Integrated environmental and economic assessment of current and future fuel cell vehicles

  • Marco MiottiEmail author
  • Johannes Hofer
  • Christian Bauer



Light-duty vehicles contribute considerably to global greenhouse gas emissions. Fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) may play a key role in mitigating these emissions without facing the same limitations in range and refueling time as battery electric vehicles (BEVs). In this study, we assess the environmental impacts and costs of a polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell system (FCS) for use in light-duty FCVs and integrate these results into a comparative evaluation between FCVs, BEVs, and internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs).


We conduct a detailed life cycle assessment (LCA) and cost assessment for the current state of the technology and two future scenarios for technological development. We compile a detailed and consistent inventory for the FCS by systematically disassembling and integrating information found in cost studies. For the vehicle-level comparison, we use models to ensure that vehicle size, performance, and fuel consumption are unbiased between vehicle types and consistent with the scenarios for technological development.

Results and discussion

Our results show that FCVs can decrease life cycle greenhouse gas emissions by 50 % compared to gasoline ICEVs if hydrogen is produced from renewable electricity, thus exhibiting similar emission levels as BEVs that are charged with the same electricity mix. If hydrogen is produced by natural gas reforming, FCVs are found to offer no greenhouse gas reductions, along with higher impacts in several other environmental impact categories. A major contributor to these impacts is the FCS, in particular the platinum in the catalyst and the carbon fiber in the hydrogen tank. The large amount of carbon fiber used in the tank was also the reason why we found that FCVs may not become fully cost competitive with ICEVs or BEVs, even when substantial technological development and mass production of all components is assumed.


We conclude that FCVs only lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions than ICEVs if their fuel is sourced from renewable energy, as is the case with BEVs. FCVs are an attractive alternative to ICEVs in terms of vehicle performance criteria such as range and refueling time. However, the technological challenges associated with reducing other environmental impacts and costs of FCVs seem to be as large, if not larger, than those associated with the capacity and costs of batteries for BEVs—even when not taking into account the efforts required to build a hydrogen infrastructure network for road transportation.


Drivetrain technology Environmental impacts Greenhouse gas emissions Life cycle assessment (LCA) Life cycle costing (LCC) Passenger vehicles PEM fuel cell 



We thank Andrew Simons for assisting in the compilation of the fuel cell stack inventories, in particular with choosing ecoinvent processes for the processing stages of stack components; Marcel Hofer for contributions to the estimation of mass and cost numbers for the fuel cell system inventories; and Brian Cox for additional support for the fuel cell system inventories. The work was finalized within the SCCER Mobility (

Compliance with ethical standards

This research was carried out as part of the research project “THELMA” ( and received funding from Swisselectric Research, the Swiss Competence Centre for Energy and Mobility, and the Swiss Erdölvereinigung.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11367_2015_986_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.6 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 1.55 mb)


  1. Alonso E, Field FR, Kirchain RE (2012) Platinum availability for future automotive technologies. Environ Sci Technol 46:12986–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andress D, Das S, Joseck F, Dean Nguyen T (2012) Status of advanced light-duty transportation technologies in the US. Energy Policy 41:348–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandivadekar A, Bodek K, Cheah L et al (2008) On the Road in 2035. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbir F (2013) PEM fuel cells: theory and practice. Elsevier, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 101:103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bauer C, Hofer J, Althaus H-J et al (2015) The environmental performance of current and future passenger vehicles: life cycle assessment based on a novel scenario analysis framework. Appl Energy. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.019 Google Scholar
  7. Bernhart W, Riederle S, Yoon M (2013) Fuel Cells - A realistic alternative for zero emission? Roland Berger Strategy ConsultantsGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruce PG, Freunberger SA, Hardwick LJ, Tarascon J-M (2011) Li–O2 and Li–S batteries with high energy storage. Nat Mater 11:19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Butler J (2012) Platinum 2012 Interim Review. Johnson Matthey Public Limited Company, HertfordshireGoogle Scholar
  10. Cobb J (2014) 2016 Toyota Mirai FCV First Drive—Video. In: Accessed 12 Feb 2015
  11. McKinsey & Company (2010) A portfolio of power-trains for Europe: a fact-based analysisGoogle Scholar
  12. De Haan P, Zah R (2013) Chancen und Risiken der Elektromobilität in der Schweiz. vdf Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH Zurich, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  13. Debe MK (2012) 2012 Annual Merit Review Advanced Cathode Catalysts and Supports for PEM Fuel Cells. 1–34Google Scholar
  14. Del Duce A, Egede P, Öhlschläger G et al. (2013) Guidelines for the LCA of electric vehiclesGoogle Scholar
  15. DOE (2008) Effects of a transition to a hydrogen economy on employment in the United States report to CongressGoogle Scholar
  16. Duleep G, Van Essen H, Kampman B, Grünig M (2011) Impacts of Electric Vehicles - Assessment of electric vehicle and battery technology. CE Delft, DelftGoogle Scholar
  17. Earles JM, Halog A (2011) Consequential life cycle assessment: a review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ecoinvent (2010) The ecoinvent database, data v2.2.
  19. Ellingsen LA-W, Majeau-Bettez G, Singh B et al (2014) Life cycle assessment of a lithium-ion battery vehicle pack. J Ind Ecol 18:113–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ellram LM (1995) Total cost of ownership: an analysis approach for purchasing. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 25:4–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. EPA (2014) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2012Google Scholar
  22. European Commission (2013) Fuel Cells & Hydrogen 2 Initiative: developing clean solutions for energy transport and storage. European UnionGoogle Scholar
  23. Federal Statistical Office (2014) Prices: data on energy price trends—long-time series from January 2000 to December 2014Google Scholar
  24. Giorgio Simbolotti (2007) IEA energy technology essentials: fuel cellsGoogle Scholar
  25. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M et al. (2008) ReCiPe 2008 – A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method Which Comprises Har-monised Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level. Report I:CharacterisationGoogle Scholar
  26. Handley C, Brandon NP, Van Der Vorst R (2002) Impact of the European Union vehicle waste directive on end-of-life options for polymer electrolyte fuel cells. J Power Sources 106:344–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hawkins TR, Singh B, Majeau-Bettez G, Strømman AH (2013) Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles. J Ind Ecol 17:53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hill N, Brannigan C, Wynn D et al. (2011) The role of GHG emissions from infrastructure construction, vehicle manufacturing, and ELVs in overall transport sector emissions. Task 2 paper produced as part of a contract between European Commission Directorate-General Climate Action and AEA Technology plcGoogle Scholar
  29. Hua TQ, Ahluwalia R, Peng JK et al (2011) Technical assessment of compressed hydrogen storage tank systems for automotive applications. Int J Hydrogen Energy 36:3037–3049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hwang JJ, Kuo JK, Wu W et al (2013) Lifecycle performance assessment of fuel cell/battery electric vehicles. Int J Hydrogen Energy 38:3433–3446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. ISO:14040 (2010) Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment –Principles and Framework. International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  32. James BD (2012) Hydrogen Storage Cost Analysis, Preliminary Results. Strategic Analysis Inc.Google Scholar
  33. James BD, Kalinoski JA, Baum KN (2010) Mass Production Cost Estimation for Direct H2 PEM Fuel Cell Systems for Automotive Applications: 2010 Update. Directed Technologies Inc., Arlington, VAGoogle Scholar
  34. James BD, Kalinoski J, Baum K (2011) Manufacturing cost analysis of fuel cell systemsGoogle Scholar
  35. Kalhammer FR, Kopf BM, Swan DH, et al. (2007) Status and Prospects for Zero Emissions Vehicle Technology: Report of the ARB Independent Expert Panel 2007Google Scholar
  36. Karimi S, Fraser N, Roberts B, Foulkes FR (2012) A review of metallic bipolar plates for proton exchange membrane fuel cells: materials and fabrication methods. Adv Mater Sci Eng 2012:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kromer M, Heywood J (2007) Electric powertrains : opportunities and challenges in the U.S. light-duty vehicle fleet. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  38. Law K (2011) Cost Analyses of Hydrogen Storage Materials and On- Board Systems Timeline Barriers Budget. TIAX LCC, Cupertino, CAGoogle Scholar
  39. Ligterink N, Kadijk G, Van Mensch P et al. (2013) Investigations and real world emission performance of Euro 6 light-duty vehicles. DelftGoogle Scholar
  40. Lund H, Mathiesen BV, Christensen P, Schmidt JH (2010) Energy system analysis of marginal electricity supply in consequential LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:260–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marcinkoski J, James BD, Kalinoski JA et al (2011) Manufacturing process assumptions used in fuel cell system cost analyses. J Power Sources 196:5282–5292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Markel T, Brooker A, Hendricks T et al (2002) ADVISOR: a systems analysis tool for advanced vehicle modeling. J Power Sources 110:255–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Martin A (2010) Auto-Stack: project final report. Zentrum für Sonnenenergie- und Wasserstoff-Forschung Baden-Württemberg (ZSW): StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  44. Martin A, Joerissen L, Wasserstoff-forschung ZS, Zsw B (2012) Auto-Stack—implementing a European automotive fuel cell stack cluster. ECS Trans 42:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Masoni P, Zamagni A (2011) Guidance Document for performing LCAs on Fuel Cells and H2 Technologies. Project deliverable for Fuel cell and Hydrogen - Joint UndertakingGoogle Scholar
  46. Nordelöf A, Messagie M, Tillman AM et al (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 19:1866–1890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. NRC (2011) Assessment of fuel economy technologies for light-duty vehicles. National Academic Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  48. Ohnsman A (2008) Honda to Deliver 200 Fuel-Cell Autos Through 2011 (Update2). BloombergGoogle Scholar
  49. Othman R, Dicks AL, Zhu Z (2012) Non precious metal catalysts for the PEM fuel cell cathode. Int J Hydrogen Energy 37:357–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pehnt DM (2002) Ganzheitliche Bilanzierung von Brennstoffzellen in der Energie- und Verkehrstechnik. VDI-Verlag, Fortschrittsberichte Reihe 6 Nr. 476: DüsseldorfGoogle Scholar
  51. Pehnt M, Lamm A, Gasteiger H (2003) Life-cycle analysis of fuel cell system components Chapter 94 Life-cycle analysis of fuel cell system components. In: Vielstich W, Lamm A, Gasteiger HA (eds) Handbook of fuels cells—fundamentals, technology and applications. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  52. Pollet B, Staffell I, Shang J (2012) Current status of hybrid, battery and fuel cell electric vehicles: from electrochemistry to market prospects. Electrochim Acta 84:235–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. PréConsultants (2011) SimaPro 7.3.3 Multi User.
  54. Rabis A, Rodriguez P, Schmidt T (2012) Electrocatalysis for polymer electrolyte fuel cells: recent achievements and future challenges. ACS Catal 2:864–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ramsden T, Steward D, Zuboy J (2009) Analyzing the Levelized Cost of Centralized and Distributed Hydrogen Production Using the H2A Production Model , Version 2 Analyzing the Levelized Cost of Centralized and Distributed Hydrogen Production Using the H2A Production Model , Version 2Google Scholar
  56. Schafer A, Heywood J, Weiss M (2006) Future fuel cell and internal combustion engine automobile technologies: a 25-year life cycle and fleet impact assessment. Energy 31:2064–2087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schafer A, Heywood JB, Jacobi HD, Waitz IA (2009) Transportation in a Climate-Constrained World. The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  58. Simons A (2013) Road transport: new life cycle inventories for fossil-fuelled passenger cars and non-exhaust emissions in ecoinvent v3. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-013-0642-9 Google Scholar
  59. Simons A, Bauer C (2011a) Life Cycle assessment of hydrogen use in passenger vehicles. International Advanced Mobility Forum (IAMF) Full PaperGoogle Scholar
  60. Simons A, Bauer C (2011b) Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production. In: Wokaun A, Wilhelm E (eds) Transition to Hydrogen: Pathways Toward Clean Transportation. New York, pp 13–57Google Scholar
  61. Simons A, Bauer C (2015) A life-cycle perspective on automotive fuel cells. Appl Energ. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.02.049 Google Scholar
  62. Sinha J (2010) FY 2010 Annual Progress Report. pp 672–679Google Scholar
  63. Sinha J, Lasher S, Yang Y, Kopf P (2008) Direct hydrogen PEMFC manufacturing cost estimation for automotive applications. TIAX LCC, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  64. Sørensen B, Roskilde D (2000) Total life-cycle assessment of PEM fuel cell car. Roskilde University, Energy & Environment Group, RoskildeGoogle Scholar
  65. Sun Y, Delucchi M, Ogden J (2011) The impact of widespread deployment of fuel cell vehicles on platinum demand and price. Int J Hydrogen Energy 36:11116–11127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Thomas CE (2009) Fuel cell and battery electric vehicles compared. Int J Hydrogen Energy 34:6005–6020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. UNEP (2011) Recycling rates of metals: A status report. ParisGoogle Scholar
  68. Werhahn J (2008) Kosten von Brennstoffzellensystemen auf Massenbasis in Abhängigkeit von der Absatzmenge. Ph.D. Dissertation, Forschungszentrum Jülich, JülichGoogle Scholar
  69. Yazdanie M, Noembrini F, Dossetto L, Boulouchos K (2014) A comparative analysis of well-to-wheel primary energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions for the operation of alternative and conventional vehicles in Switzerland, considering various energy carrier production pathways. J Power Sources 249:333–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yuan C, Wang E, Zhai Q, Yang F (2015) Temporal discounting in life cycle assessment: a critical review and theoretical framework. Environ Impact Assess Rev 51:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zamagni A, Guinée J, Heijungs R et al (2012) Lights and shadows in consequential LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:904–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zamel N, Li X (2006) Life cycle analysis of vehicles powered by a fuel cell and by internal combustion engine for Canada. J Power Sources 155:297–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory for Energy Systems Analysis, Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI), Villigen PSIVillingenSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS)Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)CambridgeUSA
  3. 3.Architecture and Building Systems, Department of Architecture, ETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations