International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 113121

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhydene
Plug-in hybrid with fuel cell battery charger
G.J. Suppes

Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Missouri, W2028 EBE, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
Received 20 January 2004; received in revised form 24 March 2004; accepted 20 April 2004
Available online 17 June 2004
Abstract
A new approach on vehicular fuel cell technology uses an on-board regenerative fuel cell (RFC) stack as a battery charger.
The RFCs electrolyser capability uses grid electricity to produce hydrogen and oxygen during an overnight charging process.
By using the RFC to recharge the vehicles battery pack during the day, the size of the battery pack can be reduced by 50%.
A sensitivity analysis evaluating vehicle specication and component performances suggests that small RFC stacks (e.g.
1 kW) would be commercially viable in plug-in vehicles at prices as high as $1800/kW for the RFC stack. The combination of a
RFC stack and a battery pack would cost less than the either an appropriately sized battery pack or fuel cell stack alone. Vehicles
using so-called tribrid power systems based on the combination of RFCs, battery packs, and internal combustion engines (ICE)
could be viable decades before vehicles powered solely by fuel cells that rely on a hydrogen refueling infrastructure.
? 2004 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Fuel cell; Hydrogen; Recharge; Plug-in; Eciency
1. Introduction
Important industrial issues on sustainability, balance of
trade, and creation of quality domestic jobs culminate on
petroleum fuels and the US crude oil imports now exceed-
ing $150 billion each year. For decades, eorts to displace
petroleum imports have fallen short due to the high costs of
alternatives and the limited energy feed stock options large
enough to displace crude oil. Today, fuel cell technology is
receiving much attention due to its potential to change the
rules in the transportation sector. In addition, closed-loop
fuel cell systems that are recharged with grid electricity
would emit zero tail-pipe emissions and lead to signicant
reductions in municipal air pollution.
Plug-in approaches that use onboard electrolysis to pro-
duce hydrogen are particularly attractive since they do not
rely on a hydrogen-refueling infrastructure and do not re-
quire the distribution of new fuels [1]. Preferably, regener-
ative fuel cells (RFC) would be used; a RFC operates both
as an electrolyzer and fuel cell.

Tel.: +1-573-884-0562; fax: +1-573-884-4940.

E-mail address: suppesg@missouri.edu (G.J. Suppes).
The plug-in fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle (PFCHEV)
relies on any number of combinations of fuel cells, batter-
ies, capacitors, and ICEs to power the vehicle [2,3]. The
plug-in aspect of this vehicle allows grid electricity to
charge batteries and produce electrolysis hydrogen/oxygen
during the night for use by the vehicle during the rst 32 or
more kilometers (20 miles) of travel during the daydur-
ing these initial kilometers the ICE does not operate. About
half the distance traveled by automobiles each day in the US
are within the rst 32 km traveled by each vehicle in a day
[4]. Renault introduced a commercial PHEV to the French
market in 2003 [5].
In a timeline presented by Bob Graham [6] of the Elec-
trical Power Research Institute in December of 2002, bat-
tery electric vehicles (BEV) and hybrid electric vehicles
(HEV) were noted to have hit the market before 2003. The
plug-in HEV (PHEV) and PFCHEV were projected to hit
the US market in 2005 and 2008 respectively. Non-plug-in
versions of fuel cell vehicles (FCHEV) were projected for
2015. Other advantages of the PFCHEV are not as obvious
but perhaps even more important.
Fuel cells and batteries (or capacitors) have a powerful
synergy, the combination of the two can provide better per-
formance and lower cost than batteries alone or fuel cells
0360-3199/$ 30.00 ? 2004 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2004.04.017
114 G.J. Suppes / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 113121
Fig. 1. Illustration of plug-in HEV where battery pack and RFC
work in combination to provide both the needed range and power
output. The dashed lines illustrate ow of electrical power.
alone. Batteries are good at high power output (e.g. 50 kW)
but only provide storage capacity at high cost and signi-
cant weight penalties. Fuel cells provide aordable capacity
relative to batteries (in the form of stored hydrogen and oxy-
gen) but have costs that are roughly proportional to power
output. In the PFCHEV a synergy is achieved by having a
fuel cell (e.g. 2 kW) perform primarily as a battery charger
throughout the day while batteries provide the high power
output (e.g. 50 kW).
For a typical day in a PFCHEV, overnight electrolysis
and charging provide about 12 km (7.5 miles) of range
from the batteries and about 48 km of capacity form hydro-
gen/oxygen. During the 12-km commute to work, the batter-
ies are used to power the vehicle with some assistance from
the fuel cell. When parked at work, the fuel cell charges
the batteries. When the workday is complete, the battery is
charged with 12 km (7.5 miles) of capacity and about 32 km
(20 miles) of hydrogen/oxygen are available to supplement
the battery. Throughout the evening and day, the fuel cell
operates as long as the battery is less than fully charged.
For many applications the ICE would never be started but
is available if additional range is needed.
Fig. 1 illustrates one version of a PFCHEV. The plug-in
option allows the battery and fuel cell system to be charged
using grid electricity. The vehicle model assumes auxiliary
equipment is powered by electricity rather than shaft work.
The PFCHEVcan have a powerful impact on the oil imports.
For many applications, especially as the second car in a
family with two cars, a 64 km-per-day range can meet more
than 90% of the travel needs. On the average, approximately
78% of automobile mileage is traveled within the rst 64 km
(40 miles) of travel each day. Advantages of the PFCHEV
include:
Zero or near-zero tail-pipe emissions.
Near-zero noise pollution.
Near-zero carbon dioxide emissions and sustainability
when using electricity from wind or nuclear sources.
Imported oil is fully displaced with domestic energy
sources (for this vehicle).
Substantial elimination of time and inconvenience of re-
fueling gasoline.
Adisadvantage of the PHEVand PFCHEVvehicles are their
poor well-to-wheel eciencies; however, eciency has his-
torically only indirectly impacted commercial viability in
the form of increased operating expenses [3]. As discussed
in this paper, the economics are good and poor eciencies
do not translate to commercialization barriers. This paper
presents a general investigation of the economic viability of
PFCHEV vehicles versus other fuel cell vehicle approaches.
In this sensitivity analysis, rough estimates are used with
the range of sensitivity analysis set to include likely param-
eter scenarios. More detailed studies will be needed as the
industry takes shape.
2. Methods
Table 1 summarizes the projected costs for the BEV,
PFCHEV, and FCHEV to achieve 48 km of ICE-free oper-
ation for a vehicle requiring 50 kW of power. The $500/kW
fuel cell costs should be attainable within the decade. The
data illustrate how the PFCHEV power system costs less
than fuel cells or batteries alone for providing the specied
performance.
The fuel cell stack of the PFCHEV systems of Table 1 are
not designed to replace the ICE of todays sports utility ve-
hicle (SUV), but with a 48-km plug-in capability the power
system could nd many useful applications. Having an ICE
backup, the PFCHEV could compete with conventional au-
tomobiles because range can be extended by refueling with
gasoline.
The summary of Table 1 illustrates how the PFCHEV will
typically cost at least a factor of 6 less than the FCHEVusing
oxygen and a factor of 12 less for a fuel cell stack using air.
As the prices of fuel cells decrease, the PFCHEV will cost
less than the PHEV specied in Table 1. The data of Table 1
is based on projected $500/kW costs for PEM fuel cells for
2010. The summary of Table 1 and subsequent sensitivity
analysis in the paper summarize how the PFCHEV is likely
to develop a powerful market niche and will likely become
commercially viable years, perhaps decades, before FCHEV
vehicles.
G.J. Suppes / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 113121 115
Table 1
Comparison of PHEV, PFCHEV and FCHEV power system options for projected 2010 fuel cell stack costs of $500/kW. A BEV power
system without an ICE and having a 145 km (90 mile) range would cost about $18,874. All energy and power units are in delivered energy.
For example, the hydrogen (H
2
) in kWh must be divided by the fuel cell eciency to estimate the amount of hydrogen in the tank
FCHEV FCHEV PFCHEV PFCHEV PHEV
(oxygen) (air) (1.95 kW FC) (1.3 kW FC)
Total range (km) 48 48 48 48 48
Battery pack range (km) 0 0 12 24 48
Battery pack (kWh) 0 0 3.75 7.5 15
H
2
range (km) 48 48 36.2 24 0
H
2
(kWh) 20.76 20.76 15.57 10.38 0.00
Fuel cell power (kW) 50.00 50.00 1.95 1.30 0.00
ICE ($) $0 $0 $1000 $1000 $1000
Battery cost ($) $0 $0 $1500 $3000 $6000
Fuel cell cost ($) $25,000
a
$50,000
a
$973 $649 $0
Weight and tank costs ($) $114 $114 $158 $201 $288
Electrolyzer ($) $0 $0 $973 $649 $0
Total power system cost ($) $25,114 $50,114 $4604 $5499 $7288
a
Much larger fuel cells are required when the fuel cell is sized based the capacity to power the vehicle as compared to the capacity
to charge the battery pack. For FCHEV (oxygen) operation a 50 kW fuel cell costs $500/kW or $25,000. For FCHEV (air) operation a
50 kW fuel cell costs $1000/kW or $50,000.
While the summary of Table 1 is specic to the un-
derlying assumptions of that projection, the uncertainty of
the implications of the PFCHEV is greatly reduced though
a sensitivity analysis on key parameters. The impact of
key technologies and design specications on the cost of
the PFCHEV versus the FCHEV and PHEV was evalu-
ated by this sensitivity analysis, including the following
factors:
Vehicle plug-in range in kilometers.
Battery range in kilometers.
The fuel cell sizing factor that determines the FC size
based on the ability of the fuel cell to consume the tank
of hydrogen in a specied number of hours. A sizing
factor of 0:2 h
1
corresponds to consuming the tank of
hydrogen in 5 h. At 10 kWh tank of hydrogen would
thus be sized with a 2 kW (10 kWh 0:2 h
1
) fuel
cell.
Battery costs in $/kWh allow the energy needs to be con-
verted to battery costs on a delivered energy basis.
Fuel economy in kWh/km allows the range of the vehicle
to be converted to the required kWh of energy delivered
to the electric drive train.
Specic energy in Wh/kg allows the mass of the battery
pack to be calculated based on deliverable energy.
Hydrogen tank weights (kg/kWh) and costs ($/kWh) are
estimated to be directly proportional to the deliverable
energy from the hydrogen in the tank.
Specic cost penalties in $/kg for weight are applied to
the weight of batteries and tanks.
Battery eciencies are applied when converting kilome-
ters of hydrogen to kWh of hydrogen stored. These e-
Table 2
Projected performance of nickel metal hydride batteries
2003
a
2010 2020
Specic energy (Wh/kg) 70 78 80
Specic power (W/kg) 160 180 200
Charge/discharge cycles 1000 1000 1100
Cost $/kWh 550 400 300
a
Estimates include numbers from survey with adjustments made
based on other references.
ciencies account for the fact that some of the energy is
lost both in charging the batteries and then subsequently
discharging the batteries.
1
The electrolyzer cost is calculated as a percentage of the
fuel cell cost.
The range of parameters for the batteries are based on an
Argonne National Laboratory summary of projections on
nickel metal hydride batteries [7]. In this survey, nickel
metal hydrides and nickel-cadmium batteries provided the
most competitive combination of light weight, reasonable
number of charge/discharge cycles, and costs. Table 2
summarizes projected performance characteristics for the
1
For example, 10 miles of hydrogen at a fuel economy of
0:5 kWh/mile going through a 90% ecient battery requires 10
0:5=0:9=0:9 = 6:17 kWh of deliverable energy from the fuel cell
using the stored hydrogen. If the fuel cell is operating at 50% e-
ciency, this translates to a lower heating value of stored hydrogen
equal to 12:34 kWh.
116 G.J. Suppes / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 113121
nickel metal hydride batteries based on this the Argonne
report.
2.1. Plug-in range
Plug-in range [8] is the distance of travel possible in a day
from plug-in electricity. The American Automobile Associ-
ation (AAA) uses 12,500 miles as a typical yearly mileage
on a vehicle to determine operating costs. 12,000 divided
by 300 days of travel in a year is 64 km (40 miles) per day.
About 76% of the distance traveled in the US are within the
rst 40 traveled by an automobile in a day and about 78% of
the automobiles do not travel more than 64 km (40 miles)
in a randomly selected day. Plug-in ranges of 32, 64, 97,
129 km (20, 40, 60, and 80 miles) were studied. The total
plug-in range is split into the range available from batteries
and the range available from electrolysis hydrogen.
2.2. Sizing factors
The fuel cell size is a function of the electrolysis hydro-
gen storage capacity. High, low, and base case sizing fac-
tors used in this study were 0.25, 0.083, and 0:125 h
1
. A
fully RFC used to its full potential would produce electrol-
ysis hydrogen for 12 h and would produce electrical power
on the vehicle for 12 h. The Fuel Cell Sizing Factor uses the
capacity of the hydrogen storage tank to size the fuel cell
appropriately. For example if 30 kWh of stored hydrogen
is consumed in 10 h, a sizing factor of 0.1/h would be mul-
tiplied by the 30 kWh of stored hydrogen to estimate the
fuel cell stack size at 3 kW. A car designed with 10 kWh of
batteries and 30 kWh of stored hydrogen could use a fuel
cell with a sizing factor of 0.25/h to recharge the batteries
three times in 12 h. At a constant sizing factor, larger fuel
cells are required to utilize the capacity of larger hydrogen
storage tanks. For comparison purposes, the ICE of the Toy-
ota Prius, one of several HEVs on the market today, has a
57 kW ICEhaving a much higher power output than the
fuel cell stacks of this study. The FCHEV systems evalu-
ated for comparison purposes in this study were sized with
50 kW fuel cell stacks.
2.3. Battery costs
The costs of the batteries were evaluated at 300, 400,
and 550 $/kWh. The batteries pack was sized based only on
energy (kWh) needs and not power (kW). The kWh needs
were calculated based on the specied range in kilometers
of the battery pack, and this range was set at 0%, 25%, 50%,
75%, and 100% of the plug-in range.
2.4. Fuel economy
The kWh of energy required per kilometer of travel is an
important measure of vehicle energy eciency. A vehicle
designed to operate at a sustainable 145 km/h (90 mph) at
50 kW power would have a fuel economy of 2:9 km/kWh.
A vehicle with a fuel economy of 2:3 km/kWh and a
50 kW power source could maintain 115 km/h (71.4 mph)
for extended periods of time. Vyas and Ng [7] assume a
fuel economy of 5:95 km/kWh (210 miles for 35:1 kWh of
energy). Fuel economies of 0.889, 1.24, and 2:07 kWh/km
(1.43, 2, and 3.33 kWh/mile) were evaluated in this study.
The fuel economy of 2.07 kWh/km is more consistent with
a 30 kW ICE than the 57 kW Toyota Prius ICE. These fuel
economies provide a rough estimate and should be adjusted
when extrapolating the results to vehicles with dierent fuel
economies.
2.5. Battery eciency
The batteries were characterized and sized based on de-
livered energy (kWh). However, battery eciencies were
necessary to estimate the overall eciency when converting
the energy of stored hydrogen to what is actually delivered
after the RFC stack is used to charge the batteries. Ecien-
cies of 80%, 85%, and 90% were assumed. The amount of
stored hydrogen and the fuel cell kW rating were increased
to account for these eciencies. For example, 10 kWh of
battery energy translates to 10/0.8/0.8 or 15.625 kWh of hy-
drogen when the battery has an eciency of 80%. Since the
fuel cells are sized based on delivered power, their eciency
does not enter into equipment costs calculations when the
impact on the size of the hydrogen tanks is neglected.
2.6. Costs of tanks and weight
The weights of batteries were estimated by the specic
energy of the battery. Hinrichs and Kleinback [9] report
nickel metal hydride batteries at 60 to 80 Wh/kg. Battery
specic energy of 70, 78, and 80 Wh/kg were used in this
study. The weights of hydrogen/oxygen tanks were assumed
to be a linear function of the kWh of gases stored. Val-
ues of 1, 2, and 3 kg/kWh were used. Assuming the aver-
age weight of an loaded automobile at 1500 kg, the cost of
propulsion/kilogram is about $2250/1500 kg or $1.5/kg. The
costs of extra weight was 1, 1.5, and 2 $/kg for the weights
of the batteries and tanks which is roughly the cost of an
ICE/kg of vehicle. The costs of the tanks were calculated at
$2, $4, and $6/kWh of hydrogen storage capacity. The cost
of compressed-gas storage is about $6/kWh ($200/kg) for
hydrogen as based on US Department of Energy goals [10].
2.7. Cost of electrolysis
The cost of the electrolysis capabilities was calculated as
0%, 100%, and 200% of the cost of the fuel cell stack. The
0% represents a fully RFC that is reversible at no extra cost
and the 200% represents an electrolysis system that costs
twice as much as the fuel cell system.
G.J. Suppes / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 113121 117
3. Results
Table 3 summarizes the base case, high, and low values of
the parameters used in the sensitivity analysis. Using these
specications, a spreadsheet was prepared to calculate the
cost of the entire power system based on the input of the
cost of a fuel cell stack/kW of power generation capabilities.
At a constant plug-in range, the power system cost was a
linear function of the fraction of the range provide by the
battery packa line with negative slope when the battery
pack is less expensive than the fuel cell system to meet
performance specications. As the price of the fuel cell stack
decreases, the negative slope of the line becomes zero at a
threshold price where all combinations of battery packs
and fuel cells stacks have the same price to meet the mileage
range. The sensitivity analysis was performed to identify
these threshold fuel cell stack prices (see Table 4).
Table 5 summarizes the sensitivity analysis. The base case
analysis projects that when fuel cell stacks are available at
less than $1,184/kW, the combination of a fuel cell stack and
batteries would be more cost eective in a plug-in hybrid
than the use of batteries alone. Other threshold fuel cell stack
prices were calculated by adjusting the base case to include
high and low values for each of the parameters.
For a 64 km (40 mile) plug-in vehicle, the battery pack
would likely provide between about 16 and 32 km (10
20 miles) of range with the remainder provided by stored
hydrogen. At less than 16 km of battery capacity, the vehicle
would be too limited by this 16-km limit for travel over
a short time period. At greater than 32 km one-way to a
destination, the ICE would have to operate during part of the
roundtrip, and so, a battery range greater than 32 km would
have little performance advantage over a battery range of
32 km for this vehicle with a total 64 km plug-in range.
The base case solution is valid with fuel cells of 2.59 and
1:73 kW paired with battery packs having 16 and 32 km
ranges respectively. These fuel cells stacks are quite small in
Table 3
Values of parameters used in sensitivity analysis. Most operating costs and eciencies are not included since the sensitivity analysis only
includes capital costs. Battery eciencies dene the extent to which the fuel cell must be oversized. Electrolysis is performed at the pressure
of hydrogen storage, and so, no compression equipment is required
Low Base case High
Plug-in range (miles) 20 40 60 (80)
Sizing factors (h
1
) 0.083 0.125 0.25
Battery costs ($/kWh) 300 400 550
Fuel economies (km/kWh) 0.889 1.24 2.07
Battery specic energy (Wh/kg) 70 78 80
Hydrogen tank weights (kg/kWh) 1 2 3
Hydrogen tank cost ($/kWh hydrogen) 2 4 6
Cost of weight ($/kg) 1 1.5 2
Battery eciency 0.80 0.85 0.90
Cost of electrolysis ($, factor times fuel cell cost) 0 1 2
comparison to the 50 kW that would be required to provide
full power demands from the fuel cells stack. In fact, the
FCHEV power system costs over six times as much as the
PFCHEV.
In comparing the FCHEV to PFCHEV, an ICE (cost at
$1000) is used to provide backup power for the PFCHEV,
and the cost of the electrolyzer is included in the PFCHEV.
For the FCHEV, no electrolysis capability is included and
the $1000 is assumed to be applied to auxiliary equipment
such as a reformer systemor high capacity hydrogen storage.
As indicated by the sensitivity analysis in Table 5, the
FCHEV is consistently about four to twelve times more
costly than the PFCHEV with a 64 km plug-in range. The
cost of the electrolyzer had the greatest impact on the thresh-
old fuel cell stack cost. The sizing factor had the second
greatest impact, and the battery eciency had the third great-
est impact. The fuel economy did not impact the threshold
fuel cell cost, but did impact the cost of the PFCHEV rela-
tive to the FCHEV. The latter was primarily due to an arti-
fact of the calculation where a 50 kW fuel cell stack supply
was always assumed for the FCHEV when it may have been
a more-even playing eld if a 30 kW fuel cell were matched
up with the 3.33 fuel economy.
4. Discussion
4.1. Sensitivity of RFC system costs
The electrolyzer cost is a most important research and
development area that will allow PFCHEV systems to be
more cost competitive sooner. In the best case, RFCs would
produce both electrical power and hydrogen/oxygen with
zero incremental price above a conventional fuel cell.
The sizing factor is a design degree of freedom. Sizing
factors that provide the fuel cell with more time to consume
the stored hydrogen (e.g. smaller sizing factors like 0.125/h
118 G.J. Suppes / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 113121
T
a
b
l
e
4
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
c
o
s
t
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
t
a
t
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
f
u
e
l
c
e
l
l
p
r
i
c
e
(
$
/
k
W
h
)
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
c
o
s
t
o
f
c
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
b
a
t
t
e
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
s
t
o
r
e
d
h
y
d
r
o
g
e
n
w
i
t
h
a
f
u
e
l
c
e
l
l
s
t
a
c
k
y
i
e
l
d
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
c
o
s
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
e
n
e
r
g
y
s
y
s
t
e
m

a
t
l
e
a
s
t
2
5
%
o
f
t
h
e
r
a
n
g
e
m
u
s
t
c
o
m
e
f
r
o
m
b
a
t
t
e
r
i
e
s
t
o
m
e
e
t
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
n
e
e
d
s
.
W
h
e
n
n
o
b
a
t
t
e
r
i
e
s
a
r
e
n
e
e
d
e
d
,
t
h
e
f
u
e
l
c
e
l
l
s
t
a
c
k
i
s
s
i
z
e
d
t
o
m
e
e
t
a
l
l
p
o
w
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
T
o
t
a
l
B
a
t
t
e
r
y
B
a
t
t
e
r
y
H
2
H
2
F
u
e
l
I
C
E
W
e
i
g
h
t
W
e
i
g
h
t
W
e
i
g
h
t
W
e
i
g
h
t
B
a
t
t
e
r
y
F
u
e
l
c
e
l
l
T
a
n
k
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
l
y
z
e
r
T
o
t
a
l
(
k
m
)
p
a
c
k
p
a
c
k
(
k
m
)
(
k
W
h
)
c
e
l
l
(
$
)
b
a
t
t
e
r
y
t
a
n
k
b
a
t
t
e
r
y
t
a
n
k
c
o
s
t
c
o
s
t
c
o
s
t
(
$
)
(
k
m
)
(
k
W
h
)
(
k
W
)
(
k
g
)
(
k
g
)
(
$
)
(
$
)
(
$
)
(
$
)
(
$
)
6
4
0
0
6
4
2
7
.
7
5
0
$
0
0
.
0
2
7
.
7
$
0
$
4
2
$
0
$
5
9
,
4
7
9
$
1
1
1
$
0
$
5
9
,
6
3
1
6
4
1
6
5
4
8
2
0
.
7
2
.
5
9
$
1
0
0
0
6
4
.
1
2
0
.
7
$
9
6
$
3
1
$
2
0
0
0
$
3
0
8
7
$
8
3
$
3
0
8
7
$
9
3
8
5
6
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
3
.
8
1
.
7
3
$
1
0
0
0
1
2
8
.
2
1
3
.
8
$
1
9
2
$
2
1
$
4
0
0
0
$
2
0
5
8
$
5
5
$
2
0
5
8
$
9
3
8
5
6
4
4
8
1
5
1
6
6
.
9
2
0
.
8
6
$
1
0
0
0
1
9
2
.
3
6
.
9
$
2
8
8
$
1
0
$
6
0
0
0
$
1
0
2
9
$
2
8
$
1
0
2
9
$
9
3
8
5
6
4
6
4
2
0
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
0
2
5
6
.
4
0
$
3
8
5
$
0
$
8
0
0
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
9
3
8
5
that allow 8 h to fully charge the hydrogen tank) lead to less
costly power systems; however, these systems would have
greater limitations on performance which translates to the
ICE being needed more frequently to provide power when
the fuel cell stack has not had sucient time to recharge
the batteries. In principal, this predominantly translates to
more frequent gasoline refueling stops. Low sizing fac-
tors and relatively small fuel cells (e.g. 1:72 kW) would
make excellent entry-level systems for this market. For the
PFCHEV system of Table 1, the cost of the power sys-
tem could be further reduced by use of a sizing factor less
than 0.125/h.
The PFCHEV would benet from highly ecient bat-
teries and batteries with large charge/discharge lives. This
suggests that high-capacity capacitors, ywheels, and other
ecient and robust storage means could be used to advan-
tage on the PFCHEV. Regenerative braking is also more
important in the PFCHEV than in conventional HEV ve-
hicles due to the premium paid for plug-in capabilities.
Batteries with higher power outputs would also be needed
since the specic power outputs listed in Table 3 would be
insucient.
Other parameters such as battery costs, costs for tanks,
and cost penalties for weight had relatively minor impacts
within the range of parameters. The estimated costs for the
PFCHEV power systems at the threshold fuel cell cost solu-
tions ranged from $6000 to $12,000. Electricity costs were
not considered because electricity is an operating cost. The
operating costs are discussed elsewhere [2].
Table 6 summarizes a series of analyses on the impact
of plug-in range on threshold fuel cell costs. The range
had no impact on the threshold fuel cell costs, but it did
impact the size of the fuel cell needed to meet power re-
quirements. As the size of the fuel cell stack became larger
to achieve greater ranges, the advantage over the FCHEV
diminished to a factor of 3.4 at a range of 129 km per
day.
4.2. Market entry products
The sensitivity analysis indicates that a vehicle similar to
that specied in Table 1 would be an entry-level vehicle
having a threshold fuel cell price of $1792/kW and system
price of $4773 (Table 7 summarizes entry level pricing).
This would be an ecient, light-weight vehicle with up to
48 km per day in plug-in range. The HEV version of this
vehicle would include about 10:6 km in battery capacity at
a cost of about $830 plus the ICE ($1000). A premium of
about $2957 is paid for the plug-in option with a 48 km
capacity. At $1792/kW, a 50 kW power system would cost
about $90,000.
For a hybrid car, the extra cost for the battery pack and
electronics is partially recoverable in the form of reduced
fuel consumption. Plug-in vehicles would have consider-
ably less gasoline consumption, but per-km energy costs
would be about the same as with the HEV. The fuel costs
3
G.J. Suppes / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 113121 119
Table 5
Fuel cell costs ($/kW) below which the combination of a fuel cell charger and battery pack is less expensive than use of the battery pack
alone to meet energy demands. Calculations are based on 64 km (40 miles) of plug-in range for a PFCHEV. The fuel cell kW ratings are
based on 16-km range from the batteries and 48-km range from the fuel cell stack. All energy and power units are in delivered energy. For
example the hydrogen (H
2
) in kWh must be divided by the fuel cell eciency to estimate the amount of hydrogen in the tank
FC Sizing Economy Spec. E. Cost bat Cost tank Cost Cost wt FC/PFC Total Cost FC
(kW) factor (kWh/km) energy bat (%) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) electrol. ($/kg) ($/$) ($) ($/kW)
(1/h) (Wh/kg) (% FC)
2.60 0.125 0.311 78 0.85 400 4 100% 1.5 6.3 $9385 $1184
1.72 0.083 9.5 $9385 $1782
5.19 0.25 3.2 $9385 $592
0.186 9.8 $6031 $1184
0.435 4.7 $12,738 $1184
70 6.3 $9429 $1190
80 6.3 $9375 $1182
0.8 5.6 $9385 $1051
0.9 7.1 $9385 $1336
550 6.5 $12,385 $1617
300 6.1 $7385 $895
2 6.4 $9385 $1198
6 6.3 $9385 $1182
0 12.7 $9385 $2379
2 4.2 $9385 $793
1 6.4 $9256 $1173
2 6.4 $9513 $1206
Table 6
Impact of vehicle plug-in range on threshold fuel cell prices and fuel cell power rating
Total (km) Battery (km) FC (kW) FC/PFC ($/$) Total ($) Cost FC ($/kW)
32 8 1.30 11.5 5192 1190
48 12 1.95 8.2 7288 1190
64 16 2.60 6.4 9385 1190
64 32 1.73 6.4 9385 1190
97 24 3.89 4.4 13,577 1190
129 32 5.19 3.4 17,769 1190
Table 7
Example entry level PFCHEV specications and costs
Spec.
Total kilometers 48
Battery pack (km) 16
Battery pack (kWh) 3
H
2
(km) 32
H
2
(kWh) 8.30
Fuel cell (kW) 0.69
ICE ($) 1000
Battery cost ($) 1200
Fuel cell cost ($) 1235
Electrolyzer ($) 1235
Total ($) 4773
FC ($/kW) 1792
are about $0.0155 and 0.0199/km ($0.025 and $0.032 per
mile)
2
for a gasoline ($0.25/l, no highway tax) ICE and
hydrogen produced by grid (o-peak, $0.056/kWh [11]).
Entry level vehicles will not pay for themselves at current
RFC prices based on saved fuel cost in the USin countries
where fuel prices are more than $1.00/l it is possible for
the PHEV and PFCHEV to pay for themselves based on
savings in fuel costs if they are able to tap into cheap o-peak
grid electricity.
2
Costs are based on a vehicle getting 12:75 km/l (30 mpg)
and fuel at $0.25/l (not including highway taxes). An energy con-
tent of 411; 426 kJ/l (114,500 Btu/gal) for gasoline translates to
2500 kJ/km of gasoline (3817 Btu gasoline/mile). This translates
to 450 kJ/km (687 Btu) of wheel energy per mile applied to all
fueling options.
120 G.J. Suppes / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 113121
Two potential US niche markets for the plug-in approach
are the alternative fuel markets created by Environmental
Policy Act (EPACT) regulation and consumers who are
willing to pay additional money for an automobile that dis-
places imported petroleum with electrical power produced
for indigenous feed stocks. The markets would not be huge,
but they would create additional momentum in the fuel cell
industry to further reduce costs.
At a fuel cell cost of $500/kW and a 50% premium for
reversible performance (possible by 2010), a power system
with the same economy and fuel cell sizing factor as that
of Table 7 would cost about $2750. This vehicle would re-
place about 75 l per year of imported petroleum with elec-
trical power. From a societal perspective, the benets would
warrant the additional cost. If the ICE and gasoline tank
were removed from this ICE and it were used for limited
local transit, the price of the power system could be further
reduced to about $1500 and the vehicle itself would real-
ize reduced costs due to weight reductions. Such a vehicle
would be particularly appropriate as a second vehicle in a
2-car family or as a short trip vehicle for a college student.
Vehicles with and without the backup ICE could realize sub-
stantial markets.
4.3. Evolution of fuel cell-battery-ICE tribrids
As fuel cells become less expensive, increased plug-in
ranges would become viable and the ICE would be used less.
As the ICE is used less, less expensive, lighter, and possibly
air-cooled ICEs could be used to reduce the premium prices
paid for these vehiclesthis would reduce the premium
paid for the plug-in option. When fuel cell prices are low
enough and the premium paid for the reversible aspect of
the fuel cell is low enough, the reduced ICE cost will allow
the cost PFCHEV power system to become less, eventually
being equal to the cost for HEV power systems. The greatest
attributes of the PFCHEV are its abilities to evolve into a
platform that is less expensive than ICE options and that
will be powered by indigenous fuels.
Today, PEM fuel cell costs are about $1100/kW when
used with pure oxygen and about $2200/kW [12] when used
with air. The costs are projected to be $650$1150 by 2010
[13]. The large automobile market could readily reduce the
prices to less than $500 by 2010 due to both mass production
and increased competition.
The entry level $4773 vehicle of Table 7 could be attained
by about 2007 based on projected fuel cell prices. Increased
demands for fuel cells could expedite the reductions in fuel
cell prices to the point where the $500/kW fuel cells with a
50%premiumfor reversible performance could be attainable
by 2010. The evolution from 2010 would include PFCHEV
vehicles with increased plug-in ranges both with and without
backup ICEs.
Fuel cells operated from electrolysis oxygen and hydro-
gen are considerably less complex than ICEs. Also, elec-
tronics and electric motors have the potential to be produced
Table 8
Typical operating costs for vehicle. Ranges include low end cost
of mid-sized car and upper end costs for luxury car and SUV [15]
Vehicle operating Average
cost range ($/mi) cost (%)
Depreciation 22.531.8 49.2
Insurance 6.910.5 14.3
Financing 4.88.3 12.3
Fuel 4.56.9 10.9
Maintenance, oil, tires 4.75.3 9.1
License & registration 1.43.2 4.2
Table 9
Qualitative comparison of PFCHEV approach to FCHEV relying
on hydrogen refueling
Hydrogen Plug-in &
refueling reformer
Fuel cell cost breakthroughs $$$ $$
Improved fuel cell durability $$ $
Improved hydrogen production $$ $
Hydrogen storage breakthroughs $$$ N/A
Hydrogen refueling breakthroughs $$ N/A
Hydrogen infrastructure cost $$$$$ N/A
H
2
Refueling time/anxiety/risk $$$ N/A
for lower costs and lighter weights than current mechanical
drive trains and transmissions. Fuel cell technology makes
entry of new companies into the automobile market eas-
ier than has been possible with ICEs and mechanical drive
trains. This is especially true for light-weight vehicles. Com-
petition could increase resulting in lower prices for vehicles
low-maintenance and dependable vehicles could become
available at a fraction of todays automobile prices (possible
by 2012). Table 8 summarizes the typical operating costs of
a vehicle. Substantial reductions in the cost of owning and
operating a vehicle can be achieved by reducing the vehicle
cost and those expenses like nancing, insurance, and taxes
that are related to the cost of the vehicle.
Table 9 qualitatively compares the cost of the FCHEV
using hydrogen refueling with the PFCHEV. No major cost
or technological barriers exist for the PFCHEV, while items
like the cost of a hydrogen refueling infrastructure will
make it dicult to make the transition from ICEs directly
to FCHEVs.
The PFCHEV will push the limits of battery technol-
ogy due to the high power output and the large number of
charge/recharge cycles. It is likely that large strides can be
made in power output as the power output currently does
not drive the price of batteriesprices correlate with the
energy content (kWh) of the batteries. A PFCHEV would
put a large number of cycles on the batteries, up to one
cycle for every 16 km.
G.J. Suppes / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 113121 121
A 1000-cycle battery life (see Table 2) translates to
10,000 miles before the battery pack would need to be
changed. Fortunately, EPRI reports that products like the
Saft nickel metal hydride batteries are achieving greater
than 2800 cycles [14]. In addition, through the use of ca-
pacitors, directing fuel cell power directly to the ICEs, and
accounting for backup ICE operation, a vehicle designed
for 16 km range from the battery pack could average near
32 km (20 miles) per cycle. This translates to 56,000 miles
before replacing the batteries. A single replacement of the
battery pack during the life of the vehicle is an attainable
short-term goal.
5. Conclusions
The PFCHEV approach using the fuel cell battery charger
provides for market entry vehicles that would cost ten times
less than FCHEVcounterparts using pure hydrogen and oxy-
gen. If air were used with FCHEV fuel cells, the PFCHEV
power systems would cost a factor of twenty less. Neither
does the PFCHEV rely on a hydrogen refueling infrastruc-
ture creating a commercially viable entry point for vehicles
beneting from fuel cells which is likely at least a decade
earlier than FCHEV vehicles.
The PFCHEV vehicles would use the versatility of the
electrical power grid to tap into domestic energy sources.
When wind, other renewable energy, or nuclear sources
are used, petroleum imports are displaced with technology
having near-zero carbon dioxide emissions and near-zero
tail-pipe emissions in the cities. Other than the modied ve-
hicle design, no additional infrastructure would be required
for the PFCHEV to enter the market. Increased electrical
power infrastructure would occur through private investment
in well-established supply-demand economics in providing
electrical power. The versatility to use o-peak electricity
for recharging PFCHEV will allow baseline power genera-
tion to increase, and this can be used to great advantage to
improve the electrical power grid infrastructure so that it is
more ecient and reliable.
At fuel cell costs less than about $1700/kW, the combi-
nation of fuel cells, batteries, and capacitors would be less
costly than batteries used in PHEV or BEV power systems.
Consumers that currently use BEV and EPACT-qualifying
alternative fuel vehicles should also be receptive to PFCHEV
vehicles that should become commercially competitive
starting in about 2007. It will likely be about 2010 before
fuel cells are inexpensive enough to cause growth in the tra-
ditional BEV market that will be replaced with limited range
FCHEV vehicles. The FCHEV vehicles will tend to evolve
toward use of larger fuel cell stacks and smaller battery
packs, eventually reaching fuel cell stack sizes that merge
into the FCHEV classication with backup ICEs no longer
being necessarya speculative timeframe for this is about
2020.
References
[1] Keith DW, Farrell AE. Rethinking hydrogen cars. Science
2003;301.
[2] Suppes GJ, Lopes S, Chiu CW. Plug-in fuel cell hybrids
as transition technology to hydrogen infrastructure. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2004;29:36974.
[3] Plug-In Hybrids: The Cars We Need for the Next Ten Years,
California Cars Initiative, an activity of the International
Humanities Center, 2003 (see http://calcars.org).
[4] Renyl J, Schuurmans PJ. Policy implications of hybrid
electric vehicles-nal report to NREL, National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Report ACB-5-15337-01
(see www.ott.doe.gov/pdfs/nevcor.pdf), April 22,
1996.
[5] Mullen R. Proposed car of near-future: plug-in hybrid. New
Technology Week. Washington, DC: King Communications
Group, Inc; October 20, 2003.
[6] Graham, Bob. Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles Signicant
Market Potential. see http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/
2003rule/1202wkshp/graham.pdf, 2002.
[7] Vyas AD, Ng HK. Batteries for electric drive vehicles: Evalua-
tion of future characteristics and costs through a Delphi survey.
1997. http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/103.pdf
[8] Your Driving Costs 1998, American Automobile Association,
based on data from Runzheimer International, see
http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm66.htm Toc18284947, 2002.
[9] Hinrichs RA, Kleinbach M. Energy Its use and the
environment, 3rd ed. London: Thomas Learning Inc;
2002.
[10] Doe Solicitation Number DE-PS36-03GO93013, Grand
challenge for basic and applied research in hydrogen storage,
US Department of Energy, Golden Field Oce, 1617 Cole
Boulevard, Golden, CO 80401-3393, 2003.
[11] http://www.dcec.com/billing rate.html, 2003.
[12] Based on price of 7 kW hydrogen power generator. See
http://www.fuelcellstore.com, Item #540118. Price estimates
include 50% cost reduction for pure oxygen fuel cell stack
versus air fuel cell stack.
[13] Energy Technology Fact Sheet. Published by United Nations
Environment Program, Division of Technology, Industry,
and Economics (see http://www.uneptie.org/energy/). See
http://www.etachase.com/Alt%20Energy%20papers/
UNEP fuelcell.pdf 2003.
[14] Duvall M. Advanced batteries for electric-drive vehicles.
Preprint Report, published by EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, Version
16, 2003 (see http://www.epri.com/corporate/discover epri/
news/downloads/EPRI AdvBatEV.pdf).
[15] Anonymous, Your Driving Costs, American Automobile
Association, based on data from Runzheimer International
(see http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm82.htm), 1998.