Comparative Assessment of Hybrid Electric and Fuel Cell Vehicles Based on Comprehensive Well-to-Wheels Efficiency Analysis

Williamson, Sheldon; Emadi, Ali

doi:10.1109/tvt.2005.847444

Cited by 109 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The others contain some information useful for environmental assessment of EV technologies but were performed to address a more specific goal and therefore have a different scope. 31 studies assess GIHEVs (Bandivadekar 2008; Boureima et al 2009;Bravo et al 2006;Brinkman et al 2005;Burnham et al 2006;Daniel and Rosen 2002;Dhingra et al 2000;Eberhard and Tarpenning 2006;EPRI 2002EPRI , 2007Fontaras et al 2008;General Motors Corporation 2001;Hackney and de Neufville 2001;Hermance and Sasaki 1998;Jaramillo et al 2009;Kalhammer et al 2007;Lave and MacLean 2002;Mohamadabadi et al 2009;Plotkin et al 2002;Samaras and Meisterling 2008;Santini and Vyas 2008;Schexnayder et al 2001;Stephan and Sullivan 2008;Van Mierlo et al 2004;Wang et al 1997;Williamson and Emadi 2005;Burke and Abeles 2004;Huo et al 2010;Shiau et al 2010;MercedesBenz 2009;King and Webber 2008), 23 assess PHEVs (Bandivadekar 2008; Baptista et al 2009;Daniel and Rosen 2002;Elgowainy et al 2009;EPRI 2002EPRI , 2007Gage 2003;Jaramillo et al 2009;Kalhammer et al 2007;Karbowski et al 2007;<...>…”

Section: Scope and Completenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Number of studies including different scopes, emissions, impact categories, and resource use. In total, 51 papers were considered multiple driving cycles to determine their affect on the total energy use and/or emissions (Wang et al 1997;Williamson and Emadi 2005). Three studies assess the additional load on the grid and 2 assess the effects of smart grid systems.…”

Section: Scope and Completenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Environmental impacts of hybrid and electric vehicles—a review

Hawkins

Gausen

Strømman

2012

Int J Life Cycle Assess

488

258

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose A literature review is undertaken to understand how well existing studies of the environmental impacts of hybrid and electric vehicles (EV) address the full life cycle of these technologies. Results of studies are synthesized to compare the global warming potential (GWP) of different EV and internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) options. Other impacts are compared; however, data availability limits the extent to which this could be accomplished.Method We define what should be included in a complete, state-of-the-art environmental assessment of hybrid and electric vehicles considering components and life cycle stages, emission categories, impact categories, and resource use and compare the content of 51 environmental assessments of hybrid and electric vehicles to our definition. Impact assessment results associated with full life cycle inventories (LCI) are compared for GWP as well as emissions of other pollutants. GWP results by life cycle stage and key parameters are extracted and used to perform a meta-analysis quantifying the impacts of vehicle options. Results Few studies provide a full LCI for EVs together with assessment of multiple impacts. Research has focused on well to wheel studies comparing fossil fuel and electricity use as the use phase has been seen to dominate the life cycle of vehicles. Only very recently have studies begun to better address production impacts. Apart from batteries, very few studies provide transparent LCIs of other key EV drivetrain components. Estimates of EV energy use in the literature span a wide range, 0.10-0.24 kWh/km. Similarly, battery and vehicle lifetime plays an important role in results, yet lifetime assumptions range between 150,000-300,000 km. CO 2 and GWP are the most frequently reported results. Compiled results suggest the GWP of EVs powered by coal electricity falls between small and large conventional vehicles while EVs powered by natural gas or low-carbon energy sources perform better than the most efficient ICEVs. EV results in regions dependant on coal electricity demonstrated a trend toward increased SO x emissions compared to fuel use by ICEVs. Conclusions Moving forward research should focus on providing consensus around a transparent inventory for production of electric vehicles, appropriate electricity grid mix assumptions, the implications of EV adoption on the existing grid, and means of comparing vehicle on the basis of common driving and charging patterns. Although EVs appear to demonstrate decreases in GWP compared to conventional ICEVs, high efficiency ICEVs and grid-independent hybrid electric vehicles perform better than EVs using coalfired electricity.

show abstract

Section: Scope and Completenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Scope and Completenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental impacts of hybrid and electric vehicles—a review

Hawkins

Gausen

Strømman

2012

Int J Life Cycle Assess

488

258

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…HEVs are promising alternatives for future road transport, as the typical battery packs in HEVs are smaller than those in EVs, which makes HEVs cheaper and lighter. Furthermore, their well-to-wheels efficiencies are usually higher than those of fuel cell vehicles [11]- [14]. The simple operation mechanisms of both series and parallel HEVs are shown in Fig.…”

Section: Hybrid Electric Vehicles (Hevs)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-Criteria Decision Making-Based Comparison of Power Source Technologies for Utilization in Automobiles

Üçtuğ¹,

Kabakcı²,

Bekdikhan³

et al. 2015

JOCET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Four automobiles with different power sources were compared and ranked according to five different criteria by using a multi-criteria decision making approach named TOPSIS. An internal combustion engine vehicle, an electric vehicle, a hybrid electric vehicle and a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, all with similar sizes and characteristics, were compared in terms of their initial costs, operating costs, environmental effects, on-board safety and performance. The scores for each of these criteria were obtained from the literature. Criteria weights were determined via a survey which was conducted to a total of 151 people, who were then divided into three groups according to their monthly income, considering that with variant incomes preferences and priorities differ. For all cases, the ideal technology emerged to be internal combustion engine vehicles, due to their low initial costs, external costs and high performance. Hybrid electric vehicles appeared almost as favorable as internal combustion engine automobiles. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles gathered the least scores, given the premature state of the technology and consequent high prices. The results of our study show that while internal combustion engine vehicles continue to dominate the automotive market for the time being, hybrid electric vehicles have the potential to become competitive alternatives.

show abstract

“…As reported in [4], for vehicle applications, the total efficiency of an ICE based on a propulsion system and FC vehicle comprises the well-to-tank efficiency and the tankto-wheel efficiency. Overall, the FC vehicle is more efficient than the ICE vehicle.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Differential Flatness-Based Control for a Fuel Cell Hybrid Power Source

Thounthong

Pierfederici

Davat

2010

IEEE Trans. Energy Convers.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-This paper presents an innovative control law for distributed dc generation supplied by a fuel cell (FC) (main source) and supercapacitor (auxiliary source). This kind of system is a multiconverter structure and exhibits nonlinear behavior. The operation of a multiconverter structure can lead to interactions between the controls of the converters if they are designed separately. Typically, interactions between converters are studied using impedance criteria to investigate the stability of cascaded systems. In this paper, a nonlinear control algorithm based on the flatness properties of the system is proposed. Flatness provides a convenient framework for meeting a number of performance specifications for the hybrid power source. Using the flatness property, we propose simple solutions to hybrid energy management and stabilization problems. The design controller parameters are autonomous of the operating point; moreover, interactions between converters are taken into account by the controllers, and high dynamics in disturbance rejection is achieved. To validate the proposed method, a hardware system is realized with analog circuits, and digital estimation is accomplished with a dSPACE controller. Experimental results with small-scale devices (a polymer electrolyte membrane FC of 1200 W, 46 A and a supercapacitor module of 100 F, 500 A, and 32 V) in a laboratory corroborate the excellent control scheme during a motor-drive cycle.

show abstract

Comparative Assessment of Hybrid Electric and Fuel Cell Vehicles Based on Comprehensive Well-to-Wheels Efficiency Analysis

Cited by 109 publications

References 13 publications

Environmental impacts of hybrid and electric vehicles—a review

Environmental impacts of hybrid and electric vehicles—a review

Multi-Criteria Decision Making-Based Comparison of Power Source Technologies for Utilization in Automobiles

Analysis of Differential Flatness-Based Control for a Fuel Cell Hybrid Power Source

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About