4.8 Article

A method for determining the optimal delivered hydrogen pressure for fuel cell electric vehicles

Journal

APPLIED ENERGY
Volume 216, Issue -, Pages 183-194

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.02.041

Keywords

Fuel cell electric vehicle; Hydrogen refueling station; On-board storage; Optimization; Driving range; Hydrogen fueling pressure

Funding

  1. Department of Energy's Fuel Cell Technologies Office

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) are considered an important part of a portfolio of options to address challenges in the transportation sector, including energy security and pollution reduction. The market success of FCEVs depends on standardization of key vehicle and infrastructure parameters, including the delivered hydrogen pressure (DHP). This study developed and utilized the Hydrogen Optimal Pressure (HOP) model to systematically identify the optimal DHP among 350, 500, and 700 bar toward the lowest total consumer cost and analyze how the optimal DHP may be affected by attributes of drivers, vehicles, and hydrogen refueling stations. The DHP of 700 bar a robustly better choice than 350 bar or 500 bar for Region Strategy, regardless of fuel availability, FCEV adoption, driver types, time values, and fuel economies. A DHP of 300 or 500 bar can the winner in Cluster Strategy if combined with certain assumptions of driving patterns and time value. the optimal pressure is found to be very sensitive to fuel availability, fuel economy, driving pattern and time value. The appeal of a higher DHP such as 700 bar (or even higher) is more obvious during the early market stages, when the number of hydrogen stations is limited and early FCEV consumers likely have higher time value, and thus may be willing to pay more for the increased range with higher DHP. Future research on mixed DHPs within a station and across stations is suggested.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available