

This deliverable collects and interprets the results obtained in Task 6.3 of the Work

Package 6 (WP6) in the HyTEC project. The final objective of this task was to

perform a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of fuel cell electric vehicles operated in the

European cities London (FC taxi) and Copenhagen (FC SUV) taking into account the

following phases: (i) car production, ii) hydrogen production pathways (Steam

Methane Reforming –SMR-, and water electrolysis), and iii) hydrogen consumption

during their use as well as iv) the vehicles’ end of life.

In this report, the environmental impacts of the FC vehicles are compared to current

petrol, diesel and plug-in hybrid as well as battery electric vehicles. A special focus is

set also on the environmental comparison of the energy supply pathways (well-to-

tank analysis) considering additionally the impacts of petrol and diesel refuelling

stations as well as Electric Charging Stations (ECS).

The well-to-tank analysis, considering all relevant hydrogen production pathways for

the London and Copenhagen vehicle operation has been carried out by MATGAS. In

addition, as a benchmark for the hydrogen stations, MATGAS has also performed the

LCA for other fuelling stations, including equivalent conventional petrol and diesel

refuelling stations and ECS, allowing a comparative assessment of the environmental

impact of the different refuelling technologies. All LCAs were performed using the

commercial software SimaPro 8.03.14 and the Ecoinvent Version 3.1 database [PRé

Consultants, 2015].

Based on vehicle data from HyTEC project partners, Fraunhofer analysed the life

cycle of the London and Copenhagen FC vehicles. For benchmarking the FC

vehicles, Fraunhofer conducted additional LCAs of current petrol, diesel and plug-in

hybrid as well as battery electric vehicles and compared their environmental impacts.

For the vehicles LCAs the commercial software system GaBi 6 with datasets from

GaBi database Service Pack 27 was used [thinkstep AG, 1992-2015].

This report is organized as follows. Chapter 2 describes the state of the art of the

LCA of both fuel production and fuel cell vehicles. Chapter 3 and 4 define the goal


Project no: 16/124 29.10.2015

278727

and scope of the LCA, respectively. In chapter 5 and 6, the Life Cycle Inventories

(LCI) for the London and Copenhagen cases are described in detail. Chapter 7 and 8

address the results of the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) concerning different

scenarios for fuel/energy supply and vehicle specifications in the case of London and

Copenhagen. Finally, chapter 9 gives conclusions and possible future directions

1.2 Disclaimer

Despite the care that was taken while preparing this document, the following

disclaimer applies:

THE INFORMATION INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED AS IT IS AND

NO GUARANTEE OR WARRANTY IS GIVEN THAT THE INFORMATION IS FIT

FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE USER THEREOF EMPLOYS THE

INFORMATION AT HIS/HER SOLE RISK AND LIABILITY.

The report reflects only the authors’ views. The Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Joint

Undertaking (FCH JU) and the European Union (EU) are not liable for any use that

may be made of the information contained therein.


Project no: 17/124 29.10.2015

278727

2 State of the art

In order to have an overview of the state of the art of the LCA from well-to-wheel, and

for a better understanding of the results obtained in HyTEC, this chapter includes the

state of the art divided in two sections;

- Section 2.1 includes studies related to different hydrogen production

procedures (SMR, electrolysis, petrol and diesel production) and HRSs.

- In section 2.2, LCA studies from both conventional and FC vehicles are

included.

2.1 Previous studies on Life Cycle Assessment of H2 production/HRS

Understanding the impact of the different hydrogen production pathways is

considered the first step in the LCA of hydrogen fuelling infrastructures. SMR is the

most common industrial production method for hydrogen, being a very mature and

optimized technology. Nonetheless, in addition to SMR, there are also other

hydrogen production methods, depending on the sources of the raw materials used

[Ruiz et al., 2015], among them:

Natural gas (NG) and hydrocarbons: including Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG),

ethanol, biogas, etc.; hydrogen is produced by using reforming-based

processes (either using steam reforming, auto thermal reforming or through

partial oxidation).

Solid or heavy fuels: coal, biomass, refinery residues, etc., where hydrogen is

produced through gasification or pyrolysis processes.

Water or other chemicals, e.g. sodium chloride solutions, where hydrogen is

obtained through electrolysis.

Globally, the hydrogen production sources were about 48% from natural gas, 30%

from fossil oil, 18% from coal and 4% with electricity via water electrolysis [Merino,

2006]. Although approximately 96% of the hydrogen production comes from fossil


Project no: 18/124 29.10.2015

278727

fuels, SMR being the most used process, there is an increasing interest on promoting

other sources of hydrogen, with focus on sustainable processes.

We present next a comparison of different published data regarding the GWP of

hydrogen production, as obtained by LCAs performed by different authors, in order to

put in context the work on LCA carried out at the HyTEC project. The review includes

H2 transportation and the environmental impact of the HRS, when available.

2.1.1 Hydrogen production from Steam Methane Reforming

Table 1 summarizes the main results on GWP published in the last 15 years

concerning different SMR LCA studies. Results range from 0.0834 to 0.1066 kg CO2-

Equiv./MJ, and the efficiencies from 64 to 90%, depending on the source, the

electricity mix and some other considerations.

Table 1: A comparison of the GWP for hydrogen produced by SMR from different literature sources.

GWP (kg CO2-Equiv./MJ)

Efficiency Energy Mix/Region Reference

0.0996 76.8% Canada Suleman, 2014

0.0879 65% Spain Susmozas et al., 2013

0.0834 85% European electricity generation mix

Dufour et al., 2012

0.0990 90% Canada Cetinkaya et al., 2012

0.0880 85% Electric generation mix for OECD Europe region

Dufour et al., 2009

0.1066 64% Indian electricity mix Manish et al., 2008

0.084 77% Greece Koroneos et al., 2004

0.0990 89% Mix of the mid –continental United States

Spath et al., 2001

2.1.2 Hydrogen production by electrolysis

Regarding the production of hydrogen by electrolysis, the reader is referred to a

recent review published in 2013 by [Bhandari et al., 2013]. These authors evaluated

and compared different hydrogen production technologies regarding their

environmental impact, focused on the carbon footprint. Figure 1 shows the GWP of


Project no: 19/124 29.10.2015

278727

hydrogen produced by electrolysis using different energy sources, while Figure 2

depicts a comparison of the different hydrogen production technologies. Note that in

this case the GWP is provided in kg CO2-Equiv./kg H2.

Figure 1: GWP of H2 production by electrolysis technologies using different energy sources.

Source: [Bhandari et al., 2013]

Figure 2: GWP values of different H2 production technologies.



Project no: 20/124 29.10.2015

278727

Table 2 provides the results from Figures 1 and 2, converted in kg CO2-Equiv./MJ,

from lower to higher GWP. As it can be seen, results range from 0.0036 to 0.257 kg

CO2-Equiv./MJ corresponding to thermochemical water decomposition via Cu-Cl

cycle and electrolysis with grid (UCTE 2010), respectively.

Table 2: GWP values of different H2 production technologies.

Source: adapted from [Bhandari et al., 2013]

H2 production technology GWP

(kg CO2-Equiv./MJ)

Thermochemical water decomposition via Cu-Cl cycle

0.0036

Wind electrolysis 0.0056

Hydro electrolysis 0.0128

Solar PV electrolysis 0.0144

Coal gasification (CMM ad CCS) 0.0148

Nuclear based high temperature electrolysis 0.0154

Solar thermal electrolysis 0.0164

Biomass based electrolysis 0.0253

Steam methane reforming of vegetable oil 0.0254

Biomass gasification 0.0331

Steam methane reforming of natural gas (CCS) 0.0375

Steam methane reforming of natural gas 0.0713

Coal gasification 0.092

Electrolysis with grid (UCTE 2010) 0.257

As expected, the process in which the hydrogen is produced, and the electricity mix

used in the calculations, clearly affects the GWP as one of the key environmental

impacts of the whole process, from the LCA perspective.

2.1.3 Petrol and diesel production

A summary of GWP of petrol and diesel, extracted from literature, is provided in

Table 3.


Project no: 21/124 29.10.2015

278727

Table 3: GWP for petrol and diesel.

Source: [Eriksson et al., 2013]

Type of Fuel Region Well to tank

(kg CO2-Equiv./MJ)

Reference

Petrol EN 228 Europe 0.0125 Perimenis et al., 2010

Petrol Europe 0.0142 Edwards et al., 2011

Petrol Europe 0.010-0.027 Keesom et al., 2012

Petrol International 0.0185 Wang et al., 2004

Diesel Europe 0.009-0.024 Keesom et al., 2012

Diesel EN590 Europe 0.0142 Perimenis et al., 2010

Diesel Europe 0.0159 Edwards et al., 2011

Diesel International 0.014-0.017 Wang et al., 2004

Although the specific value of the GWP depends on the inventory and the definition

of the system boundary, the comparison of this data from literature allows extracting

general conclusions, at least of the order of magnitude for comparative purposes.

2.1.4 Previous Life Cycle Assessment of Hydrogen Refuelling Stations

The available data in the literature concerning the LCA of HRSs is very scarce

compared to that of hydrogen production, especially those concerning the electrolysis

process. In the latter case, it is assumed, in general, that a natural gas filling station

is similar to the H2 one with electrolysis (i.e. building, compressor) and that these

data could be adapted. Additionally, some hydrogen specific components (e.g.

hydrogen storage) should be taken into consideration for the HRS with in-situ

hydrogen production by electrolysis. For the hydrogen production to take place in a

central, large-scale plant a distance to the hydrogen refuelling station is usually

assumed to be not more than 100 km.

Regarding the GWP associated to the two HRS considered in the HyTEC project, it is

worth mentioning a recent work published by [Wulf et al., 2012]. These authors

analysed the overall life cycle of hydrogen production and provision, taking into

consideration a state of the art HRS opened in Hamburg (Germany) in 2012. In this

HRS at least 50% of hydrogen from renewable sources of energy is produced on-site


Project no: 22/124 29.10.2015

278727

by water electrolysis based on surplus electricity from wind. The remaining 50% of

hydrogen is provided by trucks from a large scale production plant where H2 is

produced from SMR or glycerol as a by-product of the biodiesel production.

According to their calculations, the operation of the HRS produces mainly CO2-

Equiv.-emissions the electricity demand of the compressors to reach the high

pressure for the refuelling process (over 80 MP in the case they studied). As for the

production process by electrolysis from green electricity, where the compression

electricity from renewable sources of energy was also used, it was concluded that

almost no emissions are caused by this procedure. In fact, the electricity demand of

the compressors is responsible for 6.5% of the overall emissions of the electrolysis

production with the use of electricity from the grid. The use of electricity from

renewable resources lowers the emissions from 1.97 to 0.13 kgCO2-Equiv./ kgH2

(0.0011 kgCO2-Equiv./ MJ).

Figure 3 shows the results of the LCA for the different production processes

considered in the work of [Wulf et al., 2012], including the impact of the HRS. The

results are divided into GHG emissions resulting from the feedstock, hydrogen

production and the hydrogen refuelling process itself, taking also into account the

credit for the possible by-products. Note that in their study the emission from the

HRS are the same for all pathways where the German electricity mix is used for

operation.

Figure 3: Results of the LCA for different hydrogen production processes, including the HRS.

Source: [Wulf et al., 2012]


Project no: 23/124 29.10.2015

278727

As observed in the figure, the lowest GWP can be achieved by hydrogen provided

via electrolysis with renewable energy and via biomass gasification.

2.1.5 Conclusions

We have summarized here published results on LCA studies of i) hydrogen

production processes and ii) the HRS. The main conclusions are:

- Hydrogen produced by electrolysis using renewable energy has a lower

environmental impact (in terms of GWP) than hydrogen produced by SMR.

The impact of electrolysis with current grid (UCTE 2010) is the highest

compared with to other evaluated technologies. Moreover, electrolysis

techniques have a GWP lower or equivalent to that of petrol and diesel,

depending on the production technology.

- For the HRSs, the lowest GWP can be achieved by hydrogen obtained via

electrolysis with renewable energy and via biomass gasification (see Figure

3).

2.2 Previous studies on Life Cycle Assessment of FC vehicles

Fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) have emerged from prototypes in the 1990s to fully

developed and commercially available products in recent years. This evolution has

been part of the global need for sustainable solutions in the ever growing transport

sector. Consistently, most major car manufacturers have been dedicating programs

for FCV research and development in several aspects i.e. efficiency, performance,

consumption, fuel cells, etc.

2.2.1 LCA studies on vehicles

LCA on vehicles is a well-covered topic in literature. LCA studies focused on one

vehicle part at a time in the 1990s, they can now analyse entire vehicles by

integrating new aspects into already existing, adjustable models. LCA has become a

regularly used tool by researchers and car manufacturers like Daimler and

Volkswagen [Daimler AG, 2015; Volkswagen AG, 2015]. These two companies

provide a full LCA for all their new vehicles entering the market, creating a wide

knowledge base on various conventional vehicles.


Project no: 24/124 29.10.2015

278727

Regular vehicles and FCVs share a basic structure but the main differences are the

FC system, a traction battery (fuel cell vehicles generally employ a hybrid

architecture) and the accompanying power electronic components. A list of

necessary changes is available in chapter 5.2.1. These electric components need

special attention when being implemented into the LCA model as they may lead to

additional impacts to the environment.

2.2.2 LCA studies on fuel cells and FC vehicles

Only few LCA studies on FCVs providing detailed information about the FC system

can be found in published literature. Even if extensive studies have been conducted

and evaluated, the data is often not clearly shown due to confidentiality reasons. The

most cited studies in this context are those by [Pehnt, 2001; Pehnt, 2002a; Pehnt,

2002b; Pehnt, 2003a; Pehnt, 2003b; Pehnt, 2003c] who used industrial data to

analyse the environmental impacts of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC) in stationary

and Polymer Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells (PEMFC) in automotive applications.

These studies were among the first and most relevant. However, FC technology is

fast evolving and therefore newer industrial data has to be taken into consideration.

One example for this fast evolving technology is given by Toyota comparing their

2008 FC stack with the new Mirai FC stack. The new Mirai FC stack has 114 kW

output at 56 kg versus the 2008 FC stack had 90 kW output at 108 kg [Tanaka,

2015].

The studies that were published in the following years after Pehnt often used little

accessible data for their investigations. An example is the preliminary LCA by

[Hussain et al., 2007] who assessed the energy consumption and GHG emissions of

conventional ICE vehicles compared to FCVs for the fuel and vehicle cycles.

Similarly, [Granovskii et al., 2006] also compared these types of vehicles and

additionally a hybrid and battery electric vehicle economically and environmentally

taking the production and use phase into account. In a more recent paper, Garraín

points out that Pehnt still provides the most detailed data as more recent studies do

not show the underlying data to be able to compare them with own data [Garraín and

Lechón, 2014]. Their study is not usable as it is about a three-wheel assisted-

pedalling vehicle with a FC. One of the most acknowledged studies in the field of

hydrogen mobility is from [McKinsey & Company, 2010], which shows graphs about


Project no: 25/124 29.10.2015

278727

the well-to-tank and well-to-wheel emissions. However, they cannot be used for

comparison purposes, since important parameters such as emissions for production

of the FC vehicle, platinum load and consumption are not mentioned.

Table 4: Overview recent studies on GHG of FC stacks.

Simons et al., 2015

Simons et al., 2015

Notter et al., 2015

GWP (per kW FC net system power) [kg CO2-Equiv./kW]

37 25 30

GWP for entire FC system [kg CO2-Equiv.]

1480 1000 2670

FC stack power [kW] 46 45 n/a

FC system power [kW] 40 40 90

Pt loading [g/kW system power]

0.25 0.17 0.16

Weight of FC system [kg] 110 62 68.7

Table 4 summarizes results of recent studies regarding the GHG emissions of a FC

Stack. The emissions per kW net system power are close together. For instance, the

dependency on the platinum loading is visible at [Simons et al., 2015].


Project no: 26/124 29.10.2015

278727

Table 5: Overview LCA results of studies on FC vehicles.

Simons et al., 2015

Simons et al., 2015

Gao et al., 2012

Notter et al., 2015

Hussain et al., 2007

GWP vehicle [kg CO2-Equiv./km]

Total life cycle 0.296 0.274 0.183 0.313 0.104

Production of vehicle

0.107 0.089 0.042 0.052 0.018

GWP total [kg CO2-Equiv.]

Total life cycle 44,400 41,100 46,848 46,905 31,130

Production of vehicle (total)

16,050 13,350 10,752 7,800 5,390

Production of vehicle body without FC system

14,570 12,350 n/a 5,130 n/a

Other Para-meters

km driven 150,000 150,000 256,000 150,000 300,000

Drive cycle n/a n/a n/a NEDC n/a

Type of vehicle

generic mid-size (VW Golf class)

Honda Clarity

generic mid-size (VW Golf

class)

mid-size family

passenger car

Weight of vehicle [kg]

1,500 1,447 1,626 n/a n/a

Consumption [kg H2/100 km]

1.03 1.01 1.05 0.85 0.54

Hydrogen pro-duction

Hydrogen production route

natural gas SMR (other production

routes have also been evaluated)

natural gas SMR

electrolysis with EU mix

(other electricity

sources have also been evaluated)

natural gas SMR

GWP [kg CO2-Equiv./km]

0.170 0.165 0.140 0.246 0.086

Table 5 shows results of LCA studies in various ways including total values, values

per kilometre, separated by vehicle production and complete lifecycle. All of these

values are directly derived from the studies mentioned or calculated with values

given in the corresponding studies.


Project no: 27/124 29.10.2015

278727

3 Goal of the Life Cycle Assessment

3.1 Intended application

The intended application is to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the

environmental performance of FCEV (taxi and passenger car) considering car

production, different hydrogen production pathways (SMR and water electrolysis),

hydrogen consumption during their use phase as well as the vehicles’ end of life. The

environmental impacts of the whole life cycle of the FC vehicles are compared to

current petrol, diesel and plug-in hybrid as well as battery electric vehicles. A special

focus is set on the environmental comparison of the energy supply pathways (well-to-

tank analysis) additionally considering the impacts of petrol and diesel refuelling

stations as well as electric charging stations.

In addition to the environmental footprint concerning Global Warming Potential as the

main environmental impact factor, the Acidification Potential, the Eutrophication

Potential and the Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential were also analysed in the

framework of the LCAs.

3.2 Reasons for carrying out the study

This study has been performed in order to quantify the environmental benefits of

taxis and passenger cars refuelled by different HRS technologies in terms of several

environmental impact categories with a main focus on greenhouse gas emissions.

The reason to evaluate the performance of the London and Copenhagen zero-

tailpipe emission urban fleets is to obtain a better understanding of their advantages

and disadvantages from an environmental point of view.

3.3 Target audience

The target audience of this study are the partners of the HyTEC project and the FCH

JU, the technical experts and the stakeholders and decision makers. Moreover, this

deliverable will be public, so it will be available for any person interested in the

hydrogen cars and hydrogen economy.


Project no: 28/124 29.10.2015

278727

3.4 Comparisons

In this study the corresponding HRSs, dispensing H2 produced by SMR for London

and electrolysis for Copenhagen, are compared to electric charging stations, as well

as petrol and diesel stations. Besides, a forecast of the electricity grid mix has been

created to compare the current scenario with several other possibilities.

The FC taxi for London is compared to a conventional diesel taxi with internal

combustion engine. The fuel cell SUV is compared to equivalent petrol and diesel

vehicles as well as plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles.

3.5 Commissioner of the study

This project is funded by the FCH JU within the 7th Framework Programme. Other

involved actors are the city authorities of London and Copenhagen operating the

vehicles, the vehicle and FC producers, as well as the H2 producer companies.


Project no: 29/124 29.10.2015

278727

4 Scope of the Life Cycle Assessment

4.1 Method, assumptions and impact limitations

The LCAs were carried out following ISO 14040 and 14044 [ISO, 2006a, ISO,

2006b]. Two different software packages were used: SimaPro V 8.03.14 using the

Ecoinvent database v 3.1 for the LCAs of the refuelling stations by MATGAS, and

GaBi 6 using the GaBi database Service Pack 27 for the vehicle LCAs by

Fraunhofer.

Due to the use of two software and database systems, an interface between both

parts of the LCA had to be developed. It is important to note that, generally, different

LCA databases can create different environmental impacts. Especially in the case of

AP, POCP and EP (chapter 4.6) results can vary when using different databases.

However, when the GWP is assessed, results vary much less than for the other three

categories.

4.2 Functional unit / Reference flow

The Functional Unit (FU) in a LCA as the basis for comparison allows a physical

measurement of the function provided by the system [Baumann and Tillman 2004].

As proposed by [Lozanovski et al. 2013], in the case of hydrogen production, the

values of purity, pressure and temperature can vary according to the system

evaluated and they should be stated, therefore the functional unit was defined as:

“Dispensing 1 MJ of energetic content (hydrogen) at 25ºC, 350 bar, 99.9995%

purity”. This unit was also selected in order to simplify the comparison with other

fuels, as of petrol, diesel and electricity. Therefore, all inputs and outputs of the LCA

of the refuelling stations are referred to a functional unit of “1 MJ of energetic

content”.

To cover the function of transporting passengers the chosen functional unit for the

vehicle LCA is “1 km of driving operation”. The reference flow depends on the

assessed vehicle type.


Project no: 30/124 29.10.2015

278727

4.3 Multi-functionality

There is no multi-functionality occurring as the vehicles perform only the function of

transporting people.

4.4 System boundary

The system boundaries of the present work were defined consistently with the

purpose of the study. The vehicles LCAs include the life cycle stages production, use

phase and end of life. Actual assessments on the environmental impact of the end of

life can only base on estimations due to currently limited available recycling

technologies of FC and batteries. For this reason, the vehicle end of life is assessed

separately from production and use phase and only considering the GWP. The

production of the vehicles includes the upstream processes for the provision of the

used materials and the required energy. The use phase is mainly influenced by the

fuel or electricity consumption and, therefore, by the LCAs of the HRS. The LCAs of

the refuelling stations include: (i) extraction of raw materials, production and transport

of components of machinery, (ii) production and consumption of energy sources, (iii)

transport and delivery of machinery to the customer’s site, (iv) production, transport

and delivery of the fuel and (v) dispensing process. Dismantling the different stations

was assessed but excluded from the boundary, because the impact is under the cut-

off criteria.

Figure 4 shows the defined system boundary.


Project no: 31/124 29.10.2015

278727

Mining Use (Operation) End of LifeProduction

LCA of H2 production

(MATGAS)

System boundary

LCA of vehicle production

(Fraunhofer)

LCA of vehicle end of life

(Fraunhofer)

System boundary EoL

Figure 4: System boundary for the study.

4.5 Cut-off criteria

Cut-offs are below 5 % according to mass and environmental impacts.

4.6 Life cycle impact assessment methods and categories

The impact assessment method chosen for this study is the CML 2001 method. Life

cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods translate resource demand and emissions

generated by a product throughout its life cycle into environmental impacts. The

following LCIA categories were chosen:

- Global Warming Potential (GWP): Emissions from combustion with an

impact on the global warming, for example: CO2, CH4 etc.; unit: kg CO2-

Equiv.

- Acidification Potential (AP): According to [Azevedo et al. 2014], AP is the

deposition of atmospheric pollutants on the terrestrial system that lead to

acidification of the soil. This arises from combustion emissions which

cause acid rain, for example: SO2, NOX etc.; unit: kg SO2-Equiv.

- Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP): also known as summer

smog, measures the ozone formed by emission of substances to air like


Project no: 32/124 29.10.2015

278727

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), for example: NOX, HC, CO, SO2 etc.;

unit: kg Ethene-Equiv.

- Eutrophication Potential (EP): measures the contribution of the emissions

to the accumulation of nutrients in the aquatic and terrestrial environment,

responsible for the oxygen depletion, generated by the discharge of treated

or partially treated effluents [Meneses et al., 2010], for example: NOX, N2O,

NH3, phosphate etc.; unit: kg Phosphate-Equiv.

Results are mainly presented and discussed in terms of GWP with less emphasis on

the other three categories (added in the annex).

4.7 Type, quality and sources of required data and information

If possible, the assessments were performed based on primary data from the project

partners. If primary data was not available, calculations were based on literature

research.

Data for the LCAs of the refuelling stations is calculated mainly from primary data

provided by Air Products for SMRs and from Hydrogen Link for the electrolysers. The

data for the electricity is obtained from the government of London and Copenhagen,

and from bibliography for the other stations. The background data of the fuel and

energy supply during the use phase (LCA of refuelling stations) is based on SimaPro

8.03.14 using the Ecoinvent v 3.1 database [PRé Consultants, 2015].

Data for the vehicle LCAs is based on primary data from [Intelligent Energy Ltd.,

2015; The London Taxi Company, 2010]. Hyundai provided limited technology

specifications of the Hyundai ix35, as power rating of the engine, FC power, battery

size and hydrogen storage. Cenex provided measured fuel consumptions of the

operated FC vehicles in the HyTEC project. The secondary data is based on a

literature research. IE developed and produced the fuel cell system of the FC taxi,

provided extensive primary data within a bill of material (BoM). LTI Vehicles provided

a BoM of a conventional taxi as well as detailed information on the parts to be

removed for the FC propulsion modifications. The upstream and background data of

the production and end of life is based on GaBi 6 using the GaBi database Service

Pack 27 [thinkstep AG, 1992-2015].


Project no: 33/124 29.10.2015

278727

4.8 Comparisons between systems

As explained already within the goal of the LCA in chapter 3.1, the environmental

impacts of the FC vehicles are compared to current petrol, diesel and plug-in hybrid

and battery electric vehicles. A secondary focus is set also on the environmental

comparison of the energy supply pathways considering also the impacts of petrol and

diesel refuelling stations as well as electric charging stations.

4.9 Identification of critical review needs

According to ISO 14040 and 14044, a critical review would be mandatory but it is not

in scope in the current project [ISO, 2006a, ISO, 2006b].


Project no: 34/124 29.10.2015

278727

5 Life Cycle Inventory Analysis – London

Results concerning the LCIA for London and Copenhagen are presented in chapters

5 and 6, respectively. In the LCIA the following defined tasks were performed: first,

as a basis for the LCA studies, all required processes during production, operation

and end of life of the refuelling stations (HRS based on SMR and on-site electrolysis

as well as diesel refuelling station) and of the assessed vehicles (FC and diesel taxi)

were identified. Afterwards, the data collection for all life cycle phases was finalised.

Based on the data collection, LCA models for the assessed technologies were

developed to analyse their environmental impacts. The work content for the

described tasks within the life cycle phases is summarized in the following chapters

of this report.

5.1 Refuelling stations

The inventory analysis identifies and quantifies energy, water and materials usage

and environmental releases. The capital goods and the electricity required to build

the stations, as well as the outputs of each process are included in the hydrogen

production pathway.

As a rule for this study, all the data concerning the production and specifications of

the technology under study were requested to the partners, in this case, Air Products

for London and Hydrogen Link for Copenhagen. In addition, a literature research was

conducted for the data which could not be provided by the project partners, in order

to analyse the best choice for every defined process.

HRS, such as the ones used in this project, are dependent on the hydrogen delivery

technology, i.e. the processes needed to produce and transport hydrogen from a

central or semi-central production facility to the final point of use, the storage option

and the hydrogen refuelling of a FC vehicle. A brief explanation of the studied

processes in the HyTEC project is provided below, in order to describe the different

processes and their reference flow included in the LCI (see Table 6). This chapter is

organized following the chronological phases needed to dispense hydrogen in a

HRS, namely:

1. Hydrogen production.


Project no: 35/124 29.10.2015

278727

2. Hydrogen transportation.

3. Hydrogen fuelling stations, including production and operation.

5.1.1 Hydrogen Production

The SMR process can be used to produce hydrogen either centrally or on-site. Air

Products, the partner providing the fuelling station for HyTEC in London, owns and

operates several SMR plants to centrally produce hydrogen with steam and/or power

as by-products. The plant used for this project is located in Rotterdam.

In a hydrogen production process by SMR, the hydrocarbons such as methane from

NG catalytically react with steam at high temperature (700°C-1000°C) and pressure

(3-25 bar) to produce syngas (CO and H2).). The carbon monoxide in the syngas is

further oxidized using steam via water-gas shift reaction to produce carbon dioxide

and hydrogen. The overall SMR and water gas shift reactions are given as:

CH4 + H2O → CO + 3H2 (5.1)

CO + H2O → CO2 + H2 (5.2)

The obtained hydrogen is then purified to remove unreacted hydrocarbons, carbon

monoxide, carbon dioxide and other impurities to obtain the hydrogen product with

the required specifications.

Electricity is used for the production of hydrogen irrespective of the chosen

production technology. It is also used to liquefy or compress the hydrogen for

distribution (when produced centrally) for fuelling the tank of vehicles.

Activities such as producing, liquefying and compressing the hydrogen to be

transported, are expected to happen in Rotterdam; therefore, the electricity mix used

for this part of the study was chosen from the Netherlands. Whereas, compressing

and dispensing the hydrogen takes place in London and, consequently, we have

used the UK electricity mix for this part of the study.

SimaPro processes were used for each power generation source with these

electricity mixes, which allows consideration of the life cycle resource and emission

profile for the power generation till supplied to the point of use.


Project no: 36/124 29.10.2015

278727

The waste heat from reforming at high temperature and from combustion in the

furnace (to provide energy for reforming) is often used to generate steam in a SMR

process. This steam then is used in the reforming process with excess potentially

sold as by-product or converted to power as by-product. Figure 5 graphically

summarizes this process with a layout of a centralized SMR plant.

Figure 5: Centralized SMR plant layout and process schematic view (courtesy of Air Products).

Similarly, water is one of the primary resources used by each technology. SimaPro

processes for water were used to account for the impacts from water consumption.

The water usage data was obtained from internal operation/design data, knowledge

of the SMR process and literature data. For the SMR technology, water is primarily

used as steam for in-process, steam sold as by-product and steam drum blowdown

losses.

Steam by-product data for the LCA was provided from the operating data at the Air

Products SMRs in Rotterdam. The steam used for in-process was estimated based

on the amount of hydrogen produced assuming 1% hydrogen recycle, 88.5% PSA

recovery and 40wt% of hydrogen being derived from water molecules. The blowdown

losses are estimated using 2.8 Steam-TO-Carbon ratio (STOC) and the steam use

for in-process estimate.


Project no: 37/124 29.10.2015

278727

Process steam = % H2 from water * total H2 produced * (molecular weight of

water/molecular weight of H2)

(5.3)

Blowdown losses = (Steam byproduct + STOC* Process steam) * %Blowdown

(5.4)

Total Make-up water = Steam byproduct + Process steam + Blowdown losses

(5.5)

5.1.2 Hydrogen Transportation

The basic hydrogen transport pathway employed in this study involves two steps. In

the first step, hydrogen is transported from Rotterdam in a Hydra truck, with a

capacity of 3.2 tons of liquid hydrogen, (-252 ºC and 600 mbar), by sea. Then, it is

transported to Didcot (UK) and it is transferred, using an internal pump to compress

and introduce it to a High Pressure Tube Trailer (HPTT) carrier, capable of

transporting 875 kg of gaseous hydrogen at 500 bar at 15 ºC (Figure 6).

In this case, Hydra travels to Didcot in UK approximately once a month, fills the

HPTT with compressed hydrogen which is dropped-off at the fuelling station and

used as on-site storage. Delivery includes picking-up an empty trailer and replacing it

with a full trailer. The hydrogen is left at the station that includes a compressor to

boost some of the product to 1000 bar. Vehicles are refuelled combining both 500

and 1000 bar storage banks.

Figure 6: Basic hydrogen transport pathway selected for the LCA study: tube trailer transport of gaseous H2.


Project no: 38/124 29.10.2015

278727

5.1.3 Hydrogen Fuelling Stations

The HRS modelled within this analysis is a new station opened in Heathrow, London

in the framework of the HyTEC project. Unlike other hydrogen stations, this one only

refuels hydrogen and is not designed as an add-on to an existing fossil fuel filling

station.

The fuelling station is composed of different machinery. The most important ones are

the compressor, the dispenser and the storage unit (either in low-pressure vessels or

as components of cascade charging system). For this study, the selected technology

is the Air Products Series 125 fuelling station (see Figure 7).

This HRS offers two different pressure levels for vehicles (i.e. 350 bar for the fuel cell

taxis used in HyTEC and 700 bar for passenger cars). The new standard pressure for

passenger cars was added because it enables the driver to carry more hydrogen in

the car, covering a larger distance with a full tank. The fuelling operation procedures

involve the dispensed gaseous hydrogen, at a dispensing pressure, by means of a

nozzle that is connected to the vehicles.

Figure 7: Heathrow HRS, Air Products Series 125

Source: [Air Products, 2015]


Project no: 39/124 29.10.2015

278727

The environmental profiles of electronic and/or pressure components (e.g. pumps,

compressors, cables, etc.) are mainly based on existing models of electronic

components in the Ecoinvent database.

The following table summarises the general specifications of the two hydrogen

supply pathways in the London HRS.

Table 6: Relevant parameters for delivering 1 MJ H2 at 25ºC and 99.9995% purity, including H2 production, transportation, HRS construction and operation phases. Data is presented per FU.

Parameters Unit Input Output

Hydrogen Production

H2 99.9995 purity [MJ/FU]

1.00E+00

NG Feed [MJ/FU] 1.10E+00

NG fuel [MJ/FU] 1.11E-01

Steam requirement at 26 bar [MJ/FU] 1.83E-01

Steam production at 48 bar [MJ/FU]

2.61E-01

Electricity [MJ/FU] 6.99E-03

Decarbonised water [kg/FU] 7.72E-2

Liquefaction [kWh/FU] 2.91E-03

Losses [%/FU] 3.00E-02

Hydrogen Transportation

Transport by barge [tkm/FU] 1.67E-03

From Didcot, UK 500 kg capacity [tkm/FU] 1.08E-03

Compression [kWh/FU] 8.83E-05

Losses [%/FU] 2.00E-02

Hydrogen Refuelling Station

30 ft container – CS [kg/FU] 1.08E-03

Compressor – CS [kg/FU] 5.41E-05

Storage tanks – CS [kg/FU] 2.89E-04

Piping – SS [kg/FU] 1.08E-04

Cables – copper [kg/FU] 3.61E-05

Transport [tkm/FU] 3.61E-05

HRS operation

Dispensing [kWh/FU] 4.83E-03


Project no: 40/124 29.10.2015

278727

5.2 Vehicles

One of the objectives of the HyTEC project was to environmentally compare the

innovative FC vehicles with equivalent benchmark vehicles using alternative state-of-

the-art propulsion technologies for London and Copenhagen.

In the case of London, an environmental comparison of the FC London taxi which

was equipped with a drivetrain developed by IE [Intelligent Energy Ltd., 2015] with

the conventional diesel taxi was performed. The following table summarises the

general vehicle specifications of the two London taxi versions.

Table 7: Vehicle specifications of the London taxis.

Source: [Automobile Catalog, 2015; Baptista et al., 2010; Group Lotus PLC, 2015; Intelligent Energy Ltd., 2015; The London Taxi Company, 2010].

Fuel Cell TX4 Diesel TX4

Overall Length 4580 mm

Overall Width 2036 mm (including mirrors)

Overall Height 1834 mm

Weight 2180 kg 1975 kg

Engine Electric Engine 2499cc Diesel Engine (Euro 5)

Power 100 kW 75 kW

Fuel Cell 30 kW PEM -

Fuel Storage 3.7 kg H2 53 l Diesel

Battery Li-Polymer battery 14kWh & Lead-acid battery (12V)

Lead-acid battery (12v)

Range >257 km (160mls)

(up to 402 km (250mls) with battery)

>500 km (>310 mls)

Figure 8 shows pictures of the FC and the diesel TX4 taxis. The visible parts of the

taxi are the same. Changes were made under the hood.


Project no: 41/124 29.10.2015

278727

Figure 8: Comparison of FC and diesel taxi.

Source: [Intelligent Energy Ltd., 2015; The London Taxi Company, 2010]

5.2.1 Production

The production of the FC and diesel taxi is described in detail in this chapter. The

used data for the diesel taxi, main vehicle parts of the FC vehicle and the LCA model

development are explained in the different subchapters.

Compared to a diesel taxi several parts are removed for the FC taxi:

- Engine including attachment parts as e.g. alternator, power steering pump, air-

con compressor, etc.

- Cooling system.

- Transmission.

- Exhaust system.

- Fuel tank.

Then the FC specific parts are added. In Table 8 the weight of the major components

of the FC taxi are shown.

Table 8: Overview mass of the main vehicle parts.

Vehicle part Weight [kg]

Vehicle structure 1,600

FC system 170

Battery system 156

Electric motor 105

Power electronics 56

Hydrogen tank 93

Sum (total weight) 2,180


Project no: 42/124 29.10.2015

278727

The following paragraphs are about the major components in detail, sorted by their

importance and impact on the FC vehicle. The most important processes for the LCA

model of the production phase of the FC vehicles are:

1. Production of the FC system.

2. Production of the vehicle structure.

3. Production of the battery system.

4. Production of the electric motor.

5. Production of the power electronics.

6. Production of the hydrogen tank.

5.2.1.1 Diesel taxi

The environmental profile of the diesel taxi production is based on data for a

standard vehicle structure which are similar for most passenger vehicles. The data

are based on public available “Environmental Certificates” [Daimler AG, 2015] and

“Environmental Commendations” [Volkswagen AG, 2015] of vehicle manufacturers.

Daimler and Volkswagen provide a full LCA for all new models on the market. Hence

this creates a large data basis of conventional vehicles LCAs which can be scaled

according to the diesel taxi structure and mass. This existing data was additionally

enhanced with existing experience and internally available production data.

5.2.1.2 Fuel cell system

The FC system of the taxi is developed and produced by IE [Intelligent Energy Ltd.,

2015]. IE has extensive knowledge of the material demand for producing a FC and

provided a BoM. Figure 9 shows the material mix of the FC system.


Project no: 43/124 29.10.2015

278727

40%

25%

6%

10%

19%

Share of materials of the FC system

Stainless Steel

Aluminium

Copper

Polymer

Other

Figure 9: Material mix of the fuel cell system.

The only important factor based on literature is the platinum loading. This was

assumed to be 1 g Pt/kW fuel cell power.

5.2.1.3 Vehicle structure

The environmental profile of the vehicle structure production of the FC taxi includes

processes for a standard vehicle structure (including material mixes of chassis,

interior, etc.) which are similar for most passenger vehicles. The data for these

generic processes are based on the same material mixes as for the diesel taxi (see

subchapter 5.2.1.1) and refer to public available “Environmental Certificates” [Daimler

AG, 2015], and “Environmental Commendations” [Volkswagen AG, 2015] of vehicle

manufacturers. This existing data was enhanced with existing experience and

internally available production data.

5.2.1.4 Battery system

Currently, only little information on the LCA of the production of EV batteries and

related materials are available. Especially the chosen cathode material is crucial for

the magnitude of the environmental impacts. For the development of the LCA models

of all electric propelled vehicles Li-ion battery cells with lithium nickel manganese

cobalt oxide cathode (NMC, LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2) with a gravimetric energy density of

135 Wh/kg were chosen, since they are currently usually applied for electric mobility


Project no: 44/124 29.10.2015

278727

purposes, e.g. in the Volkswagen e-Golf and BMW i3 [Schäfer, 2009] [Schöttle,

2014].

The total weight of all battery cells is calculated based on the battery capacity of the

FC taxi (see Table 7) and the gravimetric energy density of 135 Wh/kg. Therefore,

the single weights of all other components are based on the difference of the total

battery weight and the total weight of all battery cells. Figure 10 exemplarily shows

the resulting weight distribution of the battery of the FC taxi.

104 kg8 kg

26 kg

18 kg

Weight distribution of the 14kWh battery

Battery cells

Battery management unitand cooling system

Housing

Other mechanical parts

Total weight: 156 kg

Figure 10: Weight distribution of the 14 kWh battery in the FC taxi.

Since the material mix of battery cells with NMC cathode can be very different, an

average material mix for NMC battery cells was determined based on previous

studies on Li-NMC battery cells, e.g. [Anderman, 2012; Gaines et al., 2000; Ishihara

et al., 1999; Gaines et al., 2012] and material safety data sheets (MSDS)

[International Battery Inc., 2010; Kokam Co., 2005]. Table 9 shows the assumed

material mix of the NMC battery cell.

Table 9: Assumed material mix of NMC battery cell.

Component Percent by weight

LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 (cathode) 33%

Aluminium foil (cathode) 8%

Acetylene black (cathode) 1%

Graphite (anode) 18%


Project no: 45/124 29.10.2015

278727

Copper foil (anode) 10%

Binder (anode and cathode) (polyvinylidene fluoride, N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone)

4%

Electrolyte (ethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, propylene carbonate, lithium hexafluoro-phosphate)

16%

Separator (polyethylene, polypropylene) 2%

Others (housing, connections etc.) 8%

5.2.1.5 Electric motor

The environmental profile of the electric motor is, among others, based on the

material mix of a permanent magnet synchronous motor (PMSM) [Lindegger et al.,

2009] and further internally available data from other projects and is scaled by the

weight-to-power ratio.

5.2.1.6 Power electronics

The environmental profiles of power electronic components (e.g. inverters) are

mainly based on existing models of electronic components in the GaBi database

[thinkstep AG, 1992-2015].

5.2.1.7 Hydrogen tank

A Dynetek ZM180 tank was used. This is a Type III Tank, which means that it

consists of an aluminium inner metal liner, covered by carbon fibre composite

material. The tank is mainly based on information by Dynetek combined with own

information on the share of aluminium and carbon fibre [Dynetek Industries Limited,

2006].

5.2.1.8 LCA model development

In the production phase level, of the GaBi LCA model, all single vehicle components

like the vehicle structure, the FC or in case of the diesel taxi the materials for the

combustion engine, can be calculated. In the model, the resource demand and

emissions of single components and their production including material production

and processing to the final components are specified. Figure 11 shows the

production level of the LCA model of the FC taxi.


Project no: 46/124 29.10.2015

278727

Figure 11: Production LCA model.

As it can be seen in Figure 11, the vehicle structure, the FC and the battery show the

highest shares on the total vehicle mass.

5.2.2 Use phase

The use phase comprises the vehicle operation. The environmental impacts of the

entire vehicle use phase depend on assumed mileage, fuel consumption, lifetime of

the FC and the battery systems and therefore potentially necessary replacements of

these components (see subchapters 5.2.2.1 and 5.2.2.2).

For the taxi operation a mileage of 550,000 km and a vehicle lifetime of 12 years

were assumed [Baptista et al., 2010]. Main information of the vehicle operation in

London was the fuel consumption and the associated fuel and energy supply. Data

concerning the fuel consumption was collected during the operation of the vehicles.

The consumption values were determined on defined routes of the London taxi

operation, which were completed by the FC and the diesel vehicle at the same time

and under same conditions.


Project no: 47/124 29.10.2015

278727

Table 10: Conditions for consumption measurements for London taxi operation.

Min Fuel Consumption

Max Fuel Consumption

Route Fast route Stadium route

Temperature (°C) / weather 18 / dry, sunny 20 / cloudy

Average speed (km/h) 47 27

Consumption FC taxi

(kg H2/100 km) 1.31 1.63

Consumption diesel taxi

(l diesel/100km) 8.51 11.97

Regarding the fuel supply the identification of required processes, data collection and

LCA model development for these supply chains are described in chapter 5.1. Since

the supply chains have a significant influence on the LCA results of the vehicle life

cycles an interface between the LCAs of the refuelling stations and the vehicles was

defined. The environmental impacts of the FC taxi’s vehicle operation are occurring

in the hydrogen supply chain, since FC vehicles only emit water during their use.

During the diesel taxi operation a high share of the environmental impacts are

caused by the combustion engine in the vehicle. As shown in Table 7, the pollutant

emissions of the diesel ICE are Euro 5 compliant. Since there were no original

emission measurement data available, the data with exception of CO2 and SO2 were

taken from the Handbook Emission Factors (HBEFA) for Road Transport [INFRAS

AG, 2014]. CO2 and SO2 were calculated based on the diesel fuel consumption.

5.2.2.1 Fuel cell lifetime

Based on some reports [H2moves Scandinavia, 2013; Tanaka, 2015], it is expected

that the FC lifetime is 160,000 km. This means that every 160,000 km a FC change

is necessary. Only the stack is replaced, the FC system remains the same.

5.2.2.2 Battery lifetime

The battery lifetime of the FC taxi is assumed to be 160,000 km (cycle life) or 8 years

(calendar life) based on data from [Adam Opel AG, 2011; Barenschee, 2010; BMW

Group, 2013]. Since the taxi operation has a high total mileage of 550,000 km in 12


Project no: 48/124 29.10.2015

278727

years, the cycle life is the reached earlier than the calendar life. For this reason a

battery system exchange every 160,000 km is necessary.


In the use phase, vehicle mileage, fuel consumption, fuel cell and battery lifetime and

the emissions from the diesel combustion engine need to be part of the vehicle LCA

models. The use phase of the LCA models was designed flexible to be able to vary

fuel consumption values and mileages during the vehicle operation.

5.2.3 End of life

For the assessment of the end of life of the vehicles all in- and outgoing material and

energy flows for the recycling and disposal of the vehicles are considered.

The environmental benefit of energy or material recycling is considered by credits

which quantify the avoided environmental impacts (e.g. by the substitution of primary

materials). A precondition for applying environmental credits is that the recycling

material can be used for the production of the same product and shows the same

quality like the substituted primary product. Credits for the energy recycling (e.g.

combustion of plastics in a waste incineration plant) are calculated based on the

substituted energy production rates.

The assessment of the vehicles is performed according to EU Directive 2000/53/EC

in which is determined that “the reuse and recovery have to be minimum 85 % by an

average weight per vehicle” [European Community, 2000]. This has to be applied for

all vehicles registered after January the 1st, 2006. In addition, the recycling of battery

systems is regulated by the EU Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators

and waste batteries and accumulators [European Community, 2006]. The current

models of the end of life of electric propelled vehicles and their components can only

be based on estimations due to the currently insufficient available data.

An important process for the end of life LCA model of both the FC and diesel vehicle

is the end of life of the vehicle structure (and conventional components). Moreover,

further end of life processes need to be considered for the FC taxi:

1. End of life of the FC system.

2. End of life of the battery system.


Project no: 49/124 29.10.2015

278727

3. End of life of the electric motor.

4. End of life of the power electronics.

5. End of life of the hydrogen tank.

5.2.3.1 Vehicle structure (and conventional components)

Following on the removal of dangerous substances and operating materials as well

as the drainage of the vehicle, the disassembly of the vehicle and the components is

conducted. Components which can’t be disassembled are shredded and segregated

in fractions during the following sorting processes. The goal is to achieve an unmixed

segregation of materials to either return them to the material pool or recycle them

alternatively (e.g. an energy recycling of plastic materials).

5.2.3.2 Fuel cell

The platinum is recycled, assuming similar recycling processes like for other precious

metals. Efforts for the recovery and losses during recycling are calculated. About

98% of the platinum is assumed to be recovered for possible reuse.

5.2.3.3 Battery system

Depending on the state and degradation of performance of the battery system, there

are different options available for the treatment, which however can’t be assessed

today, since it is currently not clear which recycling strategies for battery systems will

be performed in future.

In order to take into account the battery recycling for LCA, an estimation based on

published data of the Lithorec project was considered [Buchert et al., 2011]. Since

the applied inventory data are only available aggregated, the LCA results of the

following recycling strategy for battery systems, shown later on in this report, have to

be regarded as provisional and may change as future recycling strategies are

developed. The recycling method according to [Buchert et al., 2011] includes the

following recycling steps:

- Discharging of the battery system.

- Disassembly of battery system and modules.

- Disassembly of battery cells.


Project no: 50/124 29.10.2015

278727

- Hydrometallurgical processing.

5.2.3.4 Electric motor

The electric motor is almost wear-free and can be reused after a technical test and, if

necessary, a regeneration. If regeneration is not applicable the magnets are removed

and passed on to a recycling process to recover the rare earth materials. Residual

components are recycled depending on their materials.

5.2.3.5 Power electronics

For the recycling and disposal of power electronic components the recycling and

disposal processes of electronic scrap is applied. The following processing steps are

considered:

- Manual disassembly of the electronic product.

- Material specific recycling of metal components.

- Thermal recycling of plastic components.

- Disassembly and recycling of equipped circuit board.

- Shredding of circuit board.

- Recycling of shredded circuit boards, recovery of precious metals.

- Disposal of inert waste.


The hydrogen tank mainly consists of aluminium and carbon fibre composite

material. The aluminium recycling is state-of-the-art technology [European Aluminium

Association, 2013].

Regarding the carbon fibre composite material, thermal recycling in a waste

incineration plant is chosen. There is a credit from the local grid mix given for the

recovered energy.


Referring to the explanations at the beginning of chapter 5.2.3, it has to be stated

that the quality of results of the developed end of life part of the LCA models is lower

than for production and use phase. As described before, estimations were made,


Project no: 51/124 29.10.2015

278727

since it is currently not clear which recycling strategies for components of electric

drivetrains will be established. For this reason, the later following results of end of life

will be shown separately to the production and use phase results which will be shown

together in the same graphs.

The end of life phase level of the GaBi LCA models is connected to the production

level of the LCA models through parameters. Changes of material mix and

component selection are automatically transferred to the end of life phase level of the

LCA models.


Project no: 52/124 29.10.2015

278727

6 Life Cycle Inventory Analysis – Copenhagen

As already described in chapter 5, the same defined tasks during the life cycle

inventory analyses were performed for both London and Copenhagen. Analogous to

the analyses described in chapter 5, refuelling stations and vehicles were designed

by the use of different LCA software and databases.

The work content for the tasks within the life cycle phases is summarized in the

following sections.

6.1 Hydrogen refuelling stations

The environmental impact of dispensing hydrogen in Copenhagen was assessed

with a current HRS operating in the city, with on-site hydrogen production. Thus,

within this part of the LCA, the mass and energy flows for all products and processes

necessary to provide 1 MJ of H2 at the HRS were quantified. For that purpose, the

real situation is required to be transferred into a model so that the assessed

parameters could be quantified throughout the overall life cycle.

The data sources, mainly obtained from Hydrogen Link and its manufacturer

Hydrogenics, are listed within the various tables. Additional general data needed for

the study were retrieved from the Ecoinvent v 3.1 database [Ecoinvent, 2015].

This section is organized following the chronological phases needed to dispense

hydrogen in the Copenhagen HRS (Figure 12), namely:

1. On-site hydrogen production within the HRS.

2. HRS operation.

The alkaline water electrolysis takes place on-site and therefore does not need any

transportation.

Figure 12: Basic H2 production infrastructure selected for the Copenhagen case study.


Project no: 53/124 29.10.2015

278727

6.1.1 On-site hydrogen production within the HRS

The hydrogen production takes place in a so called “integrated fuelling station”; these

stations are suitable for gaseous (containing: integrated compressor, cascade

compression/dispensing and storage) or liquid hydrogen (containing: integrated

storage, vaporizer and cascade compression/dispensing).

Figure 13: Copenhagen HRS, HySTAT®-10-25.

Source: [Hydrogen Link, 2013]

In the case of the Copenhagen HRS, the technology scope is limited to the

production of H2 in-situ through alkaline water electrolysis. Electrolysis occurs in an

electrolyser, which is composed by two electrodes (cathode and anode) and

separated by a diaphragm; it avoids products to be mixed and closes the electrical

circuit through migration of the K+ and OH- ions in the electrolyte [Vermerein et al.,

2009]. Electrodes are immersed in an electrolyte solution – generally KOH with a

concentration between 25% and 30% in weight – which increases ionic conductivity

and accelerates the dissociation reaction.

When a direct current is supplied to the electrodes, hydrogen is produced on the

cathode and oxygen on the anode. The reactions occurring in the different

compartments are [Bhandari et al., 2013]:


Project no: 54/124 29.10.2015

278727

Cathode: 2244 HeH (6.1)

Anode: eOHOOH 424 22 (6.2)

Global reaction: 222 22 HOOH (6.3)

The theoretical efficiency is based on water electrolysis free Gibbs energy (∆G) on P

(1 atm), T (25 ºC) standard conditions (∆G = 237 kJ/mol H2O) [Zhang et al, 2010].

The considered efficiency from real working condition was around 58%, stated by

Hydrogenics, and calculated dividing the actual electricity required by the electricity

needed when the electrolyser is 100% efficient.

Loss of efficiency is caused by the energy transformation into dissipated heat; which

was assumed as an emission to the atmosphere as well as oxygen produced, there

is not any evidence of the use of dissipated heat in other processes neither of oxygen

storage.

The lower heating value of H2 (120.1 MJ/kg H2) was considered to calculate the

amounts of inputs and outputs referred to the FU.

In Figure 14 a scheme of the process is shown, including the principal components of

an electrolyser together with the reaction products formed.

Figure 14: Alkaline water electrolysis scheme.



Project no: 55/124 29.10.2015

278727

6.1.2 HRS operation

Hydrogen is produced in gaseous state, which implies the need for liquefaction and

storage within the station, but avoids its transportation from a central production unit

to the HRS. Hence, pre-cooling and compressing have been considered in this LCA.

The HRS infrastructure scope (Table 11) starts in the electrolyser, where electricity is

supplied through the Danish grid mix. Then, H2 is compressed to 700 bar in a

compressor and, once liquefied, stored in the storage tanks.

The liquid hydrogen is directly supplied from the liquid storage unit to the dispenser

by using a transfer pump. The maximum flow capacity of the pump is around 0.05

kg/s.

The infrastructure scope finishes when the H2 is dispensed into a vehicle through the

dispenser unit right before its use as a fuel.

Table 11: Main parameters for HRS referred to the delivery of 1 MJ of energetic content (hydrogen) at 25ºC, 700 bar with a purity of 99.9995%.

Parameter Input Output

Electrolysis Electricity [kWh] 4.82E-1 -

Oxygen [kg] - 6.67E-2

Dissipated heat [kWh] - 3.57E-1

Electrolyte [kg] 9.17E-6 -

Water [kg] 7.50E-2 -

Compressing 5.00E-2 -

Dispensing Electricity [kWh] 4.16E-2

Infrastructure

Station Packaging 1.37E-5 -

Electrolyser 6.88E-6 -

Compressor 4.81E-6 -

Dispenser 4.81E-5 -

Vessel 1.23E-5 -

Geographic scope, capital goods and electricity are limited to Denmark, as both

stations are placed in Copenhagen. Electricity was elaborated as of Danish Energy

Agency (DEA) data from 2015 [Energinet.dk, 2015] due to the significant difference

between this data and the Danish electricity mix process of Ecoinvent v.3.1

database.


Project no: 56/124 29.10.2015

278727

6.1.3 Electric Charging Station

As already explained, the hydrogen dispensed from the different HRS selected for

the project was compared with other fuels i.e. electricity, petrol and diesel. In this

section we describe a model used for a standard Electric Charging Station (ECS).

The technology scope for ECS is limited to the electricity production, the charger and

vehicle charging. It starts in the electricity supply through the city grid to the charger

and ends at the gate of station, when the vehicle is charged (Figure 15).

The process “Charger, electric passenger car”, obtained from the Ecoinvent v 3.1

database, was used as infrastructure of the station, with an assumed lifespan of 20

years (160 Khs).

A dispensing efficiency of 90% was supposed [Faria et al., 2013], as well as a

charging time of 8 hours to fill a battery with a maximum capacity of 13 kWh [Kintner

et al, 2007]. Loss of efficiency is assumed to be produced by the transformation of

part of the electricity into dissipated heat (“Heat, waste” in Ecoinvent v 3.1). In

addition to this, 3% of transmission losses were accounted for, in terms of reflecting

the most accurate conditions for the electricity.

Figure 15: ECS technology scope.

Source: [Schoenung, 2002]

Table 12: Main parameters for ECS referred to the delivery of 1 MJ of electricity.

Parameter Input Output

Charger [kg] 4.06E-6 -

Electricity [MJ] 1.10E+0 -

Dissipated heat [MJ] - 1.00E-1


Project no: 57/124 29.10.2015

278727

The electricity used in electrolysis and dispensing steps in the HRS, as well as in the

ECS, comes from a mix of different energy sources used in Denmark, known as

Danish electricity mix [Energinet.dk, 2015].

6.1.4 Electricity mixes

Since independently of the source, hydrogen production requires electricity and the

ECS’s environmental impact is also directly related to the electricity generation

sources, several scenarios for the actual and future Danish grid mix were considered

in this work, based on the renewable (RE), nuclear and fossil fuel shares.

The electricity mix generally dominates the use phase of BEV and FCV and its

overall impacts. However, for an electricity mix with a large contribution from REs, the

production of the car could lead the impact. Therefore, in order to evaluate this

influence, several scenarios of electricity used in this project, were based on actual

data from 2014, since it was the most recent available data. The sum of national

production and imports from other countries were not taken into account.

The process “Electricity, high voltage {DK}, market” was used as a basis, modifying

the fractions of every source in the Ecoinvent v 3.1 dataset.

The share of the different energy sources used to produce electricity in Denmark in

the different scenarios “Base Case: 2014”, “Case 1: Only Renewables – certified

(RE)” and “Case 2: Go green” are shown in Table 13.

Table 13: Share of energy sources in Danish electricity mix according to the three scenarios studied.

Energy Source [%] 2014 RE (Certified) Go green

Fossil Energy Sources

Oil 0.41 - 0.00

Natural Gas 7.14 - 0.00

Coal 32.95 - 0.00

Waste incineration 4.70 - 0.00

Renewable Energy

Solar 1.95 3.17 2.94

Wind offshore 1-3 MW 16.87 26.71 18.92


Project no: 58/124 29.10.2015

278727

Energy Source [%] 2014 RE (Certified) Go green

Wind offshore 1-3 MW 25.84 41.58 44.15

Hydro/run-of-river 0.05 0.09 0.4

Biogas co-generation 10.05 19.77 29.9

Waste incineration 0.00 8.66 2.8

6.2 Vehicles

For Copenhagen an environmental comparison of compact passenger cars with

different drivetrains is performed. In Copenhagen 15 Hyundai ix35 FCVs were

operated. Literature data available was retrieved from specific sources, in order to

define overall vehicle specifications (Table 14). Since there was only little primary

data on FC specific vehicle components available, most of the data used is based on

literature. Hence, for vehicle comparisons further in the report the generic term “SUV

FC” is used. An overview of the FC, petrol and diesel vehicles is given in the

following table. The background data for the values for car production and operation

are explained in detail in the subchapters 6.2.1 and 6.2.2.

Table 14: Vehicle specifications of the FC, petrol and diesel compact SUV.

Sources: [Hyundai Motor Deutschland GmbH, 2013a; Hyundai Motor Deutschland GmbH, 2013b].

Hyundai ix35 FC

(SUV FC)

Hyundai ix35 1.6 2WD

(SUV petrol)

Hyundai ix35 2.0 CRDi

(SUV diesel)

Weight [kg] 1850 1380 1533

Engine Electric motor 1591cc Petrol engine

(Euro 5) 1995cc Diesel engine

(Euro 5)

Power [kW] 100 99 100

Fuel Storage 5.6 kg H2 58 l Petrol 58 l Diesel

Battery Li-Polymer battery 1.4 kWh & Lead-

acid battery Lead-acid battery Lead-acid battery

Battery life 8 years

(160,000 km) - -

Range NEDC 594 km >800 km >900 km


Project no: 59/124 29.10.2015

278727

Figure 16: Hyundai ix35 FC.

Source: [Hydrogen Transport in European Cities (HyTEC)].

Hyundai does not produce hybrid and battery electric versions of the ix35. In the

scope of a literature research of vehicles available in the market, comparable

vehicles with hybrid and battery electric drivetrains were determined (Table 15).

Based on the investigated technical specifications a generic Plug-in Hybrid Electric

Vehicle (PHEV) and a generic battery electric vehicle (BEV) were defined, which

show similar properties (e.g. vehicle size) like a compact SUV. These generic vehicle

types are based on average values from real existing vehicles (Table 16).

Table 15: Data basis for the generic vehicles.

Vehicle model References

Plug-in hybrid vehicles

Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid Toyota, 2013

Ford C-Max Energy Plug-in-Hybrid Heyne, 2013

Battery electric vehicles

Nissan Leaf Nissan, 2013

Renault Fluence Renault, 2013

Ford Focus electric Ford, 2013

Volkswagen E-Golf Volkswagen AG, 2014

Based on the technical specifications of these vehicles in Table 15 the following

generic specifications are applied for the environmental assessment. The

background data for the values for car production and operation in Table 16 are also

explained in detail in the subchapters 6.2.1 and 6.2.2.


Project no: 60/124 29.10.2015

278727

Table 16: Vehicle specifications of compact plug-in hybrid and battery electric average vehicles.

Plug-in hybrid average

vehicle (PHEV (6 kWh))

Battery electric average vehicle (BEV (24 kWh))

Weight [kg] 1644 1609

Engine type Petrol (Euro 6) and

electric motor Electric motor

Power engine [kW] 89 -

Power electric motor [kW] 74 86

Power total [kW] 120 86

Fuel storage 49 l Petrol -

Battery 6 kWh (Lithium-Ion) 24 kWh (Lithium-Ion)

Range electric [km] 32 179

Range total [km] 1012 179

6.2.1 Production

The production of the previously mentioned vehicles is described in detail in this

chapter including the used data for the petrol and diesel compact SUV. The main

vehicle parts of the electric propelled vehicles and the LCA model development are

explained.

The components of vehicles with propulsion by an electric motor are very similar. As

a result the compared SUV FC, PHEV and the BEV share the following production

processes:

- Production of the vehicle structure.

- Production of the battery system.

- Production of the electric motor.

- Production of the power electronics.

For the production of the SUV FC the following additional processes are required:

- Production of the FC.

- Production of the hydrogen tank.

For the PHEV production the following processes are additionally necessary:


Project no: 61/124 29.10.2015

278727

- Production of the internal combustion engine.

- Production of generator.

- Production of the fuel tank.

Many parts of the vehicles assessed in London and Copenhagen are the same or

similar. Hence the detailed description here would be the same as in chapter 5.2.1.

Therefore the descriptions of same parts like the descriptions of the Life Cycle

Inventory of petrol and diesel vehicles, vehicle structure, battery system, electric

motor, power electronics, combustion engine and also the LCA model development

are not repeated here.

6.2.1.1 Fuel cell system

Only limited primary data was available for the assessment of the SUV FC. Hyundai

delivered technology specifications of their vehicle as power rating of the engine,

battery size and hydrogen storage. FC specific information provided by Hyundai are

e.g. power output rate, number of modules and some details regarding the material

composition. This information covered the specific points needed for the assessment,

as they are crucial points of a FC LCA study. This information was combined with the

available primary FC data obtained from IE. The platinum content of automotive

state-of-the art FC was assumed to be 1 g Pt/kW FC power.


The hydrogen tank is also a type III tank as the FC taxi (chapter 5.2.1.7). So the

modelling was done in the same manner. Only difference is that the Hyundai has two

tanks with a total capacity of 5.6 kg H2.

6.2.1.3 Generator

Both generators and electric motors are electric machines with an identic layout. For

this reason the same material mix can be assumed. The material mix of a permanent

magnet synchronous motor (PMSM) [Lindegger et al., 2009] and further internally

available data from other projects are used and scaled by the weight-to-power ratio.


Project no: 62/124 29.10.2015

278727

6.2.2 Use phase

The environmental impacts of the entire vehicle use phase depend on the assumed

mileage, fuel/energy consumption and the lifetime of the FC and the battery systems

and therefore potentially necessary replacements of these components (see

subchapters 6.2.2.1 and 6.2.2.2). Based on the described assumptions the LCA

model was developed (see subchapter 6.2.2.3).

For the vehicle operation a mileage of 150,000 km and a vehicle lifetime of 12 years

were assumed. A mileage of 150,000 km is a commonly used value in various LCA

studies, e.g. in the “Environmental Commendations” from Volkswagen [Volkswagen

AG, 2015]. Data concerning the fuel consumption of the SUV FC was collected

during the operation of the vehicles within the HyTEC project. The consumption of

1.28 kg H2/100km for the SUV FC, shown in Table 14, represents the measured

average consumption of the Hyundai ix35 FC fleet of the HyTEC project.

Since within the HyTEC project in Copenhagen only the Hyundai ix35 FC fleet was

operated, NEDC consumption values were selected for comparison. Table 17 shows

the NEDC consumption for all compared vehicles.

Table 17: NEDC consumption values and mileage of the compared vehicles.

Sources: [ADAC e.V., 2015a; ADAC e.V., 2015b; ADAC e.V., 2015c; Adam Opel AG, 2011; Hyundai Motor Deutschland GmbH, 2013a; Hyundai Motor Deutschland GmbH, 2013b].

Vehicle type Consumption (NEDC)

Hyundai ix35 FC (SUV FC) 0.95 kg H2/100 km

Hyundai ix35 1.6 2WD (SUV petrol) 6.8 l/100 km

Hyundai ix35 2.0 CRDi (SUV diesel) 5.4 l/100 km

Plug-in hybrid average vehicle (PHEV (6 kWh)) 16.9 kWh/100 km

5.0 l/100 km

Battery electric average vehicle (BEV (24 kWh)) 14.3 kWh/100 km

The consumption of the BEV standard vehicle was averaged based on the NEDC

consumptions of the BEVs of Table 15 [ADAC e.V., 2015a; ADAC e.V., 2015b;

ADAC e.V., 2015c]. Energy and fuel consumption values of PHEVs can vary

considerably because PHEVs can be operated in two (or even more) propulsion

modes. For this reason, assumptions have to be made in order to assign the


Project no: 63/124 29.10.2015

278727

operation shares of EV mode (use of electricity) and hybrid mode (use of petrol).

There is little consumption data of PHEVs available which describes the

consumption in the different propulsion modes. The official NEDC values only

describe the average fuel consumption related to 100 km, without specifying the

share and the consumption of the different propulsion modes. Because of this lack of

data, the consumption values of the Opel Ampera were used for the LCA of the plug-

in hybrid vehicle, considering they are available for both the EV mode and the hybrid

mode [Adam Opel AG, 2011]. Based on the energy consumption value of the Opel

Ampera, an electric range for the 6 kWh battery was calculated considering the

charging losses of power electronics and battery. Referring to an average daily

mileage, the shares of EV mode and hybrid mode were determined. Table 18

summarizes the assumed consumption values as well as the calculation of the

propulsion mode shares.

Table 18: Assumptions on driving operation of the plug-in hybrid average vehicle.

Source: [Adam Opel AG, 2011].

Parameter Assumption

Energy consumption EV mode 16.9 kWh/100 km

Fuel consumption hybrid mode 5.0 l petrol/100 km

Average daily mileage 54 km (230 working days per year, total mileage: 150.000 km)

EV mode range 32 km (6 kWh battery)

Share EV mode 58%

Share hybrid mode 42%

The fuel supply for the vehicle operation depends on the different drivetrain

technologies. Chapter 6.1 describes the identification of required processes, data

collection and LCA model development for these supply chains. For all drivetrain

technologies the supply chains have a significant influence on the LCA results of the

vehicle life cycles. The environmental impacts of the SUV FC and the BEV operation

are linked to the hydrogen and the electricity supply chain, since FC vehicles only

emit water and BEVs don’t produce emissions during their use. During the operation

of the SUV petrol, SUV diesel and PHEV all or part of the environmental impacts are

caused by the combustion engine in the vehicles, being a substantial aspect of the


Project no: 64/124 29.10.2015

278727

vehicle LCA. As shown in Table 14 and Table 16, the pollutant emissions of the SUV

petrol and SUV diesel are Euro 5 compliant, those of the PHEV are Euro 6 compliant.

Since there were no original emission measurement data available, the emission

data with exception of CO2 and SO2 were taken from the HBEFA [INFRAS AG,

2014]. CO2 and SO2 were calculated based on the vehicle specific petrol and diesel

fuel consumption.

6.2.2.1 Fuel cell lifetime

The fuel cell lifetime was assumed to be 160,000 km, based on evaluations in the H2

Moves Scandinavia project using an Hyundai ix35FC and guarantees given by

Toyota for the Mirai [H2moves Scandinavia, 2013; Tanaka, 2015]. As the total vehicle

lifetime of 150,000 km is lower than the fuel cell lifetime, no fuel cell exchange is

necessary during the SUV FC operation.

6.2.2.2 Battery lifetime

The battery lifetime of all vehicles is assumed to be 160,000 km (cycle life) or 8 years

(calendar life) based on data from [Adam Opel AG, 2011; Barenschee, 2010; BMW

Group, 2013]. Due to the total vehicle mileage of 150,000 km in 12 years which is

lower than the battery cycle life of 160,000 km, a battery exchange after 8 years of

operation is necessary.


As explained before in this subchapter, only vehicle mileage, fuel consumption and

emissions from the internal combustion engines need to be part of the vehicle LCA

models. The use phase levels of the LCA models were designed flexible to be able to

vary fuel consumption values and mileages during the vehicle operation.

6.2.3 End of life

For the end of life assessment of all Copenhagen vehicles the same data and

assumptions like for the London assessment were chosen. For this reason, the data

and assumptions are only explained briefly within this chapter, a detailed description

is available in chapter 5.2.3.

All in- and outgoing material and energy flows for the recycling and disposal of the

vehicles are considered and the environmental benefit of energy or material recycling


Project no: 65/124 29.10.2015

278727

is considered by credits which quantify the avoided environmental impacts. The

assessment of the vehicles was performed according to EU Directive 2000/53/EC

[European Community, 2000]. The recycling of battery systems is regulated by EU

Directive 2006/66/EC [European Community, 2006]. For the end of life assessment,

a separated treatment of the specific components of the electric drivetrain is

assumed. The current models of the end of life of electric propelled vehicles and their

components are based on estimations due to insufficient available data at present.

An important process for the end of life LCA model of the of the SUV FC and

equivalent vehicles is the end of life of the vehicle structure (and conventional

components).

However, further end of life processes need to be considered for the SUV FC and the

electric propelled vehicles only:

1. End of life of the FC system.

2. End of life of the battery system.

3. End of life of the electric motor.

4. End of life of the power electronics.

5. End of life of the hydrogen tank.

6. End of life of the generator.

As most of the processes and hence the descriptions are the same as in chapter

5.2.3 the detailed breakdown it is not repeated here.


Project no: 66/124 29.10.2015

278727

7 Results – London

We present here GWP results of the evaluation regarding the London vehicles and

the corresponding fuel supply. The other three environmental impact categories are

provided in the Annex.


In this chapter, the environmental impact of the hydrogen dispensed in the HRS,

located in London, as far as GWP is concerned, is compared with the other two fuels

selected for the London case: diesel and a hypothetical scenario of hydrogen

produced by an electrolyser, using RE only from wind in the UK.

The LCIA shows that the whole life cycle of dispensing 1 MJ of hydrogen using the

HRS from Heathrow, and the upstream processes considered, emits 0.119 kg of

CO2-Equiv./MJ H2 (base case). London HRS results are in the lower range of GWP

values compared to other literature data that analysed only the production phase

(see chapter 2.1). Whereas, when including the liquefaction phase of hydrogen,

which accounts for a total of 30% of the impact coming from the H2 production,

included in the HyTEC project but ignored in most of the published studies, this value

is slightly higher than those found in the literature (see Table 1, section 2.1.1 of this

report). LCA results also indicate that the hydrogen produced from wind, named

London HRS – (Wind- η 66.5%), emits 0.0079 kg of CO2-Equiv. /MJ H2 (representing

6.6% compared to the base case), while dispensing 1 MJ of diesel at the London

station emits 0.0131 kg of CO2-Equiv., which is 11% of the base case.


Project no: 67/124 29.10.2015

278727

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

HR

S

HR

S(o

nly

win

d)

Die

se

lS

tatio

n

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

Po

ten

tia

l [k

g C

O2

-Eq

uiv

./M

J]

Global Warming Potential London

Transportation

Delivery

Station

Compression

Production

Figure 17: Contributions of the different phases of fuel production for the London case to the GWP, measured in kg of CO2-Equiv. / MJ of energy.

It is well known that processes consuming large amounts of electricity and/or fuels

present a high impact in the Climate Change Category. The most important

substances accounting for the GWP are CO2, CH4, N2O, and the halogenated

hydrocarbons. Therefore, as it can be confirmed from Figure 17, the production of the

fuels, a very energy intensive process, represents the highest environmental impact

in the whole life cycle of the selected fuels.

As expected, the hydrogen production represents 93.7% of the CO2-Equiv.

emissions, followed by the compression, the production of the station itself and

delivery, which are responsible for 3.9%, 2.2% and 0.2%, respectively. Within the

hydrogen production, the operation of the SMR contributes the most to the GWP,

around 57.1%. Electricity used to liquefaction accounts for 30% and the natural gas

supplied as fuel with 3.2%. A credit of 6.6% of the emissions is obtained from the

steam produced from the process.

The LCA of dispensing diesel and a H2 from a hypothetical HRS (based on the

Copenhagen electrolyser case) operating in London were performed for comparative

purposes. Dispensing 1 MJ of diesel emits 0.0131 kg of CO2-Equiv.; from this the

production, transportation, station and delivery are responsible for 90.7%, 8.9%,


Project no: 68/124 29.10.2015

278727

0.3% and 0.1%, respectively. The main aspects of the production phase besides

crude oil itself, are the electricity, the refinery gas and the heavy fuel, accounting for

45.0%, 16.7% 28.1% 12.9% of the CO2-Equiv. emissions, respectively.

Finally, the production of hydrogen via an electrolyser, the London HRS case –

(Wind- η 66.5%) is the analysed scenario with a lower GWP impact, with a total of

0.0079 kg of CO2-Equiv. per MJ of energy. In this case, all the stages needed to

dispense 1 MJ of hydrogen are led by electricity. Therefore, the fraction of electricity

used for the production, compression, and delivery of H2 are responsible for 87.8%,

8.7%, and 1.7%, respectively. The GHG emissions corresponding to the station itself

represent 1.8% of the total. For this particular case, only one source of energy was

considered to produce the electricity (wind), while steel, concrete, glass and iron to

produce the wind mills were the materials with higher influence in the emissions.

7.2 Vehicles

In this section the LCA results of the FC taxi deployed in the London fleet are shown

and discussed. The results of the FC taxi are compared to the conventional diesel

taxi in order to estimate the magnitude of the LCA results.

7.2.1 Production

Figure 18 shows the results of the production phase of a LTI TX4 commonly known

as London taxi or Black Cab. Given the parameters mentioned in chapter 5.2 the

production of the FC TX4 has higher emissions than the diesel TX4 in terms of GWP.

The difference between the diesel and the FC TX4 is mainly the FC, battery and the

hydrogen tank. In this car layout the FC vehicle has a 14 kWh Li-Ion battery and a

30 kW FC.

In all environmental categories, the impacts are mainly influenced by the battery

production. These impacts are related to the extraction and processing of the used

active materials for the Li-ion cell. Also the considered Li-NMC cell contains higher

amounts of high-tech and rare materials, like cobalt and nickel in the cathode, which

have comparably energy intensive extraction and production processes compared to

the other materials used for the car production, which include steel, iron, plastics and

non-ferrous metals. The anode contains graphite, which requires an energy intensive

processing to ensure the required high purity. The high impacts of the FC system are


Project no: 69/124 29.10.2015

278727

due to the platinum load of the FC stacks, which are caused during the energy

intensive raw material extraction and processing of the very rare material, due to the

low concentration in the extracted ore (results for the other analysed environmental

impacts categories are provided in Annex 11.1.2).

The production impacts of both battery high-tech materials and platinum occur at the

extraction location in the producing countries, which means that improvements can

be either carried out at the extraction location, by a more efficient extracting and

processing, or e.g. the use of renewable energy. Local improvements in Europe

could be realized by the implementation of battery / FC / material recycling strategies

as well as technology developments that allow the reduction or substitution of

required materials. Generally these results show that there are higher impacts in the

production phase due to a shift of impacts from the local emission free use phase to

the production phase. Use phase impacts are considered in chapter 7.2.3.

0

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

16.000

FC

TX

4

Die

se

l T

X4

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

Po

ten

tia

l [k

g C

O2

-Eq

uiv

.]

Comparison production of vehicles

H2 tank

Power electronics

Electric motor

Battery system

Fuel cell system

Passenger carplatform

Conventional Car

Figure 18: Comparison of the production of a London diesel TX4 and FC TX4.

Figure 19 shows the detailed results of the FC system. By far, the largest share is

from the FC stack and within the FC stack as explained before the platinum


Project no: 70/124 29.10.2015

278727

requirement. Hence, the production of a FC is determined by the platinum demand in

terms of GWP.

3%

72%

4%

3%

3%

3% 10%

1%

Fuel cell system with 1 g Pt/kW (2349 kg CO2-Equiv. total)

Air Module

Fuel Cell Stack Module

HV Module

Hydrogen and ExhaustModuleLV Control Module

Primary Coolant Module

Thermal Module

Various COTS components

Figure 19: Results of the detailed evaluation of the FC system.

7.2.2 Sensitivity analysis – Pt loading of fuel cell

This chapter includes an analysis regarding the different platinum loadings in the

production of the vehicle.


Project no: 71/124 29.10.2015

278727

Air Module

Fuel Cell StackModule

HV Module

Hydrogen andExhaust Module

LV ControlModule

Primary CoolantModule

Thermal Module

3%

72%

4%

3%

3%

3%

10%

1%

1.0 g Pt/kW 2,349 kg CO2-eq.

4%

63%6%

5%

4%

5% 13%

1%

0.5 g Pt/kW 1,770 kg CO2-eq.

Fuel cell system with 0.5 and 1 g Pt/kW (1770 and 2349 kg CO2-Equiv.)

0.5 g Pt/kW1 g Pt/kW

Figure 20: Sensitivity analysis of FC with Pt loadings of 1 and 0.5 g Pt/kW.

Figure 20 shows the results of the same FC, only the platinum loading is varied, the

rest is the same. The reduction of the platinum loading to 0.5 g Pt/kW leads to an

overall reduction of 25% on the complete FC system.

7.2.3 Life cycle

There were two nose-to-tail tests performed in London where the FC and the diesel

taxi were running the same route, at the same time under the same conditions to

obtain comparable consumptions. One was a fast outer urban run with constant

speed and less stops resulting in low consumption called Min (FC: 1.31 kg H2/100km;

diesel: 8.51 l/100km). The other was an inner urban, heavy traffic route with many

stops called Max (FC: 1.63 kg H2/100km; diesel: 11.97 l/100km). Further specification

can be found in chapter 5.2.2. These two different consumption runs are combined

with fossil and green H2 (chapter 7.1).

In Figure 21 the Min consumption run is applied for the impact assessment. The

curve over the mileage represents the impacts of the use phase to the GWP. The

slope of the curve is dependent on both the fuel consumption of the vehicle, and on

the environmental profile of the fuel (hydrogen) production. The FC taxi has lower

emissions regarding the GWP with green and fossil H2. While the reduction with fossil


Project no: 72/124 29.10.2015

278727

H2 is about 16%, using green H2 has the potential for a 78% reduction. So the overall

savings depend on the H2 production route.

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

0 275,000 550,000

Glo

ba

l W

arm

ing

Po

ten

tia

l [k

g C

O2

-Eq

uiv

.]

Mileage [km]

Comparison FC vs. Diesel Taxi using fossil H2 and green H2

Taxi Diesel(min)

Taxi FC (min)

Taxi FC (min)(wind power)

16% GWP

reduction

78% GWP

reduction

FC/battery exchange

Figure 21: Comparison of the FC and diesel taxi combining the min consumption with fossil and green H2.

The higher production phase emissions of the FC taxi mentioned in chapter 7.2 are

visible in Figure 21 at the bottom left end. The curves do not start at zero emissions

(at “0” km) because of the production of the vehicles. The higher initial value of the

FC taxi is visible, but it is negligible in the overall life cycle. The “jumps” of the curves

every 160,000 km are caused by the battery and fuel cell exchange.


Project no: 73/124 29.10.2015

278727

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

0 275,000 550,000

Glo

ba

l W

arm

ing

Po

ten

tia

l [k

g C

O2-E

qu

iv.]

Mileage [km]

Comparison FC vs. Diesel Taxi using fossil H2 and green H2

Taxi Diesel(max)

Taxi FC (max)

Taxi FC (max)(wind power)

28% GWP

reduction

83% GWP

reduction

FC/battery exchange

Figure 22: Comparison of the FC and diesel taxi combining the Max consumption with fossil and green H2.

Figure 22 shows the GWP using the Max consumption. The absolute values are

higher, as it can be expected when applying a higher consumption. The overall

picture remains the same. The FC taxi has lower overall life cycle emissions

compared to the diesel taxi. One difference compared to the Min consumption is that

the relative GWP reductions are higher at the Max consumption. This is due to the

fact that FC hybrid vehicles are more efficient at inner urban heavy traffic than diesel

ICE vehicles.

Results for all assessed environmental impact categories are shown in Annex 11.1.2.

The results for the FC taxi in comparison to the diesel taxi vary strongly, due to the

high lifetime mileage mainly depending on the environmental impacts of the H2

production routes which were described in chapter 7.1. Regarding the Acidification or


Project no: 74/124 29.10.2015

278727

Eutrophication Potential the FC taxi using fossil H2 has for example similar or higher

impacts compared to the diesel taxi.

Referring to the Scope of the LCA (chapter 4), the functional unit for the vehicle is “1

km of driving operation”. Based on the results of Figure 21 and Figure 22 the

following table summarizes all results referring to 1 km of driving operation. Table 19

is directly comparable to Table 5 in the state of the art (chapter 2.2.2). Due to the

high lifetime mileage of 550,000 km the vehicle production of the taxis has a lower

share on the total life cycle GWP emissions than in the described studies in Table 5.

Table 19: Overview LCA results of FC and diesel taxi.

Taxi FC (min)

Taxi FC (min) (wind

power)

Taxi diesel (min)

Taxi FC (max)

Taxi FC (max) (wind

power)

Taxi diesel (max)


Total life-cycle

0.236 0.062 0.282 0.281 0.065 0.390

Production vehicle

0.026 0.026 0.016 0.026 0.026 0.016

7.2.4 End of life

As described within the LCIA, in chapter 5.2.3 the results for end of life have a lower

quality than the results for production and use phase and provide an indication of the

environmental impacts of the vehicles’ end of life. Results may change when future

recycling strategies especially for FC and battery systems are developed. To give a

first overview of the environmental impacts, the GWP of the FC taxi end of life was

analysed and compared to results of production and use phase. The end of life

impacts have negative values which are considered as environmental credits.


Project no: 75/124 29.10.2015

278727

-20.000

0

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

140.000

160.000

180.000

Ta

xi F

C (

min

)

Ta

xi F

C (

min

)(w

ind

po

we

r)

Ta

xi D

iesel

(min

)

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

Po

ten

tia

l [k

g C

O2

-Eq

uiv

.]Comparison end of life and life cycle

Use phase

Maintenance

Production

EoL maintenancecomponents

EoL productioncomponents

Figure 23: Comparison of end of life impacts with production and use phase impacts of the FC and diesel taxi (Min fuel consumption).

Figure 23 shows the dimension of potential environmental credits which can be

achieved in comparison with production and use phase when the estimations of

chapter 5.2.3 are applied. The end of life needs to include both production

components (vehicle structure, original FC and battery system, electric motor, ICE

etc.) and maintenance components (exchanges of fuel cell stacks and battery system

after every 160,000 km). For the diesel taxi the maintenance of main vehicle

components during the lifetime is not necessary. For this reason, end of life

processes of the diesel taxi only affect production components. Figure 24 focuses on

the end of life part of Figure 23. Due to the taxi lifetime mileage of 550,000 km, for

the FC taxi maintenance includes three changes of FC stacks and battery system.

The recycling of the three additional FC Stacks and batteries also cause a relevant

share on total end of life credits.


Project no: 76/124 29.10.2015

278727

-12.000

-10.000

-8.000

-6.000

-4.000

-2.000

0

Ta

xi F

C (

min

)

Ta

xi F

C (

min

)(w

ind

po

we

r)

Ta

xi D

iesel

(min

)

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

Po

ten

tia

l [k

g C

O2

-Eq

uiv

.]Comparison end of life of vehicles

EoL maintenancecomponents


Figure 24: End of life impacts of the FC and diesel taxi.


Project no: 77/124 29.10.2015

278727

8 Results – Copenhagen

The GWP of Copenhagen vehicles and the corresponding fuel/electricity supply are

shown in this chapter. The other environmental impact categories are shown in

Annex 11.2.


The environmental impact of the hydrogen dispensed in the HRS located in

Copenhagen is compared with the other two fuels selected for the Copenhagen case:

petrol and electricity.

As the main contributor to the environmental impact of dispensing 1 MJ of H2, in the

Copenhagen case, is the electricity used to carry out electrolysis. Three scenarios of

electricity grid mixes for Copenhagen were studied in HyTEC and results presented

here: i) the actual electricity mix (2014), ii) a certified mix of 100% RE (2014) and iii)

a 100% RE scenario set for the year 2023, called go-green scenario. Data for these

calculations was retrieved from the Energinet.dk's latest Environmental Report,

updated on April 30th, 2015 [Energinet.dk, 2015]

The other fundamental parameter to the electrolysis environmental impact is the

efficiency, considered as the energy consumption per MJ of dispensed H2. We have

considered two efficiency values of the electrolyser: the current value of 58% and an

expected feasible efficiency of 66.5% for the near future. Therefore, a comparison

between actual efficiency (58%) with the actual 2014 Danish mix and a 100 %

certified RE was analysed and compared to a third scenario improving the efficiency

up to 66.5%, using a forecast for a “go green” grid mix for the year 2023.

8.1.1 Environmental impact of the HRS in 2014 and 2023

The results concerning the current 2014 electricity mix scenario for Copenhagen with

100% renewable (100% RE) as compared to the current electricity mix and to the go-

green (2023) scenario are presented in Figure 25. As stated before, it is important to

note that the HRSs used in the HyTEC project operate with a certified 100% RE

energy. Also, the current distribution of renewable energies in the electricity mix

today (2014) and in 2023 is very similar, the difference is the percentage of different

shares to the total electricity mix, which in 2023 should be 100% renewable.


Project no: 78/124 29.10.2015

278727

As observed in Figure 25, for the GWP category, the HRS with today’s current mix

emits 0.233 kg of CO2-Equiv./MJ H2, the 100% RE scenario, emits 0.0325 kg of CO2-

Equiv. and the go-green scenario 0.0280 kg of CO2-Equiv. /MJ H2. The reduction of

86.1% of the emissions is due to the source of electricity and from this scenario the

13.8% more, can be reduced by increasing the electrolyser efficiency.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Dan

ish

mix

–5

8%

10

0 R

E –

58

%

Go

gre

en

–

66

.5%

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

Po

ten

tia

l [k

g C

O2

-Eq

uiv

./M

J]

Global Warming Potential CPH

Delivery

Station

Compression

Production

Figure 25: Contribution of the different efficiency ratios and energy sources to the GWP for the three electricity mixes proposed for Denmark.

8.1.2 Comparison of HRS with petrol and ECS for Copenhagen

Comparative results of the best case scenario from the previous chapter and the

petrol and ECS stations are presented here. The case of higher efficiency (66.5%)

with RE was chosen as the base case for this comparison, considering that both

petrol and ECS are mature technologies and the HRS with electrolysis are expected

to reach the values of the go green case with the chosen efficiency. For a fair

comparison, it was also considered that in 2023 that all the electricity will come for

renewable sources, the ECS will also operate with RE (electricity go green scenario).

The LCIA shows that the whole life cycle of dispensing 1 MJ of H2 using the base

case for Copenhagen electrolysis, named H2 go green (η 66.5%), emits 0.0280 kg

CO2-Equiv., delivering electricity (go green) emits 0.0192 kg CO2-Equiv.and


Project no: 79/124 29.10.2015

278727

delivering 1 MJ of petrol emits 0.0177 kg CO2-Equiv., representing 68.5% and 63.2%,

respectively, compared to the base case (Figure 26).

In the case of the HRS, the production of the hydrogen, the compression, the

production of the station itself and the delivery are responsible for 89.0%, 8.8%, 0.4%

and 1.8%, respectively. For the petrol case, production accounts for 96.2% of the

total value, transportation for 3.5%, while station and delivery are responsible for

0.1% and 0.2%, respectively. Finally, when delivering 1 MJ of electricity using the go

green grid mix forecasted for Denmark, the production, transmission and station

itself, are responsible for 88.0%, 2.6%, 0.6%, respectively. As it is expected, the

other most important aspect is the charging loss, contributing to the 8.8% of the CO2-

Equiv.emissions.

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

Petr

ol

Ele

ctr

icity

- G

og

reen

H2

Go

gre

en

–6

6.5

%

Glo

ba

l W

arm

ing

Po

ten

tia

l [k

g C

O2

-Eq

uiv

./M

J]

Global Warming Potential CPH

Transportation

Delivery

Station

Compression

Production

Figure 26: Contributions of the different phases of fuel production for the Copenhagen case, to the GWP category, measured in kg of CO2-Equiv. /MJ of energy.

8.2 Vehicles

The LCA results of the SUV FC, deployed in the Copenhagen fleet are presented

and discussed here. The chapter includes the relevant factors of each life cycle stage

and puts them into relation to the whole vehicle life cycle. In addition the results of

the SUV FC are compared to conventional vehicles and other electric vehicle


Project no: 80/124 29.10.2015

278727

concepts (BEV, PHEV). However, it has to be mentioned that the assessed BEV has

a limited range, which is defined by the sizing of the storage capacity of the battery

system. Hence, the BEV is not directly comparable to the SUV FC, PHEV and

conventional vehicles, especially when it comes to use cases where the electric

driving range cannot be provided due to the battery sizing, e.g. long distance trips.

8.2.1 Production

Figure 27 presents the LCIA results of the production phase of the SUV FC in

comparison to the other vehicle concepts. The LCIA results are calculated on the

basis of the generic LCA model which is adjusted according to the vehicle specific

technical values describes in chapter 6.2, like vehicle mass, battery technology and

dimensioning, etc. The results show that the production of electric propelled vehicles

has significantly higher contributions to the GWP compared to the production of

conventional cars with an internal combustion engine.

0

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

16.000

SU

V F

C

BE

V(2

4 k

Wh)

SU

V P

etr

ol

SU

V D

iese

l

PH

EV

(6 k

Wh

)

Glo

ba

l W

arm

ing

Po

ten

tia

l [k

g C

O2

-Eq

uiv

.]


H2 tank

Power electronics

Electric motor /generator

Battery system

Fuel cell system


Conventional Car

Figure 27: Comparison of the production of the SUV FC and equivalent vehicles.

Main drivers are in the production of the power train components, the FC system and

the battery system, which cause more than the 50% of the impact of the production


Project no: 81/124 29.10.2015

278727

phase. The high impacts of the FC are due to the Pt load of the fuel cell stacks,

which are caused during the energy intensive raw material extraction and processing

of the very rare material since it has a very low concentration in the extracted ore

(results for all environmental impacts are provided in Annex 11.2.2).

The main impacts of the battery production are related to the extraction and

processing of the used active materials for the Li-ion cell. Also the considered Li-

NMC cell contains higher amounts of high-tech and rare materials, like cobalt and

nickel in the cathode, which have comparably energy intensive extraction and

production processes compared to the other materials used for the car production,

mainly like steel, iron, plastics and non-ferrous metals. The anode contains graphite,

which requires an energy intensive processing to ensure the required high purity

(results for all environmental impacts, see also Annex 11.2.2). The production

impacts of both battery high-tech materials and platinum occur at the extraction

location in the producing countries, which means that improvements can be either

done at the extraction location, by a more efficient extracting and processing, or e.g.

the use of renewable energy. Local improvements in Europe could be realized by the

implementation of FC / battery / material recycling strategies as well as technology

developments that allow the reduction or substitution of required materials.

The relevance of the battery system to the vehicle production is strongly dependent

to the dimensioning of the energy content of the battery and hence, the electrical

range of the vehicle. This is shown by comparing the GWP of the BEV (24 kWh, high

electric range) and PHEV (split hybrid power train, 6 kWh, low electric range)

vehicles. The PHEV contains an electric and a combustion engine power train. The

electric power train is used for trips in lower speeds, e.g. to reduce exhaust

emissions in city traffic etc. Since the PHEV contains two power trains, the GWP of

the vehicle production is higher than for the conventional vehicles.

8.2.2 Sensitivity analysis – Platinum loading of fuel cell

Since the Pt load of the FC is the most important parameter related to the

environmental profile of the production phase of the SUV FC, the following sensitivity

analysis is carried out to identify the potential improvements in the production phase

due to technological developments for reducing the Pt loading in the FC system. To


Project no: 82/124 29.10.2015

278727

do this, the Pt loading of the FC system is varied from 1 g Pt/kW (current case) to

0.5 g Pt/kW. The analysis is carried out assuming that lower Pt loadings do not

negatively affect the technical performance or lifetime of the FC system. The results

of the analysis (Figure 28) show that the halving of the Pt loading of the FC would

lead to a reduction of about 15% of the GWP in the production phase of the whole

FC vehicle.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

SU

V F

C(1

g P

t/kW

)

SU

V F

C(0

.8g

Pt/

kW

)

SU

V F

C(0

.5g

Pt/

kW

)

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

Po

ten

tia

l [k

g C

O2

-Eq

uiv

.]


H2 Tank

PowerElectronics

Electric Motor

Battery system

Fuel Cell system

Passenger CarPlatform

Figure 28: Sensitivity analysis of the SUV FC with platinum loadings of 1 and 0.5 g Pt/kW.

8.2.3 Life cycle

The impacts of the production and use phase of the considered vehicle concepts to

the GWP are analysed here. Since the SUV FC and the BEV are not directly

comparable due to their different driving ranges, the analysis is carried out

separately. A reliable comparison of the vehicle concepts requires an assessment of

specific use cases and same quality of real measured use profiles, like mileages and

energy consumption.


Project no: 83/124 29.10.2015

278727

8.2.3.1 Life cycle of SUV FC based on measured fuel consumption

Figure 29 presents the LCIA results of the production and use phase of SUV FC. The

GWP value at the starting point (“0” km) represents the GWP impacts caused by the

production of the vehicle. According to the defined boundary conditions, the total

mileage of the vehicle use phase is assumed to be 150,000 km. The curve over the

mileage represents the impacts of the use phase to the GWP. The slope of the curve

is depended on the fuel consumption and on the environmental profile of the fuel

(hydrogen) production. The small jumps of the curves at 100,000 km are caused by

the battery exchange which is necessary after 8 years of operation. The fuel

consumption of this analysis is based on the measured values during the fleet

operation: 1.28 kg H2/100km. Two production routes for the fuel production are

analysed: (i) H2 production based on the 2014 Danish electricity mix, and (ii) H2

production based on the assumption, that the production processes are supplied with

electricity from 100% RE – in this case the certified renewable Danish electricity mix

from Table 13.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

0 50,000 100,000 150,000

Glo

ba

l W

arm

ing

Po

ten

tia

l[k

g C

O2

-Eq

uiv

.]

Mileage [km]

Comparison SUV FC 2014 mix with renewable mix

SUV FC measured (DK 2014 mix)

SUV FC measured (DK 2014 100% renewable)

Figure 29: Comparison of the SUV FC combining the measured consumption with H2 from 2014 Danish present and renewable electricity mix.


Project no: 84/124 29.10.2015

278727

The results in Figure 29 show that the impact of the use phase to the GWP can be

significantly reduced by using H2 produced from 100% RE. Over the total mileage,

the GWP can be reduced by around 46 tons CO2-Equiv. when using renewable

produced H2-fuel instead of the current production mix. These results show that the

environmental profile of the used fuel and hence the production route of H2 is an

important lever for the environmental profile of a FC vehicle life cycle.

8.2.3.2 Scenario: Increased efficiency of electrolyser

Figure 30 presents the results of the LCA analysis of the combined electricity and H2

production scenario according to 8.1.1. This scenario assumes that the future H2

production for FC vehicles will use 100% RE in the production processes as well as

raising process efficiency for the electrolyser from 58% up to 66.5%. The fuel

consumption of this analysis is based on the measured values during the fleet

operation of 1.28 kg H2/100km.

Based on these assumptions, the results of the GWP show an improvement in the H2

production. In terms of the life cycle of the SUV FC there are only minor noticeable

improvements in the GWP, when REs are used in the H2 production. However, the

increase of the process efficiency leads to a better yield in terms of H2 produced per

energy unit and has therefore a positive impact on the use of RE and the long term

supply of H2.


Project no: 85/124 29.10.2015

278727

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

0 50,000 100,000 150,000

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

Po

ten

tial

[kg

CO

2-E

qu

iv.]

Mileage [km]

Future outlook: increasing electrolyser efficiency

SUV FC measured (DK 2014 mix)

SUV FC measured (DK 2014 100% renewable)

SUV FC measured (DK 2023 100% renewable + 66.5% efficiency)

Figure 30: Comparison of the SUV FC combining the measured consumption with H2 from 2014 Danish present and renewable electricity mix with increased electrolyser efficiency.

Based on the results of Figure 29 and Figure 30 the following table summarizes all

results referring to 1 km of driving operation (FU). Table 20 is directly comparable to

Table 5 in the state of the art chapter 2.2.2. Since similar lifetime mileage of 150,000

km, have been considered, results can be fairly compared to the results of these

other previous studies.

Table 20: Overview LCA results of SUV FC with different H2 production routes.

SUV FC measured

(DK 2014 mix)

SUV FC measured (DK 2014

100% renewable)

SUV FC measured (DK 2023

100% renewable

+66,5% efficiency)


Total life-cycle 0.455 0.146 0.139

Production vehicle 0.093 0.093 0.093


Project no: 86/124 29.10.2015

278727

8.2.3.3 Life Cycle SUV FC: Comparison measured fuel consumption to NEDC values

The comparison of the measured fuel consumption values to those based on the

NEDC cycle show that the fuel consumption of the SUV FC under real conditions is

around 35% higher than the determined NEDC values. In accordance to chapter

6.2.2, the measured value during the fleet operation is 1.28 kg H2/100km whereas

the NEDC value is 0.95 kg H2/100km. Since the main impacts to the GWP are

caused by the use phase, Figure 31 shows the life cycle results based on the

measured fuel consumption values compared to the NEDC values.

To analyse the effect of the fuel consumption on the life cycle results, results are

presented for H2 produced via the present route and for a production route using

100% RE.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

0 50,000 100,000 150,000

Glo

ba

l W

arm

ing

Po

ten

tia

l[k

g C

O2

-Eq

uiv

.]

Mileage [km]

Comparison SUV FC measured and NEDC consumption

SUV FC measured (DK 2014 mix)SUV FC NEDC (DK 2014 mix)SUV FC measured (DK 2014 100% renewable)SUV FC NEDC (DK 100% renewable)

Figure 31: Comparison of the SUV FC combining measured and the NEDC consumption with H2 from 2014 Danish current and renewable electricity mix.

Based on the measured consumption values and by assuming the present Danish

hydrogen production mix, the calculated life cycle results of the GWP are around 14

tons CO2-Equiv. higher than the results based on the NEDC. Hence, the fuel

consumption under real driving conditions and under the specific boundary conditions


Project no: 87/124 29.10.2015

278727

of the fleet use is important for the decision making, e.g. when it comes to plan

vehicle fleets.

When H2 is produced using RE, there are only minor differences, and hence, the

impact of the fuel consumption becomes less important for the GWP results.

8.2.3.4 Comparison to conventional vehicles based on NEDC

To be able to weight the magnitude of the life cycle impact of the SUV FC to the

GWP, the results are compared to the GWP of a petrol and diesel SUV. Since no fuel

consumption data of the conventional vehicles were measured under the conditions

of the fleet operation, the comparison is carried out on the basis of the NEDC values

to ensure the reliability of results. As described in chapter 6.2.2, the NECD

consumption of the SUV FC is 0.95 kg H2/100 km. The NEDC values of the

conventional vehicles are 6.8 l petrol/100 km and 5.4 l diesel/100 km, for every car,

respectively

Figure 32 presents the results of the comparison for the GWP. It shows that the GWP

over the total mileage of the SUV FC is significantly higher than the GWP of the

comparable petrol and diesel vehicle, when using H2 produced via electrolysis based

on the 2014 Danish electricity mix. Significant reductions can be achieved, when H2

is produced with 100% RE, as in the certified renewable Danish electricity mix from

Table 13, used for the HRSs of Copenhagen in HyTEC. Over the total mileage of

150,000 km, the reduction potential of the SUV FC against the petrol vehicle is

around 43% or ~15 tons CO2-Equiv. Compared to the diesel car, reductions from

around 38% or ~12 tons CO2-Equiv. can be achieved. In addition, the results show

that the break-even of the SUV FC to the conventional vehicles is at around

50,000 km. This means that the higher impacts of the production phase of the SUV

FC are compensated at this mileage due to the lower impacts in the use phase.

Again, this analysis endorses the high relevance of the environmental profile of the

used H2 to the life cycle results and, hence the need for ensuring high shares of RE

in the H2 production pathways to reduce the GWP compared to conventional

vehicles. Furthermore, the results show that FC vehicles have to be used in

appropriate applications and duty cycles, where higher mileages are achieved to tap

the full environmental reduction potential.


Project no: 88/124 29.10.2015

278727

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

0 50,000 100,000 150,000

Glo

ba

l W

arm

ing

Po

ten

tia

l[k

g C

O2

-Eq

uiv

.]

Mileage [km]

Comparison SUV FC with ICE vehicles (NEDC)

SUV FC (DK 2014 mix) SUV Petrol

SUV Diesel SUV FC (DK 2014 100% renewable)

63% GWP

reduction

43% GWP

reduction38% GWP

reduction

Figure 32: Comparison of the SUV FC with the SUV petrol and the SUV diesel using H2 from 2014 Danish present and renewable electricity mix (NEDC consumption).

Based on the results of Figure 32 the following table summarizes all results referring

to 1 km of driving operation (FU). Table 21 is directly comparable to Table 5 in the

state of the art chapter 2.2.2.

Since similar lifetime mileage of 150,000 km has been considered, results can be

fairly compared to the results of these other previous studies analysed.

Table 21: Overview LCA results of SUV FC and SUVs petrol/diesel.

SUV FC NEDC (DK 2014 mix)

SUV FC NEDC (DK 2014 100% renewable)

SUV petrol NEDC

SUV diesel NEDC


Total life-cycle 0.363 0.133 0.234 0.214

Production vehicle

0.093 0.093 0.040 0.045

8.2.3.5 Comparison to BEV and PHEV based on NEDC

In the following subchapter the GWP of the vehicle life cycle results of the BEV and

PHEV are added. Again, the comparison of the vehicle concepts is based on NEDC


Project no: 89/124 29.10.2015

278727

consumption values to ensure the comparability. The energy consumption of the BEV

is 14.3 kWh/100 km, the NEDC values of the PHEV are 16.9 kWh/100 km in the EV

mode and 5 l petrol/100 km in the hybrid mode (see chapter 6.2.2). As also described

in chapter 6.2.2, the allocation of the propulsion modes of the PHEV is 58% electric

and 42% hybrid.

26% GWP

reduction

19% GWP

reduction

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

0 50,000 100,000 150,000

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

Po

ten

tia

l[k

g C

O2

-Eq

uiv

.]

Mileage [km]

Comparison of all vehicles (NEDC)

SUV FC (DK 2014 mix) SUV Petrol

SUV Diesel PHEV (6 kWh) (DK 2014 mix)

BEV (24 kWh) (DK 2014 mix)

Figure 33: Comparison of the SUV FC with all equivalent vehicles using H2 and electricity from 2014 Danish present electricity mix (NEDC consumption).

Figure 33 presents the results of the GWP based on the current H2 production

conditions using the 2014 Danish electricity grid mix. In this case, the SUV FC has

the highest GWP. The steeper slope of the SUV FC curve compared to the BEV and

PHEV is mainly due to the efficiency of the electrolyser, explained by the conversion

losses in the H2 production. The comparison of the BEV and PHEV to the other

vehicles shows that these vehicles have lower contributions to the GWP. The jumps

of the curves at 100,000 km represent the additional impacts related to an exchange

of the battery system. Under the defined boundary conditions, the GWP of the BEV

and PHEV are in a comparable range. The reduction of GWP of the BEV and PHEV

is around 26% compared to the petrol car and around 19% to the diesel car. The

break-even of the BEV and PHEV to the conventional vehicles is at around


Project no: 90/124 29.10.2015

278727

40,000 km. Since the allocation of the operating modes of the PHEV can strongly

vary depending on the specific fields of use and utilization profiles (e.g. city and

urban use vs. long distance trips, driving behaviour etc.), also the resulting

environmental profile of the use phase of the PHEV can strongly vary. Thus, the

assessment of the environmental benefits of PHEVs requires case specific analysis

of investigated fields of use and the consideration of real driving and utilization

profiles to allow reliable conclusions.

Figure 34 shows the results of the investigated vehicles based on the assumption,

that the H2 for the FC-vehicle and the electricity for the BEV and PHEV are produced

with 100% RE (certified renewable Danish electricity mix from Table 13).

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

0 50,000 100,000 150,000

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

Po

ten

tia

l[k

g C

O2

-Eq

uiv

.]

Mileage [km]

Comparison of all vehicles (NEDC) (100% renewable)

SUV Petrol SUV Diesel

SUV FC (DK 2014 100% renewable) PHEV (6kWh) (DK 2014 100% renewable)

BEV (24kWh) (DK 2014 100% renewable)

Figure 34: Comparison of the SUV FC with all equivalent vehicles using H2 and electricity from 2014 Danish renewable electricity mix (NEDC consumption).

In this case, all electric propelled vehicles show reductions of the GWP from around

12-15 tons CO2-Equiv. compared to the diesel vehicle. The GWP of the PHEV and

SUV FC over the mileage of 150,000 km is almost equal; the GWP of the BEV is

slightly lower (but also having a lower total range than the SUV FC and PHEV). The

break-even of the BEV and PHEV is at around 25,000 km, the break-even of the FC

SUV to the conventional vehicles is at around 50,000 km.


Project no: 91/124 29.10.2015

278727

It has to be mentioned that the dimensioning of current available models of BEVs and

PHEVs vary in the sizing of drivetrain components (e.g. energy content of battery

systems), energy consumption and in case of the PHEVs also in the management of

propulsion modes. Therefore the results presented here are intended to show the

magnitudes of the GWP of the vehicle concepts.

The results for all assessed environmental impact categories are shown in the Annex

11.2.2. These results vary strongly mainly depending on the environmental impacts

of the fuel cell and the battery (see chapter 7.2.1) as well as the H2 production

pathways described in chapter 7.1.

Based on the results of Figure 33 and Figure 34 the following table summarizes all

results referring to 1 km of driving operation. Table 22 is directly comparable to Table

5 in the state of the art chapter 2.2.2. The lifetime mileage of 150,000 km considered

in this study allows a direct comparison with the studies summarised in chapter 2.2.

Table 22: Overview LCA results of SUV FC, BEV and PHEV (different electricity mixes).

SUV FC NEDC (DK 2014 mix)

SUV FC NEDC (DK 2014 100%

renew.)

BEV (24kWh) NEDC (DK 2014 mix)

BEV (24kWh)

(DK 2014 100%

renew.)

PHEV (6kWh) NEDC (DK 2014 mix)

PHEV (6kWh)

(DK 2014 100%

renew.)


Total life-cycle

0.363 0.133 0.172 0.111 0.173 0.130

Production vehicle

0.093 0.093 0.070 0.070 0.055 0.055

8.2.4 End of life

Results presented here should be taken with caution as they may change when

future recycling strategies especially for fuel cells and battery systems are

developed. Like for the London vehicle assessment nevertheless a first overview of

the GWP of the end of life of the SUV FC and the equivalent vehicles is given.

Environmental credits quantify the avoided environmental impacts through material

and energy recycling.


Project no: 92/124 29.10.2015

278727

-10,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

SU

V F

C(D

K 2

01

4 m

ix)

SU

V F

C (

DK

20

14

100

% r

ene

w.)

BE

V (

24 k

Wh)

(DK

201

4 m

ix)

BE

V (

24kW

h)

(DK

201

4 1

00%

re

ne

w.)

PH

EV

(6

kW

h)

(DK

201

4 m

ix)

PH

EV

(6

kW

h)

(DK

201

4 1

00%

re

ne

w.)

SU

V P

etr

ol

SU

V D

iese

l

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

Po

ten

tia

l [k

g C

O2

-Eq

uiv

.]Comparison end of life and life cycle

Use phase

Batterymaintenance

Production

EoL batterymaintenance


Figure 35: Comparison of end of life impacts with production and use phase impacts of the SUV FC and equivalent vehicles (NEDC fuel consumption).

Figure 35 shows the dimension of potentially achievable environmental credits in

comparison with production and use phase when the estimations of chapter 6.2.3 are

applied. The end of life needs to include both production components (vehicle

structure, original fuel cell and battery system, electric motor, internal combustion

engine, etc.) and maintenance components (change of battery system after 8 years

of vehicle operation). For the SUV petrol and diesel the maintenance of main vehicle

components during the lifetime is not necessary. For this reason, end of life

processes of these conventional vehicles only affect production components. Figure

36 focusses on the end of life part of Figure 35. Due to the vehicle lifetime of 12

years, for all electric propelled vehicles one change of the battery system is

necessary. The recycling of the additional battery can cause a relevant share on total

end of life credits.


Project no: 93/124 29.10.2015

278727

-7,000

-6,000

-5,000

-4,000

-3,000

-2,000

-1,000

0

SU

V F

C(D

K 2

01

4 m

ix)

SU

V F

C (

DK

20

14

100

% r

ene

w.)

BE

V (

24 k

Wh)

(DK

201

4 m

ix)

BE

V (

24kW

h)

(DK

201

4 1

00%

rene

w.)

PH

EV

(6

kW

h)

(DK

201

4 m

ix)

PH

EV

(6

kW

h)

(DK

201

4 1

00%

re

ne

w.)

SU

V P

etr

ol

SU

V D

iese

l

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

Po

ten

tia

l [k

g C

O2

-Eq

uiv

.]End of life of vehicles

EoL batterymaintenance


Figure 36: End of life impacts of the SUV FC and equivalent vehicles.


Project no: 94/124 29.10.2015

278727

9 Conclusions

This report (Deliverable 6.8 of the HyTEC Project) summarizes results concerning

the quantitative assessment on the environmental impact of the hydrogen refuelling

infrastructures and the vehicles involved in the project. A comprehensive Life Cycle

Assessment of the use of hydrogen vehicles in urban fleets, compared with other fuel

and driving options was conducted along the project. This included a cradle-to-grave

assessment of the project vehicles and related infrastructure. Data concerning the

production and specifications of the vehicles and infrastructure were provided by the

corresponding partners of the project and complemented with literature data and

available databases, when needed. Comparison with published data on similar

Hydrogen Refuelling Stations (HRS) and vehicles has been made, when possible.

Although only Global Warming Potential (GWP) has been discussed in the core of

the report, the assessment of three more environmental impact categories has been

provided in an annex to complement the study.

Conclusions on the main results are provided separated by the cities.

9.1 London

9.1.1 Hydrogen refuelling station

For the London case two different H2 production routes were assessed: H2 produced

in a central Steam Methane Reformer (SMR) and shipped to London called “base

case” and a hypothetical electrolyser station using Renewable Electricity (RE) called

“wind power”.

The results show that the whole life cycle of dispensing 1 MJ of H2 using the HRS

from Heathrow (London base case), and the upstream processes considered, emits

0.119 kg of CO2-Equiv. These results are in the lower range of GWP values

compared to other literature data, which focused only on the production phase. The

H2 production represents 93.7% of the CO2-Equiv. emissions, followed by the

compression, the production of the station itself and delivery, responsible for 3.9%,

2.2% and 0.2%, respectively. Within the hydrogen production, the operation of the

SMR contributes the most to the GWP, around 57.1%. Electricity used to liquefaction

accounts for 30% and the natural gas supplied as fuel with 3.2%. Note that in the


Project no: 95/124 29.10.2015

278727

published studies the liquefaction phase has been ignored. A credit of 6.6% of the

emissions is obtained from the steam produced from the process.

These results were compared to a diesel and a hypothetical electrolyser station

utilising only wind at an electrolyser efficiency of 66.5% (wind power). Dispensing 1

MJ of diesel emits 0.0131 kg of CO2-Equiv. (11% of the base case), while the H2

produced from wind power, emits 0.0079 kg of CO2-Equiv. (representing 6.6%

compared to the base case).

From this comparison it can be inferred that the environmental performance of HRS

will be superior to diesel, provided the electricity mix comes from RE and the

technology for H2 is also optimized.

9.1.2 Vehicle production

Both assessed project vehicles in London were London taxis, the so-called Black

Cabs. One is equipped with a traditional diesel internal combustion engine; the other

one is converted to be FC propelled. The FC taxi modelling for the LCA is based on a

bill of materials provided by Intelligent Energy which designed the drivetrain of the FC

taxi. In terms of the vehicle production the FC taxi shows higher impacts in the GWP

which is mainly due to the FC system, the battery and to a smaller extent by the H2

tank and the power electronics. The FC system is dominated by the platinum load

which is assumed to be 1 g/kW. Platinum has a high impact due to an energy

intensive raw material extraction and processing of the very rare material due to the

low concentration in the extracted ore. The battery is a lithium nickel manganese

cobalt oxide battery which contains high amounts of high-tech and rare materials.

Similar to platinum, these materials are produced by the use of more energy

intensive extraction and production processes compared to other materials used for

the production of conventional vehicles, such as steel, iron, plastics and non-ferrous

metals.

The production impacts of both battery high-tech materials and platinum occur at

their extraction locations in the respective producing countries. Consequently,

improvements can be carried out at the extraction locations, by more efficient

extracting and processing, or e.g. the use of renewable energy. Local improvements

in Europe could be realized by the implementation of FC / battery / material recycling


Project no: 96/124 29.10.2015

278727

strategies as well as technology developments that allow the reduction or substitution

of required materials. Generally these results show that there are higher impacts in

the production phase and a shift of burden from the locally emission free use phase

to the production phase.

9.1.3 Life cycle

The evaluation of the life cycle including the production and the use phase of the

vehicles, as well as the production of the fuel shows that the largest share in GWP

occurs during the use phase given the 550,000 km lifetime of a taxi. In general, the

impact of the use phase of the FC taxi depends on the amount of fuel used

(consumption) and the fuel supply. The consumption was determined by two

consumption runs where the FC and the diesel taxi were running the same route at

the same time under the same conditions to obtain comparable consumption values.

One route was a fast outer urban run with constant speed and few stops resulting in

a comparably low consumption referred to in this report as “Min” (FC:

1.31 kg H2/100km; diesel: 8.51 l/100km). The other was an inner urban, heavy traffic

route with many stops referred to in this report as “Max” (FC: 1.63 kg H2/100km;

diesel: 11.97 l/100km). The FC taxi had lower emissions compared to the diesel taxi

regarding the GWP in both runs no matter which H2 production route was chosen.

With the Min run the FC taxi emitted 0.236 kg CO2-Equiv./km using the London base

case scenario for H2 production. This results in a 16% reduction compared to the

diesel taxi (0.282 kg CO2-Equiv./km). Using the wind power scenario for the FC taxi

(0.062 kg CO2-Equiv./km) a 78% reduction is possible.

On the one hand, the absolute values for GWP are higher with the Max consumption,

as it can be expected when applying a higher consumption. On the other hand, the

relative GWP reductions compared to the conventional diesel taxi are larger at the

Max consumption as well. This is due to the fact that FC hybrid vehicles are more

efficient at inner urban heavy traffic than diesel ICE vehicles. With the London base

case (0.281 kg CO2-Equiv./km) a GWP reduction of 28% compared to the diesel taxi

(0.390 kg CO2-Equiv./km) is possible. Furthermore, this reduction can be increased

to 83% when using wind power for the hydrogen production (0.065 kg CO2-

Equiv./km).


Project no: 97/124 29.10.2015

278727

Most of the emissions of the diesel taxi are at tail pipe at the location of usage, while

the FC taxi emits only water. The emissions of the FC taxi occur either at the location

the H2 is produced in case of a SMR or at the place the electricity for the electrolyser

is produced. This emission free use phase is especially important for cities like

London which suffer from a high local pollution.

9.2 Copenhagen

9.2.1 Hydrogen refuelling station

The H2 is produced via on-site electrolysis at the HRS in Copenhagen. In this case

the impact mainly depends on the electricity grid mix. Three scenarios of electricity

grid mix were studied in HyTEC for Copenhagen: the current electricity mix (2014), a

certified mix of 100% RE (2014) and a 100% RE scenario set for the year 2023 (go-

green scenario). Two efficiency values of the electrolyser were also considered (58%

and 65%).

Regarding the GWP, the HRS with today’s current mix emits 0.233 kg of CO2-Equiv.,

the 100% RE scenario (current HRS), emits 0.0325 kg of CO2-Equiv. and the go-

green scenario 0.0280 kg of CO2-Equiv. The reduction of 86.1% of the emissions is

due to the source of electricity, while additional 13.8% reduction of the go-green

compared with the 100% RE scenario can be obtained by increasing the electrolyser

efficiency.

The HRS of Copenhagen (go-green scenario) was compared to an electrical charge

station (with RE) and a (optimized and mature technology) petrol station. The results

show that dispensing 1 MJ of H2 using the base case for Copenhagen (go green, η

66.5%), emits 0.0280 kg CO2-Equiv., while delivering electricity (go green) emits

0.0192 kg CO2-Equiv.and delivering 1 MJ of petrol emits 0.0177 kg CO2-Equiv.,

representing 68.5% and 63.2%, respectively, compared to the base case.

9.2.2 Vehicle production

In Copenhagen several vehicles are assessed. The SUV FC is compared to the SUV

diesel and the SUV petrol, a BEV and a PHEV. In terms of the production of the

vehicles the SUV FC has the highest impacts regarding the GWP, followed by the

BEV and the PHEV. This is mainly due to the FC (platinum) and the battery of the


Project no: 98/124 29.10.2015

278727

BEV and PHEV. The conventional vehicles have the lowest impacts in the production

phase. Again the more intensive production phase shifts burden from the locally

emission free use phase to the production phase.

9.2.3 Life cycle

The life cycle includes the production phase of the vehicles, the fuel supply and the

use phase. In Copenhagen only consumption measurements for the SUV FC are

available, which are at 1.28 kg H2/100 km. As there are no measurements for the

other vehicles, the NEDC values are used for comparison reasons, which are

0.95 kg H2/100 km for the SUV FC, 6.8 l/100 km for the SUV petrol, 5.4 l/100 km for

the SUV diesel, 16.9 kWh/100 km and 5.0 l/100 km for the PHEV and

14.3 kWh/100 km for the BEV.

When the SUV FC is compared with the SUV diesel and petrol using H2 produced

with today’s Danish electricity mix the SUV FC shows higher impacts regarding the

GWP than the conventional vehicles. When the H2 is produced with 100% RE the

SUV FC (0.133 kg CO2-Equiv./km) has savings of 43% compared to the SUV petrol

(0.234 kg CO2-Equiv./km) and 38% compared to SUV diesel (0.214 kg CO2-

Equiv./km) over a lifetime of 150,000 km. The break-even point of the SUV FC for

this scenario is around 50,000 km. This means that here the higher impacts of the

production phase are compensated because of the lower impacts in the use phase.

The comparison with the BEV (0.111 kg CO2-Equiv./km) and the PHEV

(0.130 kg CO2-Equiv./km) was carried out using the 100% RE mix. In this case all

electric propelled vehicles are in the same range with the BEV at the lowest. It has to

be mentioned that the dimensioning of currently available models of BEVs and

PHEVs vary in the sizing of drivetrain components (e.g. energy content of battery

systems), energy consumption and in the case of the PHEVs also in the

management of propulsion modes. Therefore, the results presented here are

intended to show the magnitudes of the GWP of the vehicle concepts. Furthermore,

the SUV FC and the BEV are not directly comparable due to the limited driving range

of the BEV. A reliable comparison of the vehicle concepts requires an assessment of

specific use cases and same quality of real measured use profiles, like mileages and

energy consumption.


Project no: 99/124 29.10.2015

278727

9.3 Summary

Generally the FC vehicles show a clearly better environmental performance than

conventional vehicles when using green H2. Using H2 from wind power, a GWP

reduction of up to 83% is possible for a FC taxi compared to a diesel taxi. When H2 is

produced with 100% renewables energy, the SUV FC has savings of up to 43%

compared to conventional powertrains. With fossil based H2 produced in a SMR they

might be better, depending on the actual boundaries, driving conditions and

comparison vehicles. The comparison with the BEV and the PHEV can only be

answered clearly if the use profiles and mileages are clarified. The environmental

profile of the PHEV for example depends on the share of electric drive which

depends on the use profile. The BEV depends also on the use profile. If it is used for

urban areas only with limited mileage and less use time it has less environmental

impact compared to a FC vehicle. However, a London taxi for example may be driven

24/7 by 3 drivers in shifts. This situation is something a BEV is not capable of.

Another advantage of the FC vehicles is the locally emission free use phase. This is

especially important for heavily polluted metropolitan areas like London. However,

there is a shift of burden from the use phase to the production of the vehicles and the

H2 production, which has to be examined further in detail.


Project no: 100/124 29.10.2015

278727

10 References

ADAC e.V. (2015a). Autodatenbank - Ford Focus Electric.

https://www.adac.de/infotestrat/autodatenbank/detail.aspx?KFZID=238074&info=

Ford+Focus+Electric+. Accessed 02 Sep 2015

ADAC e.V. (2015b). Autodatenbank - Renault Fluence Z.E.


Renault+Fluence+Z.E.+Expression+%2812+-+13%29. Accessed 02 Sep 2015

ADAC e.V. (2015c). Autodatenbank - VW e-Golf.


VW+e-Golf+. Accessed 02 Sep 2015

Adam Opel AG (2011). Opel Ampera, Rüsselsheim, Germany.

Air Products (2015). SmartFuel® hydrogen supply options.

http://www.airproducts.com/industries/Energy/Hydrogen-

Energy/Transportation.aspx

Anderman, M. (2012). Battery Technologies.

Automobile Catalog (2015). 2010 LTI TX4 performance analysis (up to middle 2010

for Europe ). http://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/2010/338750/lti_tx4.html.

Accessed 24 Aug 2015

Azevedo, L.; Pierre-Olivier, R.; Margnib, M.; Van Zelm, R.; Deschênesb, L.; Mark, A.

and Huijbregtsa, J. (2014). Endpoint characterization factors for terrestrial

acidification, LC-IMPACT.

Baptista, P.; Ribau, J.; Bravo, J.; Silva, C.; Adcock, P.; Kells, A. (2010). Fuel Cell

Hybrid Taxi Well to Wheel Life Cycle Analysis. World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol.

4:798–803.

Barenschee, E. P. (2010). Wie baut man Li-Ionen- batterien? Welche

Herausforderungen sind noch zu lösen?, Munich, Germany.

Baumann, H. & Tillman, A., (2004). The Hitchhiker’s Guide to LCA: An orientation in

Life Cycle Assessment Methodology and Application. Studentlitteratur Sweden.

Bhandari, R.; Trudewind, C. A.; Zapp, P. (2013). Life cycle assessment of hydrogen

production via electrolysis - a review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 85, 151-163.

BMW Group (2013). BMW i3.


Project no: 101/124 29.10.2015

278727

Buchert, M.; Jenseit, W.; Merz, C.; Schüler, D. (2011). Ökobilanz zum „Recycling von

Lithium-Ionen-Batterien“ (LithoRec), Freiburg, Germany.

Cetinkaya, E.; Dincer, I.; Naterer. G.F. (2012). Life cycle assessment of various

hydrogen production Methods. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 37,

2071-2080.

Daimler AG (2015). Mercedes-Benz models with environmental certificates.

http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-1312394-1-1312442-1-0-0-0-0-0-8-0-0-0-0-0-

0-0-0.html. Accessed 12 March 2014

Dufour, J.; Serrano, D. P.; Gálvez, J. L.; González, A.; Soria, E.; Fierro, J.L.G.

(2012). Life-cycle performance of indirect biomass gasification as a green

alternative to steam methane reforming for hydrogen production. International

Journal of Hydrogen Energy 37, 1173-1183.

Dufour, J.; Serrabim, D.P.; Gálvez, J. L.; Moreno, J.; García, C. (2009). Life Cycle

assessment of process for hydrogen production. Environmental feasibility and

reduction of greenhouse gases emissions. International Journal of Hydrogen

Energy, 34, 1370-1376.

Dynetek Industries Limited (2006). H2 Tanks Dynetek – Specifications, Alberta,

Canada.

Ecoinvent Database (2015). Swiss Centre for Life-Cycle Inventories. Dübendorf,

Switzerland. http://www.ecoinvent.org.

Edwards, R.; Larivé, J.-F.; Beziat, J.-C. (2011). Well-to-wheels Analysis of Future

Automotive Fuels and Powertrains in the European Context, Well-to-Tank Report

Version 3c, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy

and Transport.

Energinet.dk (2015). RE generation. Electricity generation from wind turbines is the

largest source of renewable energy in the Danish electricity supply.

http://energinet.dk/EN/KLIMA-OG-MILJOE/Miljoerapportering/VE-

produktion/Sider/default.aspx. Accessed 24 Aug 2015

Eriksson M.; Ahlgren, S. (2013). LCAs of petrol and diesel a literature review. Report

2013:058 ISSN 1654-9406, Uppsala, Sweden.

European Aluminium Association (2013). Aluminium Recycling in LCA, Brussels,

Belgium.


Project no: 102/124 29.10.2015

278727

European Community (2000). Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and

of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles. DIRECTIVE

2000/53/EC

European Community (2006). DIRECTIVE 2006/66/EC OF THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 6 September 2006 on batteries and

accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive

91/157/EEC. Directive 2006/66/EC

Faria, R.; Marques, P.; Moura, P.; Freire, F.; Delgado, J. and de Almeida, A. T. 2013.

Impact of the electricity mix and use profile in the life-cycle assessment of electric

vehicles. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 24(0):271–287.

Ford (2013). Ford Focus Electric, Brentwood, Essex, England.

Gaines, L.; Cuenca, R. (2000). Costs of Lithium-Ion Batteries for Vehicles, Argonne,

Illinois, USA.

Gaines, L.; Dunn J. (2012). Comparison of Li-Ion Battery Recycling Processes by

Life-Cycle Analysis, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Gao, L.; Winfield, Z. C. (2012). Life Cycle Assessment of Environmental and

Economic Impacts of Advanced Vehicles. Energies 5(12):605–620.

doi: 10.3390/en5030605

Garraín, D.; Lechón, Y. (2014). Exploratory environmental impact assessment of the

manufacturing and disposal stages of a new PEM fuel cell. International Journal

of Hydrogen Energy 39(4):1769–1774. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.11.095

Granovskii, M.; Dincer, I.; Rosen, M. A. (2006). Economic and environmental

comparison of conventional, hybrid, electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

Journal of Power Sources 159(2):1186–1193.

doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2005.11.086

Group Lotus PLC (2015). Case Study: Hydrogen Fuel Cell Taxi. Zero emission fuel

cell taxi. http://www.lotuscars.com/gb/engineering/case-study-hydrogen-fuel-cell-

taxi. Accessed 24 Aug 2015

H2moves Scandinavia (2013). FINAL TECHNICAL REPORTING. 5th and last

reporting period.


Project no: 103/124 29.10.2015

278727

Heyne, D. (2013). Ford C-Max Plug-in-Hybrid im Fahrbericht. http://www.auto-motor-

und-sport.de/fahrberichte/ford-c-max-plug-in-hybrid-ueberzeugend-auch-mit-

doppelherz-7483297.html. Accessed 26 Sep 2013

Hussain, M. M.; Dincer, I.; Li, X. (2007). A preliminary life cycle assessment of PEM

fuel cell powered automobiles. Applied Thermal Engineering 27(13):2294–2299.

doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2007.01.015

Hydrogen Link Denmark (2013). National Network for Advancing Hydrogen

Transportation. http://www.hydrogenlink.net/eng/

Hydrogen Transport in European Cities (HyTEC) Website. www.hy-tec.eu. Accessed

10 March 2014

Hyundai Motor Deutschland GmbH (2013a). Hyundai ix35, Offenbach, Germany.

Hyundai Motor Deutschland GmbH (2013b). ix35 FCEV. Wasserstoffbetriebenes

Brennstoffzellenfahrzeug, Offenbach, Germany.

INFRAS AG (2014). HBEFA - Handbook Emission Factors for Road Transport, Bern,

Switzerland.

Intelligent Energy Ltd. (2015). Intelligent Energy. http://www.intelligent-energy.com/.

Accessed 24 Aug 2015

International Battery Inc. (2010). Lithium Nickel Cobalt Manganese Oxide. Material

Safety Data Sheet, Allentown, Pennsylvania, USA.

Ishihara, K.; Kihira, N.; Terada, N.; Iwahori, T. (1999). Environmental burdens of

Large Lithium-Ion Batteries Developed in a Japanese National Project, Tokyo,

Japan.

ISO (2006a). Environmental management - life cycle assessment - Principles and

framework(14040). Accessed 19 Feb 2014

ISO (2006b). Environmental management - life cycle assessment - Requirements

and guidelines(14044). Accessed 05 Dec 2013

Keesom, B.; Blieszner, J.; Unnasch, S. (2012). EU Pathway Study: Life Cycle

Assessment of Crude Oils in a European Context, Executive Summary, Jacobs

Consultancy, Calgary, Canada.

Kintner-Meyer, M.; Schneider, K. and Pratt, R. 2007. Impacts assessment of plug-in

hybrid vehicles on electric utilities and regional U.S. power grids – Part 1:


Project no: 104/124 29.10.2015

278727

Technical analysis. Available at:

http://energyenvironment.pnnl.gov/ei/pdf/PHEV_Feasibility_Analysis_Part1.pdf

Kokam Co., L. (2005). Material Safety Data Sheet. Superior Lithium Polymer Battery,

Gayagok-myeon, South Korea.

Koroneos, C.; Dompros, A.; Roumbas, G.; Moussiopoulos, N. (2004). Life cycle

assessment of hydrogen fuel production processes. International Journal of

Hydrogen Energy 29, 1443-1450.

Lindegger, M.; Biner, H.-P.; Evéquoz, B.; Salathé, D. (2009). Economic viability,

applications and limits of efficient permanent magnet motors, Gümlingen,

Switzerland.

Lozanovski, A.; Schuller, O.; Faltenbacher, M. (2011). FC-HyGuide - Guidance

Document for performing LCAs on Fuel Cells and H2 Technologies.

Manish, S.; Banerjee, R. (2008). Comparison of biohydrogen production processes

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 33, 279 – 286.

McKinsey & Company (2010). 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.

Meneses, M.; Pasqualino, J. C. and Castells, F. (2010). Environmental assessment

of urban wastewater reuse: Treatment alternatives and applications.

Chemosphere 81: 266–272

Merino Azcárraga, J.M. (ed.) (2006). Hidrógeno y energias renovables: Nuevas

tecnologías para la sostenibilidad. Parque Tecnológico de Bizkaia: Tecnalia,

ISBN 84-609-8899-6.

Nissan (2013). Der neue Nissan LEAF. http://www.nissan.de/DE/de/vehicle/electric-

vehicles/leaf/prices-and-equipment/prices-and-specifications/model-

details.106541_105000_105302.html. Accessed 26 Sep 2013

Notter, D. A.; Kouravelou, K.; Karachalios, T.; Daletou, M. K.; Haberland, N. T.

(2015). Life cycle assessment of PEM FC applications: electric mobility and μ-

CHP. Energy Environ. Sci. 8(7):1969–1985. doi: 10.1039/c5ee01082a

Pehnt, M. (2001). Life-cycle assessment of fuel cell stacks. International Journal of

Hydrogen Energy(26):91–101.


Project no: 105/124 29.10.2015

278727

Pehnt, M. (2002a). Energierevolution Brennstoffzelle? Perspektiven, Fakten,

Anwendungen. Erlebnis Wissenschaft, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany.

Pehnt, M. (2002b). Ganzheitliche Bilanzierung von Brennstoffzellen in der Energie-

und Verkehrstechnik, Als Ms. gedr. Energietechnik, vol 476. VDI-Verl.,

Düsseldorf, Germany.

Pehnt, M. (2003a). Assessing future energy and transport systems: the case of fuel

cells. Part I: Methodological Aspects. The International Journal of Life Cycle

Assessment (8(5)).

Pehnt, M. (2003b). Assessing future energy and transport systems: the case of fuel

cells. Part II: Environmental Performance. The International Journal of Life Cycle

Assessment (8(6)):365–378.

Pehnt, M. (2003c). Life-cycle analysis of fuel cell system components. In: Vielstich W

(ed) Handbook of Fuel Cells. Fundamentals, Technology and Applications, vol 4.

John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, pp 1293–1317.

Perimenis, A.; Majer, S.; Zech, K.; Holland, M.; Müller-Langer, F. (2010). Lifecycle

Assessment of Transportation Fuels, Deliverable D5 (WP 4 report), German

Biomass Research Centre, Leipzig, Germany.

PRé Consultants. 2015. B.V., Amersfoort, The Netherlands. http://www.pre-

sustainability.com/simapro.

Renault (2013). Renault Fluence Z.E. http://www.renault-

preislisten.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Broschuere_Fluence_ZE.pdf. Accessed 26

Sep 2013

Ruiz, P.; Vega, L.F.; Jiménez, C.; Arxer, M.M.; Rausa, A. (2015). Hydrogen:

applications and safety considerations, 200 pages. ISBN: 978-84-606-5978-5,

L.D: B 4702-2015.

Schäfer, T. (2009). Li-Tec Battery - made in Germany! Large scale Li-ion batteries for

industrial and automotive applications.

Schoenung S. 2002. Hydrogen technical analysis on matters being considered by the

international energy agency – Transportation infrastructure” Proceedings of the

2002 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review, NREL/CP-610-32405. Available at:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/32405b13.pdf.


Project no: 106/124 29.10.2015

278727

Schöttle, M. (2014). In neuem Lithium-Ionen-Akku-Ranking liegt Panasonic/Sanyo

auf Platz 1. http://www.springerprofessional.de/in-neuem-lithium-ionen-akku-

ranking-liegt-panasonic_sanyo-auf-platz-1/4969160.html. Accessed 26 Sep 2013

Simons, A.; Bauer, C. (2015). A life-cycle perspective on automotive fuel cells.

Applied Energy. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.02.049

Spath, P.L.; Mann, M.K. (2001). Life Cycle assessment of hydrogen production via

natural gas reforming. 24 pags. NREL/TP-570-27637

Suleman, F. (2014). Master thesis: Comparative Study of Various Hydroge

production methods for vehicles, Ontario, Canada.

Susmozas, A.; Iribarren, D.; Dufour, J. (2013). Life-cycle performance of indirect

biomass gasification as a green alternative to steam methane reforming for

hydrogen production. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 38, 996-972.

Tanaka, Y. (2015). Toyota's next generation vehicle strategy and Fuel Cell Vehicle

MIRAIS's Development, Toyota City, Japan.

The London Taxi Company (2010). TX4 Options & Specification.

thinkstep AG (1992-2015). GaBi ts. Software-System and Databases for Life Cycle

Engineering, Stuttgart, Echterdingen, Germany.

Toyota (2013). Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid.

http://www.toyota.de/cars/new_cars/prius-plugin/index.tmex. Accessed 26 Sep

2013

Wang, M.; Lee, H.; Molburg, J. (2004). Allocation of Energy Use in Petroleum

Refineries to Petroleum. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessments, 9

(1), 34-44.

Wulf, C.; Kaltschmitt, M. (2012). Life cycle assessment of hydrogen supply chain with

special attention to hydrogen refuelling stations. International Journal of

Hydrogen Energy 37, 16711-16721.

Vermeiren, P.; Moreels, J.; Claes, A. and Beckers, H. (2009). Electrode diaphragm

electrode assembly for alkaline water electrolysers. International Journal of

Hydrogen Energy 34(23): 9305–9315.

Volkswagen AG (2009). Der TSI-Motor. Umweltprädikat – Hintergrundbericht,

Wolfsburg, Germany,

Volkswagen AG (2014). Der e-Golf. Umweltprädikat - Hintergrundbericht, Wolfsburg


Project no: 107/124 29.10.2015

278727

Volkswagen AG (2015). Environmental Commendations.

http://en.volkswagen.com/en/company/responsibility/environmental_commendati

ons.html. Accessed 21 Aug 2015


Project no: 108/124 29.10.2015

278727

11 Annex

11.1 London results

11.1.1 Hydrogen refuelling stations

11.1.1.1 Acidification Potential

Figure 37 shows the contribution to the acidification potential category, of different

phases of the energy dispensed using the HRS, HRS (Only wind) and diesel Station.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

HR

S

HR

S (

On

lyW

ind

)

Die

se

l

Ac

idif

ica

tio

n P

ote

nti

al

[kg

SO

2-E

qu

iv./

MJ

]

Acidification London

Transport

Delivery

Station

Compression

Production

Figure 37: Contributions of the different phases of fuel production for the London case, to the Acidification Category, measured in kg of SO2-Equiv../ MJ of energy.

The LCIA shows that the whole life cycle of dispensing 1MJ of hydrogen using the

London HRS emits 0.00025 kg of SO2-Equiv.. Compared to the diesel and HRS -

(only wind) station, corresponding to 59% and 21% of the emissions of the base case

scenario, respectively.

In the case of the HRS, the H2 production is responsible of the 86.8%, the transport

0.52% the station itself 6.39%, and the delivery 6.27% In the case of the HRS – Only

wind; emissions are also directly associated to the fraction of the electricity used for

the stages, with the 80.7%, 7.90%, 9.84% and 1.58% corresponding to the

production, compression, station and delivery, respectively. In the case of the diesel


Project no: 109/124 29.10.2015

278727

station, 95% of the emissions are associated to the production, 4.87% to the

transportation 2.68% to the station itself and 0.089% to the delivery of the fuel.

11.1.1.2 Eutrophication Potential

Figure 38 shows the contribution to EP category, of different phases of the energy

dispensed using the HRS, HRS (only wind) and diesel Station.


London HRS emits 0.00015 kg of PO4-Equiv. Compared to the diesel and HRS -

(only wind) station, corresponding to 14.64% and 11.92% of the emissions of the

base case scenario, respectively.

In the case of the HRS, the production is responsible of the 90%, the transport

0.23%, the station itself 6.31%, and the delivery 3.46%. The EP is also heavily

influenced by the electricity used in operation and liquefaction phase of the hydrogen,

accounting for 0.00015 kg of PO4-Equiv./MJ of H2, from this 13% is associated to the

electricity used in the plant and the other 85%, to the energy used for liquefaction.

In the case of the HRS – Only wind; emissions are also directly associated to the

fraction of the electricity used for the stages, with the 87.8%, 8.64%, 1.84 % and

1.73% corresponding to the production, compression, station and delivery,

respectively. Finally, in the case of the diesel station, 91.10% of the emissions are

associated to the production, mainly influenced by the oil, heavy fuel, electricity and

naphta, 8.51% to the transportation 1.52% to the station itself and 0.19% to the

delivery of the fuel.


Project no: 110/124 29.10.2015

278727

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

Petr

ol

Ele

ctr

icity -

Go g

reen

H2

Go

gre

en –

66

.5%

Eu

tro

ph

ica

tio

n P

ote

nti

al

[g P

ho

sp

ha

te-E

qu

iv./

MJ

]

Eutrophication London

Transport

Delivery

Station

Compression

Production

Figure 38: Contributions of the different phases of fuel production for the London case, to the EP Category, measured in kg of PO4-Equiv./ MJ of energy.

11.1.1.3 Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential

Figure 39 depicts the contribution to POCP, of the different phases of the energy

dispensed using the HRS, HRS (Only wind) and diesel Station.


London HRS emits 0.000011 kg of Ethene-Equiv. compared to the diesel and HRS -

(only wind) station, corresponding to 76.69% and 27.98% of the emissions of the

base case scenario,respectively).


Project no: 111/124 29.10.2015

278727

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

HR

S

HR

S (

On

lyW

ind

)

Die

sel

Ph

oto

ch

em

. O

zo

ne

Cre

ati

on

Po

ten

tia

l [g

Eth

en

e-E

qu

iv./

MJ

]

Photochemical Oxidation London

Station

Compression

Production

Figure 39: Contributions of the different phases of fuel production for the London case, to the POCP, measured in kg of Ethene-Equiv./ MJ of energy.

In the case of the London HRS, the production is responsible of the 83.8%, the

transport 0.32% the station itself 9.99%, and the delivery 5.88%.

Photochemical reactions of NOx and Non Volatile Organic Compounds (NMVOCs)

produce ozone, which is health hazardous to humans and are mainly influenced by

the use of natural gas and electricity from fossil fuels. In this case the 0.000009kg of

Ethene-Equiv. are related to the operation phase by the use of gas in an 8% and the

use of electricity in a 12%. The electricity employed for liquefaction explains the

remaining 80%.

For comparative purposes, in the case of the HRS – Only wind, emissions are also

directly associated to the fraction of the electricity used for the stages, with the

82.3%, 8.10%, 8.00 % and 1.62% corresponding to the production, compression,

station and delivery, respectively. In the case of the diesel station, 94.01% of the

emissions are associated to the production, mainly influenced by the oil, heavy fuel,

electricity and naphta, 0.03% to the transportation 2.69% to the station itself and

3.14% to the delivery of the fuel.


Project no: 112/124 29.10.2015

278727

11.1.2 Vehicles

Production

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

FC

TX

4

Die

se

l T

X4

Acid

ific

ati

on

Po

ten

tial [k

g S

O2

-Eq

uiv

.]


H2 tank

Power electronics

Electric motor

Battery system

Fuel cell system


Conventional Car

Figure 40: Comparison of the production of a London diesel TX4 and an FC TX4.

0

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

FC

TX

4

Die

se

l T

X4

Eu

tro

ph

ica

tio

n P

ote

nti

al

[kg

Ph

os

ph

ate

-Eq

uiv

.]


H2 tank

Power electronics

Electric motor

Battery system

Fuel cell system


Conventional Car



Project no: 113/124 29.10.2015

278727

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

FC

TX

4

Die

se

l T

X4

Ph

oto

ch

em

. O

zo

ne

Cre

ati

on

Po

ten

tia

l [k

g E

the

ne

-Eq

uiv

.]


H2 tank

Power electronics

Electric motor

Battery system

Fuel cell system


Conventional Car


Life cycle (Min consumption)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Ta

xi F

C (

min

)

Ta

xi F

C (

min

)(w

ind

po

we

r)

Ta

xi D

iesel

(min

)Ac

idif

ica

tio

n P

ote

nti

al [k

g S

O2-E

qu

iv.]

Comparison life cycle of vehicles

Use phase

Maintenance

Production



Project no: 114/124 29.10.2015

278727

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Ta

xi F

C (

min

)

Ta

xi F

C (

min

)(w

ind

po

we

r)

Ta

xi D

iesel

(min

)

Eu

tro

ph

ica

tio

n P

ote

nti

al

[kg

Ph

os

ph

ate

-Eq

uiv

.]


Use phase

Maintenance

Production


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Ta

xi F

C (

min

)

Ta

xi F

C (

min

)(w

ind

po

we

r)

Ta

xi D

iesel

(min

)Ph

oto

ch

em

. O

zo

ne

Cre

ati

on

Po

ten

tia

l[k

g E

the

ne

-Eq

uiv

.]


Use phase

Maintenance

Production



Project no: 115/124 29.10.2015

278727

Life cycle (Max consumption)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Ta

xi F

C (

ma

x)

Ta

xi F

C (

ma

x)

(win

d p

ow

er)

Ta

xi D

iesel

(max)Ac

idif

ica

tio

n P

ote

nti

al [k

g S

O2-E

qu

iv.]


Use phase

Maintenance

Production

Figure 46: Comparison of the FC and diesel taxi combining the max consumption with fossil and green H2.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Ta

xi F

C (

ma

x)

Ta

xi F

C (

ma

x)

(win

d p

ow

er)

Ta

xi D

iesel

(max)

Eu

tro

ph

ica

tio

n P

ote

nti

al

[kg

Ph

os

ph

ate

-Eq

uiv

.]


Use phase

Maintenance

Production



Project no: 116/124 29.10.2015

278727

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Ta

xi F

C (

ma

x)

Ta

xi F

C (

ma

x)

(win

d p

ow

er)

Ta

xi D

iesel

(max)P

ho

toc

he

m. O

zo

ne

Cre

ati

on

Po

ten

tia

l [k

g E

the

ne

-Eq

uiv

.]


Use phase

Maintenance

Production


11.2 Copenhagen results

11.2.1 Hydrogen refuelling stations

11.2.1.1 Hydrogen production - Environmental impact of the HRS in 2014 and 2023

11.2.1.1.1 Acidification Potential

Regarding the AP Category, the HRS with today’s current mix emits 7.60E-4 kg of

SO2-Equiv., the 100% RE certified scenario emits 0.00023 kg of SO2-Equiv.and the

go-green scenario 0.0002 kg of SO2-Equiv.In this case, the reduction of 69.5% of the

emissions is due to the source of electricity while only the remaining 4.09% is due to

the increase of efficiency.


Project no: 117/124 29.10.2015

278727

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Da

nis

h m

ix

–5

8%

10

0 R

E –

58

%

Go

gre

en

–66

.5%

Ac

idif

ica

tio

n P

ote

nti

al

[g S

O2

-Eq

uiv

./M

J]

Acidification CPH

Delivery

Station

Compression

Production

Figure 49: Contribution of the different efficiency ratios and energy sources to the AP for the three electricity mixes proposed for Denmark.


Concerning the EP Category, the HRS with today’s current mix emits 0.00037 of

PO4-Equiv., the 100% RE certified case emits 0.000097 kg of PO4-Equiv., and the

go-green scenario 0.000085kg of PO4-Equiv., The reduction of 73.5% of the

emissions is due to the source of electricity and the remaining 3.27% to the increase

of efficiency.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Da

nis

h m

ix

–5

8%

10

0 R

E –

58

%

Go

gre

en

–6

6.5

%

Eu

tro

ph

ica

tio

n P

ote

nti

al

[kg

Ph

osp

ha

te-E

qu

iv./

MJ

]

Eutrophication CPH

Delivery

Station

Compression

Production

Figure 50: Contribution of the different efficiency ratios and energy sources to the EP for the three electricity mixes proposed for Denmark.


Project no: 118/124 29.10.2015

278727


Finally, when analysing the POCP Category, the HRS with today’s current mix today

emits 0.000033 kg of PO4-Equiv.,, the 100% RE scenario emits 0.000012 kg of PO4-

Equiv., and the Go green Scenario 0.000011 kg of PO4-Equiv., the reduction of

62.87% of the emissions is due to the source of electricity and the remaining 1.74%

to the increase of efficiency of the electrolyser.

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

Dan

ish m

ix

–5

8%

10

0 R

E –

58

%

Go

gre

en

–6

6.5

%Ph

oto

ch

em

. O

zo

ne

Cre

ati

on

Po

ten

tia

l [g

Eth

en

e-E

qu

iv./

MJ

]

Photochemical Oxidation CPH

Delivery

Station

Compression

Production

Figure 51: Contribution of the different efficiency ratios and energy sources to the POCP for the three electricity mixes proposed for Denmark.

11.2.1.4 Comparison of HRS with petrol and ECS for Copenhagen

11.2.1.4.1 Acidification Potential


base case for Copenhagen (H2 go-green η 66.5%), emits 0.0002 kg of SO2-Equiv.

Delivering electricity (go – green scenario) emits 0.00014 kg of SO2-Equiv. and

delivering 1 MJ of petrol emits 0.00019 kg of SO2-Equiv., representing 65.8% and

93.6%, respectively, compared to the base case (Figure 52). The differences

between the hydrogen and electrical stations are mainly due to the amount of MJ per

MJ of energy delivered, whereas the difference between petrol and the electricity


Project no: 119/124 29.10.2015

278727

sources for the scenarios under study are due to the vented emissions of NOx, SOx,

NMVOCs, etc. during their production process.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Petr

ol

Ele

ctr

icity -

Go g

reen

H2

Go

gre

en

–6

6.5

%

Ac

idif

ica

tio

n P

ote

nti

al

[kg

SO

2-E

qu

iv./

MJ

]Acidification CPH

Transportation

Delivery

Station

Compression

Production

Figure 52: Contributions of the different phases of fuel production for the Copenhagen case, to the AP Category, measured in kg of SO2-Equiv./ MJ of energy.

In the case of the HRS, the production of the hydrogen, the compression, the station

itself and the delivery are responsible for 87.04%, 8.64%, 2.58.% and 1.72%,

respectively. For the petrol, production accounts for 98.16% of the total contribution,

while transportation for the 1.7% and station and delivery are responsible for 0.02%

and 0.04%, respectively.

When delivering 1 MJ of electricity using the go green grid mix forecasted for

Denmark, the production, transmission and station itself are responsible for 87.68%,

2.32% and 0.94, respectively. As expected, the other most important aspect is the

charging loses, contributing to the 9.07% of the total SO2-Equiv. emissions.


For this impact category the LCIA shows that the whole life cycle of dispensing 1MJ

of hydrogen using the base case for Copenhagen (H2 Go-green η - 66.5%), emits

0.000085 kg of PO4-Equiv., delivering electricity (go – green scenario) emits

0.000057 kg of PO4-Equiv. while delivering 1MJ of petrol emits 0.000025 kg of PO4-


Project no: 120/124 29.10.2015

278727

Equiv., representing 68.16% and 29.4%, respectively, compared to the base case

Figure 53)

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

Petr

ol

Ele

ctr

icity -

Go g

reen

H2G

o

gre

en

–6

6.5

%

Eu

tro

ph

ica

tio

n P

ote

nti

al

[g P

ho

sp

ha

te-E

qu

iv./

MJ

]Eutrophication CPH

Transport

Delivery

Station

Compression

Production

Figure 53: Contributions of the different phases of fuel production for the Copenhagen case, to the EP Category, measured in kg of PO4-Equiv./ MJ of energy.

For the HRS, the production of the hydrogen, the compression, the station itself and

the delivery are responsible for 88.98%, 8.85%, 0.39% and 1.76%, respectively. For

the petrol case, production accounts for the 96.07%, transportation for the 3.62%,

while station and delivery are responsible for 0.15% and 0.14%, respectively. Finally,

when delivering 1 MJ of electricity using the go green grid mix forecasted for


2.31% and 1.26%, respectively, while charging loses contributes to 9.04%, of the

PO4-Equiv. emissions.


For this impact category we have obtained that the base case for Copenhagen (H2

go-green η 66.5%), emits 0.000016 kg of Ethene-Equiv., delivering electricity (go –

green scenario) emits 0.0000078 kg of Ethene-Equiv. and delivering 1MJ of petrol

emits 0.000011 kg of Ethene-Equiv., representing 67.2% and 94.1%, respectively,

compared to the base case (Figure 54).


Project no: 121/124 29.10.2015

278727

0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

0.012

0.014

Petr

ol

Ele

ctr

icity -

Go g

reen

H2

Go

gre

en

–6

6.5

%

Ph

oto

ch

em

. O

zo

ne

Cre

ati

on

Po

ten

tia

l [g

Eth

en

e-E

qu

iv./

MJ

]

Photochemical Oxidation CPH

Transportation

Delivery

Station

Compression

Production

Figure 54: Contributions of the different phases of fuel production for the Copenhagen case, to the POCP Category, measured in kg of Ethene-Equiv./ MJ of energy.

In the case of the HRS, the production of the hydrogen, the compression, the station

itself and the delivery are responsible for 87.50%, 8.70%, 2.05% and 1.73%,

respectively. For the petrol case, the production leads the overall emissions 99.00%

(as expected for a very polluting process), while transportation contributes to the

0.93% and station and delivery are responsible for 0.031% and 0.03%, respectively.

Finally, when delivering 1 MJ of electricity using the go green grid mix forecasted for


2.31% and 1.16%, The charging loses that corresponds to the 9.05%, of the Ethene-

Equiv. emissions.


Project no: 122/124 29.10.2015

278727

11.2.2 Vehicles

Production

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

SU

V F

C

BE

V(2

4 k

Wh)

SU

V P

etr

ol

SU

V D

iese

l

PH

EV

(6 k

Wh)

Ac

idif

ica

tio

n P

ote

nti

al [k

g S

O2

-Eq

uiv

.]


H2 tank

Power electronics


Battery system

Fuel cell system


Conventional Car


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

SU

V F

C

BE

V(2

4 k

Wh)

SU

V P

etr

ol

SU

V D

iese

l

PH

EV

(6 k

Wh)

Eu

tro

ph

ica

tio

n P

ote

nti

al

[kg

Ph

osp

ha

te-E

qu

iv.]


H2 tank

Power electronics


Battery system

Fuel cell system


Conventional Car



Project no: 123/124 29.10.2015

278727

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SU

V F

C

BE

V(2

4 k

Wh)

SU

V P

etr

ol

SU

V D

iese

l

PH

EV

(6 k

Wh

)Ph

oto

ch

em

. O

zo

ne

Cre

ati

on

Po

ten

tia

l [k

g E

the

ne-E

qu

iv.]


H2 tank

Power electronics


Battery system

Fuel cell system


Conventional Car


Life cycle all scenarios (NEDC consumption)

0

50

100

150

200

250

SU

V F

C(D

K 2

01

4 m

ix)

SU

V F

C (

DK

20

14

100

% r

ene

w.)

BE

V (

24 k

Wh)

(DK

201

4 m

ix)

BE

V (

24kW

h)

(DK

201

4 1

00%

rene

w.)

PH

EV

(6

kW

h)

(DK

201

4 m

ix)

PH

EV

(6

kW

h)

(DK

201

4 1

00%

rene

w.)

SU

V P

etr

ol

SU

V D

iese

l

Ac

idif

ica

tio

n P

ote

nti

al [k

g S

O2

-Eq

uiv

.]


Use phase

Batterymaintenance

Production

Figure 58: Comparison of the SUV FC with all equivalent vehicles using H2 and electricity from 2014 Danish present and renewable electricity mix (NEDC consumption).


Project no: 124/124 29.10.2015

278727

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

SU

V F

C(D

K 2

01

4 m

ix)

SU

V F

C (

DK

20

14

100

% r

ene

w.)

BE

V (

24 k

Wh)

(DK

201

4 m

ix)

BE

V (

24kW

h)

(DK

201

4 1

00%

re

ne

w.)

PH

EV

(6

kW

h)

(DK

201

4 m

ix)

PH

EV

(6

kW

h)

(DK

201

4 1

00%

re

ne

w.)

SU

V P

etr

ol

SU

V D

iese

l

Eu

tro

ph

ica

tio

n P

ote

nti

al

[kg

Ph

os

ph

ate

-Eq

uiv

.]


Use phase

Batterymaintenance

Production


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

SU

V F

C(D

K 2

01

4 m

ix)

SU

V F

C (

DK

20

14

100

% r

ene

w.)

BE

V (

24 k

Wh)

(DK

201

4 m

ix)

BE

V (

24kW

h)

(DK

2014

10

0%

renew

.)

PH

EV

(6

kW

h)

(DK

201

4 m

ix)

PH

EV

(6

kW

h)

(DK

201

4 1

00%

re

ne

w.)

SU

V P

etr

ol

SU

V D

iese

l

Ph

oto

ch

em

. O

zo

ne

Cre

ati

on

Po

ten

tia

l [k

g E

the

ne

-Eq

uiv

.]


Use phase

Batterymaintenance

Production


hydrogen transport in european cities hytec - fch.europa.eu · roberta pacciani (matgas)2 laura...

Documents