Having a mixed fleet of vehicles, governments
and municipalities can arrange the charging and hydrogen production timing
using smart meters and incentives/disincentives in a way that minimum peak
electricity generation capacity and grid upgrade is needed.
Complementary in transition to emission-free
transportation: Although PHEVs
are more polluting than BEVs and FCVs, but they
are a cleaner alternative for ICEVs. However, PHEVs are still an
attractive alternative for ICE vehicles for reducing GHG emissions if fueled by
This means that by incentivizing PHEVs, we can reduce
emissions continuously while providing the needed time for the diffusion of
charging and refueling stations for BEVs and FCVs and for the further development of technologies used in BEVs and
As BEVs need less extensive charging infrastructure
and can even be charged at homes, they
can have a significant role in emission reduction short-term and medium-term while with the increase in the the number of HRSs, FCVs can contribute to
emission reduction in the longer-term time frames.
Complementary in vehicle size: If we consider the total cost of ownership (which
includes both upfront costs, fuel cost, and maintenance cost), PHEVs are more
cost-efficient that BEVs and FCVs in the short term 6. However,
by 2025, all types of electric vehicles are competitors with ICE vehicles. It is also predicted that by 2030, PHEVs and BEVs
are competitive for small cars, BEVs and FCVs are competitive for medium cars
and FCVs will have an advantage for large cars. The TCO of FCVs is also
predicted to be significantly lower than ICE vehicles by 2050. However, all
technologies will have competitive TCO by 2050 for medium cars. BEVs will keep
their advantage over FCVs for small cars in 2050 6.
So it can be concluded that BEV technology is more suitable for
smaller-size cars and short trips (urban driving) due to their charging time
and energy storage capacity (driving range) 6. FCVs can provide options for longer trips
and can also be used for medium/larger cars as they have short refueling time
and have higher range compared to BEVs 6.
This means that a scenario in which small vehicles are replaced with small cars and medium and
large vehicles are replaced with FCVs is
more cost-efficient than a situation when all ICE vehicles are replaced with the same technology (either
it is BEV or FCV). In other words, a portfolio of different vehicle
technologies will replace the current single dominant technology (ICEVs).
Regarding the cost of hydrogen refueling structure
development for FCVs is comparable to the development
of charging infrastructure for BEVs and PHEVs if the cost needed for the upgrade of electricity system is excluded 6. This means
that considering the cost of charging infrastructure, the cost for developing
the charging infrastructure for BEVs and PHEVs may even be higher than hydrogen
refueling structure development for FCVs.
Deployment of EVs is more appealing in early stages.
People can install chargers at home at a price of about 1200 USD and also development
of public charging stations is much less expensive than a hydrogen refueling
station (although a charging station supports fewer cars than a HRS). However, in the long term investing on
FCVs is more cost efficient
As a result, increase in the number of FCVs needs a
strong support policy from the governments at the early years because of two
reasons: FCVs are more expensive than BEVs and PHEVs and for having a
considerable amount of FCVs we need an appropriate number of HRSs which are
very expensive to develop and may also not be profitable investments while FCVs
are not common in a country/jurisdiction.
deployment of FCVs in long-term will be more cost efficient because hydrogen
can be generated when there is surplus power and be stored to be used in time of demand. As a result, there will be no need for the
upgrade of electric grid (transmission lines, transformers, etc.) and there will be less need for the
increase in electricity generation capacity and probably no need for a peak supply capacity increase.
Although incentivizing BEVs seems more appealing right
now, it should be noted that FCVs
will be more cost-efficient in the future.
It should be noted that in long-term, market mechanism
will play the first role so for the subsidies should cover all technologies as
they are only efficient in the short-term 11.
So although FCVs can reduce the cost of decarburization in the future, their
development will be negligible if regulations towards its support
are not available 11.
From all of this, we conclude
that, although FCVs are more expensive right now, but they can play a critical
role in the future transportation mix. At the same time, BEVs, PHEVs, and FCVs
are compelimantary technologies not only in their cost-efficiency based on car
size, but also based on energy supply management and transition to
emission-free transportation. As a result, all these technologies should
subsidized considering their dependency on incentives for deployment and