Search Results

Fuel cell vehicles are undergoing extensive research and development because of their potential for high efficiency and low emissions. Because fuel cell vehicles remain expensive and there is limited demand for hydrogen at present, very few fueling stations are being built. To try to accelerate the development of a hydrogen economy, some original equipment manufacturers in the automotive industry have been working on a hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engine (ICE) as an intermediate step. This paper compares the fuel economy potential of hydrogen powertrains to conventional gasoline vehicles. Several timeframes are considered: 2010, 2015, 2030, and 2045. To address the technology status uncertainty, a triangular distribution approach was implemented for each component technology. The fuel consumption and cost of five powertrain configurations will be discussed and compared with the conventional counterpart.

Fuel cell vehicles are the subject of extensive research and development because of their potential for high efficiency and low emissions. Because fuel cell vehicles remain expensive and the demand for hydrogen is therefore limited, very few fueling stations are being built. To try to accelerate the development of a hydrogen economy, some original equipment manufacturers (OEM) in the automotive industry have been working on a hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engine (ICE) as an intermediate step. Despite its lower cost, the hydrogen-fueled ICE offers, for a similar amount of onboard hydrogen, a lower driving range because of its lower efficiency. This paper compares the fuel economy potential of hydrogen-fueled vehicles to their conventional gasoline counterparts. To take uncertainties into account, the current and future status of both technologies were considered.

The energy density and power density comparison of conventional fuels and batteries is often mentioned as an advantage of conventional vehicles over electric vehicles. Such an analysis often shows that the batteries are at least an order of magnitude behind fuels like gasoline. However this incomplete analysis ignores the impact of powertrain efficiency and mass of the powertrain itself. When we compare the potential of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) as an alternative for conventional vehicles, it is important to include the energy in the fuel and their storage as well as the eventual conversion to mechanical energy. For instance, useful work expected out of a conventional vehicle as well as a BEV is the same (to drive 300 miles with a payload of about 300 lb). However, the test weight of a Conventional vehicle and BEV will differ on the basis of what is needed to convert their respective stored energy to mechanical energy.

Their easy availability, lower well-to-wheel emissions, and relative ease of use with existing engine technologies have made ethanol and ethanol-gasoline blends a viable alternative to gasoline for use in spark-ignition (SI) engines. The lower energy density of ethanol and ethanol-gasoline blends, however, results in higher volumetric fuel consumption compared with gasoline. Also, the higher latent heat of vaporization can result in cold-start issues with higher-level ethanol blends. On the other hand, a higher octane number, which indicates resistance to knock and potentially enables more optimal combustion phasing, results in better engine efficiency, especially at higher loads. This paper compares the fuel consumption and emissions of two ethanol blends (E50 and E85) with those for gasoline when used in conventional (non-hybrid) and power-split-type plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs).