Abstract
Purpose
The goal of this study was to provide a holistic, reliable, and transparent comparison of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCVs) regarding their environmental impacts (EI) and costs over their whole life cycle. The comprehensive knowledge about EI and costs forms the basis on which to decide which technology should be favored for the future of mobility.
Methods
Therefore, a holistic and transparent comparative life cycle assessment (LCA), using the ReCiPe 2016 method, and a life cycle costing were conducted. Special attention was paid to the fuel supply infrastructure for BEV and FCV as these have not been sufficiently considered in previous research. The required infrastructure was calculated for six million electric vehicles (EVs) and the EI and costs were allocated proportional on the functional unit of 1 km driven with an EV. Different scenarios regarding electricity mix, range of the BEV, and vehicle lifetime were calculated. In order to ensure transparency, all inventories and calculations were published in the attached Electronic supplementary material (ESM).
Results and discussion
Detailed results were presented for the impact categories global warming potential (GWP), human toxicity potential non-carcinogenic (HTPnc), surplus ore potential (SOP), and particulate matter formation potential (PMFP). Aggregated results for all midpoint impact categories of the ReCiPe method can be found in the ESM. It was shown that BEVs achieve lower EI than FCVs in most impact categories (e.g., GWP: BEV: 1.40E-01, FCV: 1.68E-01 kg CO2-eq./km) and that the total costs of ownership are as well lower for BEVs (68,900 € vs. 130,100 €). Further, it was found that the fuel supply infrastructure—without electricity supply—contributes a considerable amount to the overall impact per kilometer driven (e.g., 3.7% and 3.3% of the GWP for BEV and FCV, respectively).
Conclusions
Considering mid-size vehicles like the VW e-Golf, it was concluded that BEVs have today a better environmental and financial performance than FCVs. However, the range of the BEV is lower than the range of the FCV (200 vs. 530 km) and both technologies have different stages of maturity. Moreover, the study showed that the fuel supply infrastructure is an important contributor to the overall life cycle impacts and that it is therefore indispensable to include the infrastructure in LCA of electric vehicles. Based on the results, recommendations to utilize the advantage of both BEV (high energy efficiency, lower costs) and FCV (long-distance capability) were made.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
14 February 2020
The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. Electronic Supplementary Material 1 was incorrect. The correct version is linked in the online version of this correction.
Abbreviations
- BEV:
-
Battery electric vehicle
- BOP:
-
Balance of plant (control unit for the fuel cell)
- CAPEX:
-
Capital expenditures (investment costs)
- EI:
-
Environmental impacts
- EoL:
-
End of life
- EVs:
-
Electric vehicles
- FCVs:
-
Fuel cell vehicles
- FLH:
-
Full-load hours
- FSI:
-
Fuel supply infrastructure (chargers for BEVs and the hydrogen production and distribution in case of FCVs)
- GHG:
-
Greenhouse gases
- GWP:
-
Global warming potential
- HTPnc:
-
Human toxicity potential
- IC:
-
Impact categories
- ICEV:
-
Internal combustion engine vehicles
- LCA:
-
Life cycle assessment
- LCC:
-
Life cycle costing
- LCIA:
-
Life cycle impact assessment
- SOP:
-
Surplus ore potential
- PMFP:
-
Particulate matter formation potential
- SFT:
-
Surcharges, fees, and taxes, which has to be paid for electricity
- TCO:
-
Total cost of ownership
- WaM:
-
Wearing and maintenance
References
ABB (2018a) Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure: Terra multi-standard DC charging station 23. http://search-ext.abb.com/library/Download.aspx?DocumentID=4EVC301503-LFEN&LanguageCode=en&DocumentPartId=&Action=Launch. Accessed 17 May 2018
ABB (2018b) Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure: Terra multi-standard DC charging station 53. http://search-ext.abb.com/library/Download.aspx?DocumentID=4EVC204303-LFEN&LanguageCode=en&DocumentPartId=&Action=Launch. Accessed 17 May 2018
ABL (2018) Technisches Datenblatt WALLBOX eMH1. https://www.abl.de/global/downloads/datenblaetter/emh1-de/ABL_1W1101_D_a.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2018
ADAC (2018) Autokosten Frühjahr/Sommer 2018. Kostenübersicht für über 1.800 aktuelle Neuwagen-Modelle, München
Adolf J, Balzer C, Lois J, Schabla U, Fischedick M, Arnold K, Pastowski A, Schüwer D (2017) SHELL WASSERSTOFF-STUDIE: ENERGIE DER ZUKUNFT? Nachhaltige Mobilität durch Brennstoffzelle und H2
Aggeler D, Canales F, Zelaya H, La Parra D, Coccia A, Butcher N, Apeldoorn O (2010) Ultra-fast DC-charge infrastructures for EV-mobility and future smart grids. In: IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe (ISGT Europe), 2010: 11 - 13 Oct. 2010, Gothenburg, Sweden. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, pp 1–8
Ahmadi P, Kjeang E (2017) Realistic simulation of fuel economy and life cycle metrics for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Int. J. Energy Res. 41(5):714–727. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.3672
Asdrubali F, Baldinelli G, D’Alessandro F, Scrucca F (2015) Life cycle assessment of electricity production from renewable energies: Review and results harmonization. Renew Sust Energ Rev 42:1113–1122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.082
Bartolozzi I, Rizzi F, Frey M (2013) Comparison between hydrogen and electric vehicles by life cycle assessment: A case study in Tuscany, Italy. Appl. Energy 101:103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.03.021
Bauer C, Hofer J, Althaus H-J, Del Duce A, Simons A (2015) The environmental performance of current and future passenger vehicles: Life cycle assessment based on a novel scenario analysis framework. Appl Energy 157:871–883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.019
Bi Z, Song L, de KR, Mi CC, Keoleian GA (2015) Plug-in vs. wireless charging: Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions for an electric bus system. Appl. Energy 146:11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.02.031
Brakelmann H (2004) Netzverstärkungs-Trassen zur Übertragung von Windenergie: Freileitung oder Kabel?
Brunet J, Kotelnikova A, Ponssard J-P (2015) The deployment of BEV and FCEV in 2015. Ecole Polytechnique CNRS
Bubeck S, Tomaschek J, Fahl U (2016) Perspectives of electric mobility: Total cost of ownership of electric vehicles in Germany. Transp Policy 50:63–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.05.012
Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur (2017) BMVI - Startschuss für das Bundesprogramm Ladeinfrastruktur
Bundesnetzagentur (2016) Monitoringbericht 2016
Burkhardt J, Patyk A, Tanguy P, Retzke C (2016) Hydrogen mobility from wind energy - A life cycle assessment focusing on the fuel supply. Appl Energy 181:54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.104
Chardonnet C, Vos L d, Genoese F, Roig G, Giordano V, Rapoport S, Bart F, Lacroix T d, Ha T v, Genabet B, Lanoix J-C, Vanhoudt W (2017) Study on early business cases for H2 in energy storage and more broadly power to H2 applications, vol 228. FCH-JU, Brussels, Belgium
Cooney G, Hawkins TR, Marriott J (2013) Life Cycle Assessment of Diesel and Electric Public Transportation Buses. J Ind Ecol 451(7179):n/a–n/a. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12024
Daimler AG (2008) Environmental Certificate A-Class. http://www.kedaungsatryamotor.com/content/media_library/retailer/product/pc/a-class/a-class_cw169_overview_blueefficiency_0002_3961_de_09-2009.pdf. Accessed 14 May 2018
dena (2012) dena - Verteilnetzstudie. Ausbau - und Innovationsbedarf der Strom - verteilnetze in Deutschland bis 2030
Destatis (2017) Abfallbilanz (Abfallaufkommen/-verbleib, Abfallintensität, Abfallaufkommen nach Wirtschaftszweigen) - 2015
efacec (2016) HomeCharger. http://electricmobility.efacec.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CS195I1404C1_HC.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2018
Ekvall T, Assefa G, Björklund A, Eriksson O, Finnveden G (2007) What life-cycle assessment does and does not do in assessments of waste management. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 27(8):989–996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.02.015
Ellingsen LA-W, Majeau-Bettez G, Singh B, Srivastava AK, Valøen LO, Strømman AH (2014) Life Cycle Assessment of a Lithium-Ion Battery Vehicle Pack. J Ind Ecol 18(1):113–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12072
EnBW AG (2018) Stromnetz - Transport - Spannungsebenen. https://www.enbw.com/energie-entdecken/verteilung-und-transport/stromnetz/. Accessed 15 May 2018
Evangelisti S, Tagliaferri C, Brett DJL, Lettieri P (2017) Life cycle assessment of a polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell system for passenger vehicles. J Cleaner Prod 142:4339–4355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.159
Fernández RÁ, Cilleruelo FB, Martínez IV (2016) A new approach to battery powered electric vehicles. A hydrogen fuel-cell-based range extender system. Int J Hydrog Energy 41(8):4808–4819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.01.035
German Federal Government (2011) Regierungsprogramm Elektromobilität. https://www.bmbf.de/files/programm_elektromobilitaet(1).pdf. Accessed 08 May 2018
golftechnischedaten.de (2017) Golf 1.4 TSI BMT (125 ps) Comfortline 5-Türen. https://golftechnischedaten.de/golf-1-4-tsi-bmt-125-ps-comfortline-5-turen/. Accessed 27 Dec 2018
Graedel TE, Allwood J, Birat J-P, Buchert M, Hagelüken C, Reck BK, Sibley SF, Sonnemann G (2011) What Do We Know About Metal Recycling Rates? J Ind Ecol 15(3):355–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00342.x
Haddadian G, Khodayar M, Shahidehpour M (2015) Accelerating the Global Adoption of Electric Vehicles: Barriers and Drivers. The Elect J 28(10):53–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2015.11.011
Hagman J, Ritzén S, Stier JJ, Susilo Y (2016) Total cost of ownership and its potential implications for battery electric vehicle diffusion. Res Transp Bus Manag 18:11–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2016.01.003
Hawkins TR, Singh B, Majeau-Bettez G, Strømman AH (2013) Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles. J Ind Ecol 17(1):53–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x
Held M, Graf R, Wehner D, Eckert S, Faltenbacher M, Weidner S, Braune O (2016) Abschlussbericht: Bewertung der Praxistauglichkeit und Umweltwirkungen von Elektrofahrzeugen, Berlin
Helms H, Jöhrnes J, Hanusch J, Höpfner U, Lambrecht U, Pehnt M (2011) Ergebnisbericht UMBReLA, Heidelberg
Hirscher M (2010) Handbook of hydrogen storage. New materials for future energy storage. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim
Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PMF, Stam G, Verones F, Vieira M, Zijp M, Hollander A, van Zelm R (2016) ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(2):138–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1246-y
ISO (2006a) ISO 14040:2006, Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14040:ed-2:v1:en. Accessed 11 May 2018
ISO (2006b) ISO 14044:2006, Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14044:ed-1:v1:en. Accessed 11 May 2018
Kaltschmitt M, Streicher W (2009) Stromerzeugung aus Wasserkraft. In: Kaltschmitt M, Streicher W (eds) Regenerative Energien in Österreich: Grundlagen, Systemtechnik, Umweltaspekte, Kostenanalysen, Potenziale, Nutzung. Vieweg+Teubner, Wiesbaden, pp 59–94
Kara S, Li W, Sadjiva N (2017) Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Electrical Vehicles in Australia. Procedia CIRP 61:767–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.179
Kley F (2011) Ladeinfrastruktur für Elektrofahrzeuge: Entwicklung und Bewertung einer Ausbaustrategie auf Basis des Fahrverhaltens. Zugl.: Karlsruhe, KIT, Diss., 2011, Karlsruher Instituts für Technologie
Koj JC, Wulf C, Schreiber A, Zapp P (2017) Site-Dependent Environmental Impacts of Industrial Hydrogen Production by Alkaline Water Electrolysis. Energies 10(7):860. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10070860
Kopp M, Coleman D, Stiller C, Scheffer K, Aichinger J, Scheppat B (2017) Energiepark Mainz. Technical and economic analysis of the worldwide largest Power-to-Gas plant with PEM electrolysis. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42(19):13311–13320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.12.145
Kost C, Shammugam S, Jülch V, Nguyen H-T, Schlegl T (2018) Stromgestehungskosten erneuerbare Energien; Fraunhofer ISE. März. Freiburg, Germany, p 2018
LC-impact (2018) Methodology. http://lc-impact.eu/methodology-home. Accessed 14 Jun 2018
Lombardi L, Tribioli L, Cozzolino R, Bella G (2017) Comparative environmental assessment of conventional, electric, hybrid, and fuel cell powertrains based on LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22(12):1989–2006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1294-y
Lucas A, Alexandra Silva C, Costa Neto R (2012a) Life cycle analysis of energy supply infrastructure for conventional and electric vehicles. Energy Policy 41:537–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.015
Lucas A, Neto RC, Silva CA (2012b) Impact of energy supply infrastructure in life cycle analysis of hydrogen and electric systems applied to the Portuguese transportation sector. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 37(15):10973–10985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.04.127
Luo L, van der Voet E, Huppes G (2009) Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of bioethanol from sugarcane in Brazil. Renew Sust Energ Rev 13(6-7):1613–1619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2008.09.024
Maack (2008) Generation, of the energy carrier HYDROGEN: In context with electricity buffering generation through fuel cells
Mendoza J-MF, Josa A, Rieradevall J, Gabarrell X (2016) Environmental Impact of Public Charging Facilities for Electric Two-Wheelers. J. Ind. Ecol. 20(1):54–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12270
Mineralölwirtschaftsverband (2018) Monatlich aktualisierte Kraftstoffpreise als Durchschnittswert Deutschland. https://www.mwv.de/statistiken/verbraucherpreise/. Accessed 15 Jun 2018
Miotti M, Hofer J, Bauer C (2017) Integrated environmental and economic assessment of current and future fuel cell vehicles. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22(1):94–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0986-4
Netze BW (2017) Höhe der Durchschnittsverluste je Spannungsebene 2015
Nordelöf A, Messagie M, Tillman A-M, Ljunggren Söderman M, van Mierlo J (2014) Environmental impacts of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery electric vehicles—what can we learn from life cycle assessment? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19(11):1866–1890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0788-0
Notter DA, Kouravelou K, Karachalios T, Daletou MK, Haberland NT (2015) Life cycle assessment of PEM FC applications. Electric mobility and μ-CHP. Energy Environ. Sci. 8(7):1969–1985. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5EE01082A
NPE (2011) Zweiter Bericht der Nationalen Plattform Elektromobilität
NPE (2012) Fortschrittsbericht der Nationalen Plattform Elektromobilität (Dritter Bericht)
NPE (2015) Ladeinfrastruktur für Elektrofahrzeuge in Deutschland: Statusbericht und Handlungsempfehlungen 2015
Oswald BR (2007) 380-kV-Salzburgleitung: Auswirkungen der möglichen (Teil)Verkabelung des Abschnittes Tauern-Salzach neu
Parks G, Boyd R, Cornish J, Remick R (2014) Hydrogen Station Compression, Storage, and Dispensing Technical Status and Costs: Systems Integration
Paster MD, Ahluwalia RK, Berry G, Elgowainy A, Lasher S, McKenney K, Gardiner M (2011) Hydrogen storage technology options for fuel cell vehicles: Well-to-wheel costs, energy efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions. Int J Hydrog Energy 36(22):14534–14551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.07.056
Plenz M (2017) Potenzialanalyse Überschussstrom für Power-to-Heat und Power-to-Gas, Studie zur Nutzung überschüssigen erneuerbaren Stroms für die Erzeugung von Wärme/Gas in den Regionen Potsdam/PotsdamMittelmark und Lausitz-Spreewald
Pollet BG, Staffell I, Shang JL (2012) Current status of hybrid, battery and fuel cell electric vehicles: From electrochemistry to market prospects. Electrochim. Acta 84:235–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2012.03.172
Reddi K, Elgowainy A, Sutherland E (2014) Hydrogen refueling station compression and storage optimization with tube-trailer deliveries. Int J Hydrogen Energy 39(33):19169–19181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.09.099
Reddi K, Elgowainy A, Rustagi N, Gupta E (2017) Impact of hydrogen refueling configurations and market parameters on the refueling cost of hydrogen. Int J Hydrog Energy 42(34):21855–21865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.05.122
Reuter B, Faltenbacher M, Schuller O, Whitehouse N, Whitehouse S (2017) New Bus ReFuelling for European Hydrogen Bus Depots - High-Level Techno-Economic Project Summary Report. Leinfelden-Echterdingen, Germany
Rippel KM, Wiede T, Meinecke M, König R (2017) Netzentwicklungsplan Strom 2030. ZWEITER ENTWURF DER ÜBERTRAGUNGS NETZBETREIBER
Robinius M, Linssen J, Grube T, Reuß M, Stenzel P, Syranidis K, Kuckertz P, Stolten D (2018) Comparative Analysis of Infrastructures: Hydrogen Fueling and Electric Charging of Vehicles, vol 408. Julich, Germany
Schiebahn S, Grube T, Robinius M, Tietze V, Kumar B, Stolten D (2015) Power to gas: Technological overview, systems analysis and economic assessment for a case study in Germany. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 40(12):4285–4294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.01.123
Schroeder A, Traber T (2012) The economics of fast charging infrastructure for electric vehicles. Energy Policy 43:136–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.12.041
Shafiei E, Davidsdottir B, Leaver J, Stefansson H, Asgeirsson EI (2017) Energy, economic, and mitigation cost implications of transition toward a carbon-neutral transport sector: A simulation-based comparison between hydrogen and electricity. J. Cleaner Prod. 141:237–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.064
Simons A, Bauer C (2015) A life-cycle perspective on automotive fuel cells. Appl. Energy 157:884–896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.02.049
Statista (2018)Autogas-Tankstellen in Deutschland bis 2018 | Statistik. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/154361/umfrage/anzahl-der-autogas-tankstellen-in-deutschland/. Accessed 13 Jun 2018
Tagliaferri C, Evangelisti S, Acconcia F, Domenech T, Ekins P, Barletta D, Lettieri P (2016) Life cycle assessment of future electric and hybrid vehicles: A cradle-to-grave systems engineering approach. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 112:298–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2016.07.003
Teichmann D, Arlt W, Wasserscheid P (2012) Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers as an efficient vector for the transport and storage of renewable energy. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 37(23):18118–18132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.08.066
Thomas CE (2009) Fuel cell and battery electric vehicles compared. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 34(15):6005–6020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.06.003
Tietge U, Díaz S, Yang Z, Mock P (2017) From laboratory to road international: A comparison of official and real-world fuel consumption and CO2 values for passenger cars in Europe. the United States, China, and Japan, Berlin
Toyota (2016) Mirai Product Information 2016. https://pressroom.toyota.com/releases/2016+toyota+mirai+fuel+cell+product.htm. Accessed 14 May 2018
Toyota (2017) Modellübersicht. https://www.toyota.de/automobile/der-toyota-mirai.json?adt_source=adwords&gclid=CID5uebZ29YCFVW7GwodXAICJw&gclsrc=aw.ds. Accessed 06 Oct 2017
TransnetBW (2018) Strukturdaten - Netzverluste für das Jahr 2015. https://www.transnetbw.de/de/transparenz/marktdaten/strukturdaten#jahr_2015verl. Accessed 15 May 2018
Umweltbundesamt (2016) Kennzahlen von Anlagen mit Kraft-Wärme-Kopplung (KWK)
US Environmental Protection Agency (2017) Model Year 2017 Green Vehicle Guide. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/EPAGreenGuide/pdf/all_alpha_17.pdf. Accessed 14 May 2018
Varun BIK, Prakash R (2009) LCA of renewable energy for electricity generation systems--A review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 13(5):1067–1073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2008.08.004
Viktorsson L, Heinonen J, Skulason J, Unnthorsson R (2017) A Step towards the Hydrogen Economy--A Life Cycle Cost Analysis of A Hydrogen Refueling Station. Energies 10(6):763. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10060763
Volkswagen AG (2010) The Golf: Environmental Commendation Background Report. https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/3779580640224/L7_2_101129_VW_HB_Golf_GB.pdf. Accessed 14 May 2018
Volkswagen AG (2018) Der neue e-Golf: Preise - Ausstattungen - Technische Daten. https://www.volkswagen.at/e-golf/infomaterial. Accessed 14 May 2018
VW (2018) VW e-Golf | Elektroauto | Volkswagen Deutschland. https://www.volkswagen.de/de/models/e-golf.html. Accessed 15 Jun 2018
Wallbox (2018) Produkt Wallbox: Wallbox Commander. https://www.wallbox.com/de/produkt/commander/. Accessed 17 May 2018
Wang G (2011) Advanced vehicles: Costs, energy use, and macroeconomic impacts. J Power Sources 196(1):530–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.07.009
Weidner S, Faltenbacher M, François I, Thomas D, Skùlason JB, Maggi C (2018) Feasibility study of large scale hydrogen power-to-gas applications and cost of the systems evolving with scaling up in Germany, Belgium and Iceland. Int J Hydrogen Energy 43(33):15625–15638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.06.167
Wirges J (2016) Planning the Charging Infrastructure for Electric Vehicles in Cities and Regions. Karlsruher Instituts für Technologie
Wu G, Inderbitzin A, Bening C (2015) Total cost of ownership of electric vehicles compared to conventional vehicles: A probabilistic analysis and projection across market segments. Energy Policy 80:196–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.02.004
Acknowledgments
We thank T. Smolinka (Fraunhofer ISE) and N. Rice (ITM Power) for their help in preparing the inventories for the PEM electrolyzer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Responsible editor: Wulf-Peter Schmidt
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bekel, K., Pauliuk, S. Prospective cost and environmental impact assessment of battery and fuel cell electric vehicles in Germany. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24, 2220–2237 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01640-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01640-8