Energy Policy 160 (2022) 112703

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

The economic feasibility of green hydrogen and fuel cell electric vehicles
for road transport in China
Yanfei Li a, b, *, Farhad Taghizadeh-Hesary c
a
Hunan University of Technology and Business, Changsha, China
b
Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA), Jakarta, Indonesia
c
Social Science Research Institute, Tokai University, Hiratsuka, Kanagawa, Japan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

JEL classification: In September 2020, the Chinese central government announced a new policy to develop hydrogen energy and
Q21 fuel cell applications. It emphasized fuel cell commercial vehicles rather than passenger vehicles. Such an
Q42 emphasis is drastically different from the hydrogen and fuel cell strategies of other leading economies. This study
Q48
aims at providing insights into the justification behind it. It develops quantitative models to conduct economic
R48
assessments of the feasibility of hydrogen energy produced from renewable energy and subsequently applied in
Keywords:
the road transport sector in China. A well-to-wheel model is developed to estimate the carbon emissions of the
Hydrogen
Renewable energy
hydrogen supply chain as well as that of the fuel cell electric vehicles. In the meantime, a levelised cost of
Road transport hydrogen model is adopted to analyze the cost of hydrogen as storage for renewable energy. These are followed
China by a total cost of ownership model applied to assess the cost of owning and driving fuel cell electric vehicle,
fueled by the hydrogen produced from renewables, compared to alternative vehicle powertrains, especially those
fossil fuel-based. On such a basis, the relation between energy policies and the competitiveness of hydrogen
produced from renewable energy and the fuel cell electric vehicle is discussed.

1. Introduction hydrogen (FreedomCAR&Fuel Partnership, 2009; Bruce et al., 2018;

Hydrogen-related technologies are reaching maturity to be
commercialized, with the costs continuously falling due to signs of
progress in both technologies and the supply chain. The U.S. Department
of Energy (2015) has pointed out that, from 2001 to 2011, the cost of
proton exchange membrane electrolyser stack fell by 80%, to around
USD 400/kW, and such is further reduced to USD 200–300/kW in 2015,
depending on the scale of manufacturing (Mayyas et al., 2018). Between
2006 and 2017, fuel cell stack cost has also fallen from USD 145/kW to
USD 47/kW and will arrive at USD 36/kW by 2025 if the production
reaches 500,000 units per year (U.S. Department of Energy, 2017).
Mainstream policy-making institutes and international organizations,
such as the International Energy Agency (2019) and the International
Renewable Energy Agency (2020), anticipate that hydrogen energy,
including green hydrogen, will reach cost parity with conventional en­
ergy sources in the long term, say, by 2030, in several parts of the world.
Therefore, several countries and regions have announced their roadmap
for hydrogen energy industries as well as hydrogen energy infrastruc­
ture, preparing for the arrival of large-scale commercial application of
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Strategy Council, 2019; Fuel Cells and Hydrogen
2 Joint Undertaking, 2019).
In recent years, China has also started to pay attention to hydrogen
energy at policy-making levels. At the central government level, the
State Council announced: “The 13th five-year plan for the development
of national strategic emerging industries” (State Council, 2016). This
was followed by the National Development and Reform Committee
(2019) ‘s announcement of “Advice on Deep Integration and Develop­
ment of Advanced Manufacturing and Modern Service Industries” in
2019. Both documents highlighted supportive policies and plans for
developing hydrogen energy. More recently, in 2020, hydrogen energy
is listed as an energy source for the first time in the “Energy Law (draft
for consultation)”. In the meantime, hydrogen energy and energy stor­
age are listed as strategic emerging industries in the newly announced
14th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development and
the Outline of the 2035 Long-range Goals (National Energy Adminis­
tration, 2020a). In September of the same year, five ministries lead by
the National Ministry of Finance, the National Development and Reform
Commission, and the National Energy Administration jointly issued the

* Corresponding author. Hunan University of Technology and Business, Changsha, China.

E-mail addresses: yanfei.li@outlook.com (Y. Li), farhad@tsc.u-tokai.ac.jp (F. Taghizadeh-Hesary).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112703
Received 23 July 2021; Received in revised form 29 October 2021; Accepted 2 November 2021
Available online 8 November 2021
0301-4215/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Li and F. Taghizadeh-Hesary
“Notice on the Demonstration Application of Fuel Cell Vehicles”,
replacing existing subsidies with awards given to encourage the devel­
opment of the hydrogen in the form of demonstration city, the devel­
opment of related industrial chain, core technologies, the corresponding
hydrogen infrastructure, and the commercial hydrogen vehicle as the
prioritized end-use applications (National Energy Administration,
2020b).
At the local government level, several provinces and municipals,
such as Zhangjiakou, Foshan, Rugao, Wuhan, Datong, Suzhou, and
Chengdu, have started developing hydrogen energy industrial parks and
demonstration projects of hydrogen energy applications. More than a
thousand units of fuel cell buses and logistics vehicles have already been
deployed and implemented in these cities, as demonstration and test-
bedding of the technologies (China Hydrogen Alliance, 2018, 2019).
Hydrogen also looks promising as a necessary component of China’s
future clean energy landscape. As the country has set its carbon peak and
carbon neutrality targets, large-scale application of renewable energy in
China and its concomitant intermittency require a significant energy
storage capacity for the renewable energy to be fully absorbed by the
energy system, such as the power grid. Such provides the country with
the main motivation to look into hydrogen as massive-scale energy
storage (GEIDCO, 2021).
On the energy storage front, pumped hydro, wherever available, is a
low-cost energy storage solution. Nevertheless, most of such potential
has already been developed. The other solution is large-scale battery
storage. However, batteries come with many limits, including high
capital cost, short lifetime, and a limited energy storage capacity which
keeps degrading during its lifetime. Therefore, as an energy storage
option in the power sector, hydrogen is promising, especially consid­
ering the scale of abandoned renewable energy in China due to the lack
of massive-scale energy storage.
In the meantime, as an energy application in the transport sector,
hydrogen as an energy carrier also intrinsically has many advantages
(China EV100, 2020; CSAE, 2020). Firstly, its energy intensity is the
same as gasoline, while fuel cell electric vehicles typically have higher
fuel economy than gasoline or diesel engine vehicles. Therefore, 5 kg of
hydrogen carried onboard a sedan vehicle can sustain driving up to 500
km. Second, refueling can be done as quickly as gasoline and diesel.
These two advantages make it especially suitable for long-distance or
heavy-duty trips, such as inter-city buses and cargo delivery by trucks.
Thirdly, fuel cell electric vehicles can endure low temperature and thus
expects better acceptance than battery electric vehicles in regions with
cold winters.
From an energy security perspective, hydrogen can be produced by
various pathways, especially from clean and indigenous sources, such as
renewables, nuclear, biomass, and biofuel. This is critically important
for the energy security of countries highly relying on imports of fossil
fuels to power their transportation sector (Ajanovic and Haas, 2019,
2021). In addition to that, hydrogen is complementary to China’s move
of transiting into electrification of its land transport sector, which
currently mostly relies on chemical batteries such as lead-acid and
lithium compounds. In this sense, hydrogen provides a complementary
solution to the coupling of renewable energy and land transport sectors
(especially as trucks and buses for long-distance and heavy-duty appli­
cations). Such is especially true when hydrogen provides an option for
the long-term, such as seasonal storage for renewable energy is
considered.
However, in literature, in the context of road transport sector ap­
plications in China, there’s a lack of understanding of (1) the economics
of hydrogen energy supply and its downstream applications, especially
concerning the scenarios in which green hydrogen – hydrogen produced
from renewable sources – is applied in the various vehicle fleets,
including passenger vehicles, buses, and trucks; (2) the implications of
various energy and environment policies, such as subsidies, tax credits,
and carbon emission benefits given to hydrogen energy and fuel cell
vehicles, also need to be quantified, with the consideration of the
2
Energy Policy 160 (2022) 112703
different combination of production, transport, storage, and delivery
pathways of hydrogen due to local scenarios with different energy
endowment, available infrastructure, as well as users’ pattern of usage
and preferences. Studies that cover both (1) and (2) could give clear
signals to both potential investors of hydrogen infrastructure and poli­
cymakers regarding how big the gaps in the competitiveness of
hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles are, as well as efforts at which section of
the supply chain and what policy tools could help bridge these gaps. In
this regard, He et al. (2021) provided a study on the case of fuel cell
passenger vehicles only, without considering factors given in point (2).
Studies on the competitiveness of fuel cell buses and trucks in China are
also largely missing. This study thus aims at contributing to bridging
these gaps in the literature.
This study develops quantitative models to conduct economic as­
sessments of the feasibility of hydrogen energy produced from renew­
able energy and subsequently applied in the road transport sector in
China. A well-to-wheel model is applied to estimate the carbon emis­
sions of the hydrogen supply chain as well as that of the fuel cell electric
vehicles. In the meantime, a levelised cost of hydrogen model is adopted
to analyze the cost of hydrogen as storage for renewable energy. A total
cost of ownership model is applied to analyze the cost of mobility by fuel
cell electric vehicles, fueled by the hydrogen produced from renewables,
in comparison to vehicles with alternative powertrains, such as battery
electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid vehicles, and internal combustion en­
gine vehicles (namely those run on fossil fuels).
Specifically, these models are customized for application scenarios in
the context of China in terms of differences in energy prices, power
generation mix, power transmission and distribution system, the pattern
of energy demand, the pattern of vehicle usage, taxation, and subsidies.
Therefore, these models directly reflect the extent to which subsidies,
tax recessions, or other incentives should be provided for hydrogen and
fuel cell electric vehicles at the current stage of developing this tech­
nology to reach competitiveness in selected scenarios of applications in
the market. The well-to-wheel model delivers estimations on the carbon
emissions of fuel cell electric vehicles in kg of CO2/km. The levelized
cost of hydrogen model assesses the cost of hydrogen delivered at the
refilling stations in $/kg of H2, while the total cost of ownership model
calculates the cost of owning and using fuel cell electric vehicles in
$/km.
This study delivers the following key findings: (1) hydrogen as en­
ergy storage for renewable energy in the Chinese power sector is not
economically competitive yet. Partially this is due to the regulated
pricing of electricity in China. (2) hydrogen as a fuel for passenger fuel
cell vehicles is already competitive due to substantial subsidies the
government currently provides. (3) However, such is not the case
regarding fuel cell buses and trucks. More support in both the research
and development of these technologies and the industrial supply chains
are critical to reduce their capital costs meaningfully. (4) Additional fuel
taxes on conventional fossil fuel, carbon tax, and carbon emission
trading could also significantly improve the competitiveness of clean or
zero-emission hydrogen energy.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a
literature review. Section 3 presents the methodology and data. Section
4 discusses the findings from our modelling analysis. And section 5
concludes and draws policy implications.
2. Literature review
The literature review is categorized into three sections, including 1-
Upstream: hydrogen production, 2- Mid-stream: transportation and de­
livery of hydrogen, and 3- Downstream: Applications of Hydrogen as
Energy.
2.1. Upstream: hydrogen production
First, at the production stage, especially regarding hydrogen
Y. Li and F. Taghizadeh-Hesary Energy Policy 160 (2022) 112703

produced from electrolysis, there are two main cost drivers: one is the
expensive capital cost of production equipment, such as electrolysers;
second is the cost of energy, especially electricity (Rahil, 2017). Dis­
tinguishing electricity by its sources, the cost of electrolysis using
renewable energy is much more expensive than using grid electricity.
The cost of production in distributed hydrogen production is higher than
that of centralized large-scale production, as the latter comes with a
significant economy of scale. Table 1 summarizes the findings regarding
the cost of hydrogen production from the literature.
Several international organizations have provided cross-country
comparisons in the cost of hydrogen production. Asia Pacific Energy
Research Centre (APERC) (2018) found significant differences in the
cost of hydrogen production by various paths. For example, hydrogen
production using electricity from solar photovoltaic (PV) costs USD
6.65/kg, 6.02/kg, 4.12/kg and 3.7/kg, in South Korea, Japan, China,
and the U.S., respectively; hydrogen production using electricity from
wind power costs USD 6.65/kg, 5.66/kg, 4.21/kg and 3.99/kg, in South
Korea, Japan, China, and U.S., respectively. Among all pathways that
use renewables to produce hydrogen, the lowest costs come from hy­
dropower in New Zealand and Canada, at USD 2.69/kg and 2.66/kg,
respectively. For the production of hydrogen from fossil fuels, the cost of
coal gasification with carbon capture and storage (CCS) falls in the range
between USD 2.27/kg and USD 2.61/kg in various countries. Natural gas
reforming with CCS has the lowest costs among fossil fuel pathways,
ranging from USD 0.78/kg (Russian case) to USD 1.49/kg (U.S. case).
International Energy Agency ((IEA 2019)) estimated the cost of
hydrogen production by several pathways in China. Hydrogen produce
from coal has the lowest cost, at USD 1.1/kg; if CCS is applied, then the
cost increases to USD 1.6/kg. Natural gas reforming costs USD 1.8/kg,
and it increases to USD 2.3/kg if CCS is applied. Hydrogen produced
from electrolysis using renewables costs about USD 3.0/kg, while it costs
USD 5.4/kg if grid electricity is used.
2.2. Mid-stream: transportation and delivery of hydrogen
Besides the cost of hydrogen production, the infrastructure and
network for transportation, storage, delivery, and refilling of hydrogen
are also costly and, to a large extent, decide the cost of hydrogen to end-
users. Currently, mainstream technologies for the transportation and
delivery of hydrogen include pipeline, compressed hydrogen, liquefied
hydrogen, and liquid organic hydrogen carrier (LOHC).
The U.S. Department of Energy (2015) estimated the cost of
hydrogen transportation, delivery, and refilling, using the HDSAM tool
developed by the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) as follows: (1)
Pipeline (100 km): USD 4.85/kg; (2) Compressed hydrogen trailer (283
km): USD 3.30/kg; an (3) Liquid hydrogen trailer (283 km): USD
3.25/kg.
Reuβ et al. (2017) estimated hydrogen transportation and delivery
cost, with trans-seasonal storage for 60 days. By mixing the use of
compressed hydrogen, liquid hydrogen, and LOHC for different sections
of the supply chain, the costs of transportation and delivery range from
USD 5.5/kg to USD 7.9/kg. The study’s hydrogen production capacity
assumption is 50 tonnes/day, with a transportation and delivery dis­
tance of 250 km.
APERC (2018) studied the scenarios of various Asia-Pacific countries
exporting hydrogen to Japan for subsequent uses in power generation
applications and fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV) applications. In the
power generation application scenarios, considering transporting
hydrogen in the liquid form, the costs of transportation from Indonesia,
Australia, the U.S., and Russia reached USD 2.23/kg, 2.51/kg, 2.3/kg,
and 1.76/kg, respectively. In the case of FCEV applications, the cost of
hydrogen refilling stations needs to be considered. Therefore, the final
cost of hydrogen to end-user reached USD 12.6/kg, if the hydrogen
comes from solar PV-based production in Indonesia. Moreover, the final
user cost of hydrogen reached USD 8.28/kg, in hydrogen from natural
gas reforming in Russia.
IEA (2019) studied the case of Australia exporting hydrogen to
Japan. The estimated cost of liquid hydrogen transportation is USD
3.2/kg. If LOHC and Ammonia are used for the transportation of
hydrogen, the cost could be reduced to USD 2.2/kg and USD 1.6/kg,
respectively.
Taking Zhangjiakou, Hebei Province as an example, Zhang et al.

Table 1
The estimated cost of hydrogen production from the recent literature.
Country/ Energy Source Type of Technology Estimated Cost Expected Future
Region Cost

James et al. The U.S. Grid electricity Large-scale centralized；Proton USD 4.20–5.11/kg
(2016) exchange membrane（PEM）
electrolyser
The U.S. Grid electricity Large-scale centralized；Solid oxide USD 3.82–4.96/kg
electrolysis cell
The U.S. Grid electricity The small-scale on site； PEM USD 4.23–5.14/kg
electrolyser
The U.S. Grid electricity The small scale on site；Molten USD 2.58–3.71/kg
carbonate fuel cell
The U.S. Biomass Large-scale centralized；biomass USD 51/kg USD 5.65/kg（by
fermentation 2025）
Rahil (2017) Canada Medium-scale wind power Onsite electrolysis USD 9.0/kg
Rahil et al. Libya Small scale wind power Onsite electrolysis USD 12.56–14.04/kg USD 8.37–8.91/kg
(2018) a （by 2030）
Miller et al. The U.S. Natural gas, solar Large-scale steam methane reforming, USD 1.89/kg，6.16/kg，and 2.5/kg,
(2017) photovoltaic and biomass electrolysis, and gasification respectively
The U.S. Natural gas, grid electricity Onsite distributed production USD 2.03/kg，5.75/kg，and 3.32/kg,
and biomass respectively
Mao et al. (2018) China Coal, natural gas Centralized gasification and reforming Coal-based at USD 1.42–1.94/kg; natural
b
gas-based at USD 1.40–5.15/kg.
Hydrogen Germany Offshore wind energy Small to medium PEM electrolysis USD 6/kg USD 2.6/kg (2030)
Council (2020)
Minutillo et al. Italy Solar photovoltaic and grid Forecourt production USD 11.33–15.23/kg
(2021) c electricity
a
GBP is converted into USD at the exchange rate of 1 GBP = 1.35 USD.
b
CNY is converted into USD at the exchange rate of 1 CNY = 0.15 USD.
c
Euro is converted into USD at the exchange rate of 1 Euro = 1.22 USD.
Source: Authors summarized based on literature

3
Y. Li and F. Taghizadeh-Hesary
(2020) estimated that the cost of wind power hydrogen production and
hydrogen supply (including 40 km compressed hydrogen transportation
and hydrogenation station) is USD 10.0/kg, which is expected to drop to
USD 4.5/kg in 2030, and it is expected that the entire hydrogen supply
chain will become profitable by then. Song et al. (2020) theoretically
calculated various hydrogen supply paths in Shanghai in the future and
concluded that the cost of hydrogen supply was USD 2.7–6.0/kg. Liu
et al. (2020) estimated the feasibility of the project of producing
hydrogen from wind and light power in Xinjiang and transporting it to
Beijing (a distance of more than 3000 km) using hydrogen blending in
pipelines and concluded that the project was economically feasible and
the price of pure hydrogen to Beijing Gate Station was about 3.6 US
dollars/kg.
It is thus observed that factors such as geographical conditions, the
distance of transport, and the choice of transportation technologies
determine that the cost of transportation and delivery varies signifi­
cantly among different regions and different countries in different
application scenarios. At this moment, there is, in general, a lack of
literature about the cost of hydrogen transportation and delivery in
China.
2.3. Downstream: applications of hydrogen as energy
Last but not least, we review the cost matters in the downstream,
which is the application of hydrogen energy, including the power sector,
the heat supply, and the transport sector. The key is whether or not
hydrogen energy applications could compete with conventional energy
in these sectors. If not, what are the future cost targets for hydrogen
energy to become competitive?
The Fuel Cell Technology Office of the U.S. Department of Energy
started to make and routinely renew its MYRD&D (Multi-Year Research,
Development, and Demonstration) since 2003. According to this office,
when the following cost targets are met, hydrogen energy will become
competitive:
A. The total supply cost, namely including the production cost and cost
of transportation and delivery, should be lower than USD 4.0/kg, in
which the cost of transportation and delivery is lower than USD 2.0/
kg;
B. The capital cost of the electrolyser system becomes lower than USD
300/kW, while its conversion efficiency reaches as high as 77%;
C. The cost of the fuel cell system becomes lower than USD 40/kW by
2020, with peak efficiency reaching 65% and a life expectancy of
5000 h. Eventually, the cost of the system reaches USD 30/kW, with
life expectancy at 8000 h.
D. Vehicle’s onboard hydrogen storage reaches as low as USD 10/kWh
by 2020 and eventually converges to USD 8/kWh.
In Japan, as APERC (2018) shows, the total supply cost of hydrogen
should be as low as USD 1.92/kg – USD 3.23/kg to compete with
coal-fired power generation. To compete with power generation by LNG,
it needs to reach USD 2.04/kg – USD 2.64/kg. For applications in the
transport sector, it needs to reach as low as USD 1.32/kg to compete
with conventional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEV).
Hydrogen Europe (2018), a European hydrogen and fuel cell asso­
ciation affiliated with the European Union expected the cost of elec­
trolyser to come down to USD 878/kW by 2025. The cost of hydrogen
production by electrolysis reaches USD 6.1/kg. After 2030, it is expected
that large-scale applications of hydrogen technologies could help reduce
the cost of electrolyser to as low as USD 610/kW and therefore brings
down the cost of hydrogen production to USD 3.7/kg. On the hydrogen
storage front, if the capital cost of large-scale hydrogen storage could
reach USD 6.1/kWh, which is 1/100 of the current cost of battery
storage, it becomes economically competitive. The capital cost of
distributed hydrogen storage should reach USD 12.2/kWh. On the
transportation and delivery front, it is expected that all pathways reach
4
Energy Policy 160 (2022) 112703
cost levels lower than USD 1.2/kg by 2030. Around the same time, the
capital cost of fuel cell reaches USD 61/kW, so that the capital cost of
hydrogen storage and fuel cell system for a passenger vehicle becomes
lower than USD 6,100, while that of a bus becomes lower than USD 48,
800.
In the East Asia region, according to ERIA (2019), in the power
sector, if only consider the C.I.F. cost of imported energy, including
hydrogen and other types of energy, hydrogen should be as cheap as
USD 0.53/kg – USD 0.85/kg, to compete with coal for electricity gen­
eration. It needs to reach USD 1.29/kg – USD 1.41/kg to compete with
natural gas in the same regard. Regarding the application of hydrogen in
the industry sector, taking Japan as an example, hydrogen needs to
reach USD 1.69/kg – USD 1.99/kg to compete with natural gas.
If we only consider the comparison of fuel cost in the transport
sector, hydrogen needs to reach USD 4.24/kg – USD 5.0/kg, so that
FCEV could compete with conventional ICEV in Japan. In the case of
Indonesia, the competitive range of hydrogen cost is USD 3.78/kg – USD
4.53/kg. If the high capital cost of FCEV and high cost of hydrogen
supply are considered together, the per km cost of FCEV usage is twice as
high as ICEV.
He et al. (2021) evaluated the economic applicability and carbon
emission levels of fuel cell passenger vehicles in China. The GREET and
HDSAM models funded by the U.S. Department of Energy were used to
estimate and draw the following conclusions. In 2017, hydrogen pro­
duction from discarded wind power was used in China, and the
hydrogen supply cost was $10.7/kg. The operating cost of a fuel-cell
vehicle is $0.37 to $0.43/km, higher than that of a fossil-fuel-powered
vehicle of the same class ($0.29/km). Therefore, in the future, when
the cost of hydrogen supply and the manufacturing cost of fuel cell ve­
hicles decrease by 35%, respectively, hydrogen energy and fuel cell
vehicle and fuel vehicles can be more economically feasible. In terms of
emissions, using renewable energy to produce hydrogen for fuel cell
vehicles only produces 36–49 g of carbon per kilometer, far lower than
the 307 g per kilometer of fossil fuel-powered vehicles.
According to the above, hydrogen energy needs further efforts from
at least three aspects to reach competitiveness for large-scale commer­
cial applications: 1. Continuous and more investment in research,
development and demonstration that improves technical performances
and reduces costs through technological improvements; 2. Prioritize the
development of early markets and niche markets for hydrogen energy
applications, in order to benefit from the learning effects, the economy
of scale, and the network effect of hydrogen energy infrastructure, thus
reducing costs accordingly; 3. Sufficient and supportive policies which
favor the development and adoption of hydrogen energy and fuel cell
technologies. In this regard, the policies which were adopted to support
battery electric vehicle (BEV) could be referred to as examples.
3. Methodology and data
This study investigates the economics of hydrogen, produced from
renewable energy, as an energy application for the road transport sector
in mainland China. Specifically, the cost of producing hydrogen from
renewable energy, the logistics costs of transporting and storing
hydrogen, and eventually the cost of refueling hydrogen into vehicles at
the hydrogen station will be estimated. Then the application of FCEV is
compared to other alternative powertrains of vehicles, such as BEV,
plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV)/hybrid electric vehicle (HEV),
and conventional ICEV.
A levelised cost of hydrogen (LCOH) model, a total cost of ownership
(TCO) model, as well as a well-to-wheel (WTW) cost model, covering
both the upstream and downstream of the hydrogen economy, are
developed to simulate various scenarios, assuming different technolo­
gies and industrial processes of hydrogen production pathways,
different energy endowment which determines the mix of hydrogen
production and costs of primary energy inputs, different usage of vehi­
cles in various fleets, and country-specific energy policies such as taxes,
Y. Li and F. Taghizadeh-Hesary
surcharges, and subsidies applied to conventional as well as new energy
products and technologies. Scenarios built with reasonable assumptions
about the above-mentioned key factors will be able to precisely indicate
the economic and commercial feasibility of establishing hydrogen sup­
ply chains.
Fig. 1 illustrates the key features and factors captured in an LCOH
model for the hydrogen supply chain. The specification of a hydrogen
supply chain starts with the choice of centralised production mode or
forecourt production mode. The former requires transport and delivery
infrastructure, while the latter is production onsite at the location of
catering. Important features such as the utilisation rate, the transport,
storage, and delivery pathway, the corresponding capacity and opera­
tion of infrastructure, and the energy consumption of the supply chain
and the cost of energy inputs are considered in such a model.
Fig. 2 presents the key input and output of a TCO model for FCEV as
well as other competing powertrains. These include the energy and
emissions of the production, transport, and delivery of energy to refill
the vehicle, technical parameters of the vehicle, and the pattern of
vehicle usage. Eventually, the output includes the Levelized cost of
owning and driving the vehicle for each km during its expected lifetime,
based on the estimation of its capital expenditure (CAPEX), operational
expenditure (OPEX), and fuel cost.
Fig. 3 illustrates how the WTW model of hydrogen supply chain and
vehicle applications is structured in our study. As the output, we get the
energy consumption levels and carbon emission levels of the vehicles.
In this study, the impact of energy prices, including those of
renewable energy and fossil fuels, as the basic inputs to produce
hydrogen as well as to transport and deliver hydrogen, will be the focus.
Table 2 presents our assumptions on the benchmark costs of energy in
China.
The renewable energy prices assumed here are based on the
assumption of curtailed renewable energy being used for hydrogen
production. Table 3 describes renewable energy curtailment
assumptions.
To test the sensitivity of the total cost of supplied hydrogen to
changes in energy prices, we assume energy prices vary in a range of
− 20% to +20% around the benchmark prices.
Specification of the FCEV models is as follows (Table 4).
The data on the CAPEX and OPEX of the hydrogen supply chain,
including the production, transportation, delivery, and vehicle owner­
ship and usage, are based on various literature, mainly including APERC
(2018), ERIA (2019), Demir and Dincer (2018), Hassan et al. (2019),
Fig. 1. Key features and factors captured in a LCOH model for hydrogen supply chain.
Source: Authors’ depiction
5
Energy Policy 160 (2022) 112703
Parra et al. (2019), Rahil (2017), Rahil et al. (2018), Reuβ et al. (2017),
Reuβ et al. (2019), and Teichmann et al. (2012).
4. Results and findings
4.1. TCO analysis
Firstly, we specify a scenario of transportation and delivery as the
domestic medium distance at 100 km from the centralized production
site of hydrogen to the hydrogen refilling stations. The transportation
and delivery process involves a hydrogen storage facility that has a ca­
pacity equivalent to 7 days of maximum hydrogen production by the
system.
Accordingly, the total cost of hydrogen supplied at the refilling sta­
tions by different transportation and delivery pathways is estimated as
follows (Table 5).
With such hydrogen prices at the refilling station, Table 6 presents
the cost per km of FCEV usage in three-vehicle fleets in China, namely
passenger car, bus and truck, using the TCO model and applying
hydrogen sourced from solar energy. The TCO in terms of $/km includes
both the CAPEX, OPEX and fuel costs.
Such could be compared with the TCO of vehicles (of typical and
comparable specification such as engine power) with alternative pow­
ertrains, including BEV, PHEV/HEV, and ICEV (Table 7).
It is thus observed that, first, FCEV, in general, is not competitive
against other powertrains, not even BEV. Second, however, generous
subsidies are given to fuel cell passenger cars, which is around $57,000
per vehicle, as announced in 2019. As such, it appears to be already
competitive with other powertrains, including ICEV. However, such is
the subsidies that the Chinese central and local government could offer
when it is small-scale for demonstration purposes. It is highly unlikely
that such generous subsidies could continue as fuel cell passenger cars
come into large-scale commercial applications.
In addition, Table 7 shows that BEVs appear to be a competitive
choice to replace ICEVs, not only in the passenger vehicle fleet, but also
the bus and truck fleet. However, we take note that BEVs have their
intrinsic physical limitations that are not captured by our WTW and TCO
models, in real world applications. There at least three major concerns to
be resolved before we could conclude that we should fully rely on BEVs
to electrify the road transport sector in the country: the first one is the
suitability of BEVs for long-haul and heavy-duty missions, considering
the limited energy intensity of batteries with current technologies; the
Y. Li and F. Taghizadeh-Hesary Energy Policy 160 (2022) 112703

Fig. 2. Key input and output of a TCO model for vehicle.

Source: Authors’ depiction

Fig. 3. Connecting the WTW model of hydrogen supply chain and the vehicle TCO model.
Source: Authors’ depiction

Table 2
Benchmark assumptions on energy prices in China.
Grid electricity ($/kWh) Solar PV ($/kWh) Wind ($/kWh) Hydropower ($/kWh) Diesel ($/liter) Gasoline ($/liter) Heavy fuel oil ($/tonne)

Prices 0.092 0.029 0.044 0.033 0.9 1.01 455.5

Source: Authors’ assumptions based on APERC (2018) and www.globalpetrolprices.com

the third is the question of energy security, namely when fully electrified
Table 3
with BEVs, the road transport sector could be paralysed almost
Assumptions on the curtailed renewable energy.
completely in a blackout event, whether it is due to a technical problem
Solar PV Wind Hydropower of the grid, a terrorist attack, or a foreign military assault. These con­
Project scale (MW) 4000 4000 4000 cerns are less important if BEVs are mainly prioritized as the future
Capacity factor 20% 33% 36% green mobility solution for the passenger vehicle fleet, especially in the
Curtailment rate 30% 30% 30%
urban areas. BEVs could also play a significant role as buses and light-
Curtailed energy (MWh) 2,102,400 3,437,434 3,752,784
duty trucks serving the urban areas. However, such still leaves gaps
Source: Authors’ assumptions for FCEVs to bridge in the remaining of the road transport sector.
Various policies could also affect the most important cost component
second one is the drastically reduced range of mobility of BEVs in of the production of green hydrogen – the energy feedstock. To see the
extreme weather conditions, e.g. the coldness of winters especially in role played by fuel cost – the cost of electricity from solar, wind and
northern provinces and the heat of summers in southern provinces; and hydropower – in determining the total supply cost of hydrogen, we

6
Y. Li and F. Taghizadeh-Hesary Energy Policy 160 (2022) 112703

Table 4
Specification of FCEV models.
FC Stack Capacity (kW) Battery Capacity (kWh) Tank Storage (kg) TTW Efficiency Electric Mode (MPGe) Range of Electric Mileage (km) OMV ($)

Passenger Car 114.7 1.6 5.0 67.0 482.8 57,500

Bus 228.0 12.0 37.5 6.63 400.0 920,017
Truck 228.0 12.0 40.0 5.0 321.9 900,000

Source: Authors compiled based on manufacturers’ public report

conduct the following sensitivity analysis. Fig. 4 presents the compari­

Table 5
son of energy cost sensitivity scenarios for a passenger car. Fig. 5 pre­
The estimated total cost of hydrogen supplied ($/kg).
sents the comparison for bus and Fig. 6 for a truck.
Pipeline Compressed Liquid Hydrogen LOHC It could be observed that although variation in hydrogen costs could
Hydrogen Truck Truck Truck
significantly influence the economic competitiveness of FCEV, the ma­
Solar PV 5.67 6.27 19.50 8.06 jority of the TCO for FCEV is still determined by non-fuel costs, namely
Wind 6.30 6.96 20.80 8.96
the CAPEX and non-fuel OPEX of the vehicle per se. Therefore, while it is
Hydropower 5.74 6.41 19.78 8.24
essential to make sure that the cost of supplying hydrogen should be
Source: Authors’ calculation substantially reduced in the future, it is even more critical that FCEV
technologies and related industries make substantial progress in
bringing down the CAPEX of the vehicle.
Table 6
Total cost of ownership of FCEV in China (Hydrogen Sourced from Solar PV)
4.2. Carbon emissions of FCEVs
($/km).
Pipeline Compressed Liquid Hydrogen LOHC
Our WTW model also estimates road transport vehicles’ carbon di­
Hydrogen Truck Truck Truck
oxide emission levels by the three different fleets. Table 8 presents the
Passenger 0.295 0.303 0.479 0.327 estimations on the emissions of FCEVs in China, with hydrogen sourced
Car
Bus 3.495 3.576 5.352 3.815
from electricity produced by solar PV. Such is compared with carbon
Truck 3.082 3.189 5.545 3.507 dioxide emission levels of BEVs, PHEVs and ICEVs in China in Table 9.
The numbers are estimated based on common vehicle models available
Source: Authors’ calculation
in the market. In BEV, since it is typically impossible to earmark the
electricity charged as sourced from specific clean energy sources, carbon
Table 7 emissions of grid electricity in China are applied. It is noted that the
Total cost of ownership of vehicles with alternative powertrains in China estimates in Tables 8 and 9 are in line with the estimated ranges given by
($/km). IEA (2015).
BEV PHEV/HEV ICEV
Comparing Tables 8 and 9, we can see that, with hydrogen sourced
from electricity produced by solar PV, hydrogen supplied in most
Passenger Car 0.466 0.504 0.414
pathways, such as pipeline, compressed hydrogen, and LOHC present
Bus 1.607 2.085 1.733
Truck 0.858 0.944 1.017 the lowest levels of carbon dioxide emissions among all powertrain
technologies. Thus, indeed the concept of FCEVs powered by hydrogen
Source: authors’ calculation
sourced from renewables is a desirable low-carbon emissions solution. In
the case of liquefied hydrogen, we note that the economies of scale
should also be able to play a significant role in driving down the carbon

Fig. 4. Hydrogen cost sensitivity scenarios (TCO of passenger car) ($/km). Fig. 5. Hydrogen cost sensitivity scenarios (TCO of bus) ($/km).
Source: Authors’ calculation Source: Authors’ calculation

7
Y. Li and F. Taghizadeh-Hesary Energy Policy 160 (2022) 112703

other words, carbon prices need to increase by more than 10 times the
current levels to make the environmental externality visible to users of
vehicles.

5. Conclusions and policy implications

This study examines the relationship between energy policies and the
economic feasibility of hydrogen energy for road transport in China,
especially focusing on hydrogen as energy storage for renewables – also
known as green hydrogen. A well-to-wheel model is developed to esti­
mate the carbon emissions of the hydrogen supply chain as well as that
of the fuel cell vehicles. In the meantime, a levelised cost of hydrogen
model is established to analyze the total cost of supplying hydrogen from
renewable energy sources to hydrogen refilling stations for vehicle use
purposes. Subsequently, a total cost of ownership model is built to
analyze the per kilometer cost of owning and using a fuel cell electric
vehicle compared to alternative powertrains, such as battery electric
vehicle, plug-in hybrid vehicle, hybrid vehicle, and conventional inter­
nal combustion engine vehicle.
We found that compared to the current common retail hydrogen
prices at hydrogen refilling stations operating in China at around $12.2/
kg (without considering government subsidies) and sourced from the
Fig. 6. Hydrogen cost sensitivity scenarios (TCO of truck) ($/km).
Source: authors’ calculation purification of industrial byproduct hydrogen, hydrogen produced from
all three renewable energy sources delivered by pipeline, compressed
hydrogen truck, and liquid organic hydrogen carrier truck are
Table 8 competitive.
Carbon emissions of FCEVs in the three fleets (kg/km). However, cost of hydrogen at such levels barely enables a fuel cell
Pipeline Compressed Liquid Hydrogen LOHC electric vehicle as a passenger car to be economically competitive
Hydrogen Truck Truck Truck compared to vehicles with other powertrains, given that both central
Passenger 0.036 0.038 0.118 0.042 and local government provides substantial subsidies on the capital cost
Car of fuel cell electric vehicles in China. In the bus and truck fleet, fuel cell
Bus 0.344 0.366 1.174 0.406 electric vehicles remain uncompetitive. In the case of fuel cell electric
Truck 0.457 0.486 1.556 0.538 bus, its total cost of ownership is about twice as high as the conventional
Source: Authors’ Calculation bus running on fossil fuels, while in the case of fuel cell electric truck, its
total cost of ownership is about three times as high as conventional
truck.
Table 9 In our sensitivity analysis with the cost of hydrogen varying in a
Carbon emissions of BEVs, PHEVs, and ICEVs in the three fleets (kg/km). range of 20% relative to the benchmark, we show that the competi­
BEVs PHEVs ICEVs tiveness of fuel cell electric vehicles is only marginally affected. There­
Passenger Car 0.084 0.109 0.132 fore, the high capital cost of the fuel cell electric vehicles, rather than the
Bus 0.714 0.898 1.586 hydrogen as fuel cost, is the main barrier to achieving competitiveness
Truck 0.700 0.937 1.219 against alternative powertrains, especially in bus and truck fleet.
Source: authors’ calculation Our study thus shows that passenger fuel cell electric vehicles are
already competing against other alternative powertrains in China.
However, such is pending on two critical conditions: 1. Generous sub­
emissions once the massive scale of hydrogen production and applica­
sidies on passenger fuel cell electric vehicles continues; 2. Passenger fuel
tions occur.
cell electric vehicles are available in China at prices comparable to
Should a carbon emissions price be imposed on vehicles’ emissions,
models on sale in developed countries, such as Japan, U.S., and Europe.
say, at about $13/ton of CO2 in the Beijing carbon emission exchange –
In fact, most of the passenger fuel cell electric vehicle models in China
the highest levels among regional exchanges established in China, the
are at the concept or prototype stage, and the costs of them are currently
real or social cost of FCEVs, BEVs, PHEVs, and ICEVs’ carbon emissions
about two-fold that of the Japanese models. It is thus recommended to
can be calculated as shown in Table 10.
accelerate the development of the passenger fuel cell electric vehicle
It can be observed according to Table 10 that although the carbon
supply chain in China.
emission costs of FCEVs are much lower than the other alternatives, at
Regarding the fuel cell electric vehicles for the bus and truck fleet,
the current levels of carbon prices, users can hardly feel the existence of
substantial gaps exist in terms of the total cost of ownership, and
carbon cost when using conventional vehicles, since it is less than 1% of
therefore they are far from being competitive against other alternative
the TCO, even if such social cost of externality is somehow imposed. In
powertrains. In this regard, we propose that policymakers consider
leveling up the subsidies provided to fuel cell electric buses and trucks
while also beefing up support to intensify research and development in
Table 10
related technologies and supply chains.
Cost of carbon emissions by FCEVs, BEVs, PHEVs, and ICEVs ($/km).
So far, our discussion on the competitiveness of hydrogen energy and
FCEVs (pipeline pathway) BEVs PHEVs ICEVs its fuel cell application for the transport sector is based on the current
Passenger Car 0.0005 0.0011 0.002 0.002 policy framework and market mechanisms. We note that the economic
Bus 0.0044 0.0093 0.012 0.021 value of the additional services that hydrogen provides to the power
Truck 0.0059 0.0091 0.012 0.016
grid, such as load management, peak power supply, and energy storage
Source: authors’ calculation service, has not been included since such mechanisms are not

8
Y. Li and F. Taghizadeh-Hesary
established nation wide in China yet. Accordingly, we propose that
policymakers consider developing such electricity market mechanisms
and the pricing of carbon emissions developed in China to further
enhance hydrogen energy competitiveness, especially encouraging its
coupling with renewable energy capacities.
In summary, in the medium to long term, green hydrogen and FCEVs
are highly likely to play an increasingly important role in China, given
the forces from the following dimensions to boost their competitiveness:
(1) the country has announced its targets for carbon peaking by 2030
and carbon neutrality by 2060, policy supports will surely keep
strengthening for green energy technologies; (2) the supply chains of
both hydrogen and fuel cells are standing at an early stage of develop­
ment, there is substantial room for supply chains to gain from both the
learning effects and the economies of scale to drastically bring down the
costs, similar than what we have witnessed in the development of solar
PV and wind energy industries in the past two decades; and (3) globally,
governments and companies are forming international alliances in
setting strategies, policy frameworks, and agenda of actions with
consensus to accelerate the development and deployment of green
hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. Such implies the formation of in­
ternational markets for both green hydroeng as energy commodity and
the related technologies and equipments, in favor of strengthening the
two effects mentioned in the previous point.
Furthermore, our findings in this study also indicate that BEVs
appear to remain a sound choice in electrifying the passenger vehicle
fleet in China, but not necessarily so for the commercial vehicle fleets.
Therefore, it makes good sense for Chinese government to put the
emphasis on commercial vehicles applications and thus literarily
perceiving green hydrogen and fuel cell technologies as complementary
to battery-based technologies in fully electrifying road transport sector
in China in the long run. Moreover, building on the relatively more
matured battery electric vehicle technologies, China has chosen a fuel
cell-lithium battery hybrid powertrain solution in developing fuel cell
electric vehicles (SAE, 2017).
Combined together, such strategies could enable accelerated adop­
tion of fuel cell commercial vehicles in China for two reasons: (1)
commercial vehicles typically require high-energy-density fuel for
longer range of mobility and heavy-duty trips, while run for very long
mileage throughout lifetime (say, a million kilometers in 10 years).
Thus, the economics of fuel cell commercial vehicles should be better
than battery commercial vehicles, considering the limited energy den­
sity and the high cost of battery replacement under intensive and deep
charge and discharge cycles in the case of the latter; and (2) the hybrid
powertrain substantially reduces the fuel cell stack capacity required
and therefore the capital cost of the fuel cell commercial vehicles
(typically a Chinese version is about half the cost of a European or
Japanese version these days, in the case of fuel cell buses). Although it is
expected that, as the fuel cell technologies mature and the cost per kW
drops in future as the industry grows, China will eventually switch to
pure fuel cell powertrain and fuel cell passenger vehicles will also
penetrate into the market, the current strategies may prove to be a
critical and effective in enabling market growth at this early stage of
development of hydrogen and fuel cell applications. Indeed, IEA (2021)
statistics show that China is currently leading in the deployment of fuel
cell electric buses and trucks globally. Other developing countries may
also consider adopting similar strategies. Should such be the case, global
penetration of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies could be accelerated.
In terms of methodology, this study has focused on a hydrogen
supply chain with the centralized production model. Future research
should also extend to analyze the economic feasibility of hydrogen
supply chain with distributed production since distributed renewables,
especially renewables integrated into the microgrid, are also developing
fast globally. China is likely to follow such developments in the future.
In addition, the methodology applied in this study focuses on the
energy consumption, carbon emissions and costs directly caused by end
user behavior. Those that are attributable to producers, such as the
9
Energy Policy 160 (2022) 112703
materials and energy consumed in building the supply chain and the
vehicles, are not in the scope of this study. Thus, it is different from the
stream of studies based on life cycle analysis (LCA) and those based on
energy return on energy invested (EROI).
LCA studies in general confirm that renewable energy such as hy­
dropower, solar, and wind have low carbon emissions (Li et al., 2020;
Yıldız et al., 2020), and that fuel cell electric passenger vehicles fueled
with hydrogen from renewables deliver minimum carbon emissions,
even better than battery electric vehicles (Ren, 2020; Kannangara et al.,
2021). The EROI studies deliver less optimistic results, with wind and
solar technologies to produce only 3–11 times the energy that is used to
produce, install, and operate them (de Castro and Capellán-Pérez, 2020;
Moriarty and Honnery, 2020). Besides, questions are also casted by re­
searchers regarding the sustainability of the supply of minerals and
metals in switching to fully renewable energy system (Moreau, 2019;
Mills, 2020).
Thus, while this paper focuses on end users’ consideration on costs
and emissions, further research is required to comprehensively evaluate
the private costs, social costs, environmental externalities, and resource
constraints of hydrogen supply chains and the application of fuel cell
technologies, in order to properly advise both policy makers and in­
vestment decisions.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yanfei Li: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Writing – original draft. Farhad Taghizadeh-Hesary: Writing – original
draft, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment:
This study is funded by the Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI)
through the project on “Meeting Environmental Objectives Through
Energy Sector Reforms in Asia and the Pacific: Role of Energy Pricing
Reforms and Emission Reduction” in 2020. We sincerely appreciate the
comments on our paper from the project management team and experts
participating in the project workshop. Any remaining errors are our
own.
References
Ajanovic, A., Haas, R., 2019. Economic and environmental prospects for battery electric-
and fuel cell vehicles: a review. Fuel Cell. 19, 515–529. https://doi.org/10.1002/
fuce.201800171.
Ajanovic, A., Haas, R., 2021. Prospects and impediments for hydrogen and fuel cell
vehicles in the transport sector. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46 (16), 10049–10058.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.03.122.
Asia Pacific Energy Research Centre (APERC), 2018. Perspectives on hydrogen in the
APEC region. June 2018. https://aperc.or.jp/file/2018/9/12/Perspectives+on+Hy
drogen+in+the+APEC+Region.pdf. (Accessed 2 December 2019).
Bruce, S., Temminghoff, M., Hayward, J., Schmidt, E., Munnings, C., Palfreyman, D.,
Hartley, P., 2018. National Hydrogen Roadmap. CSIRO, Australia.
China EV100, 2020. China Hydrogen Energy Industry Development Report 2020 (in
Chinese) (Beijing, China).
China Hydrogen Alliance, 2018. Research report on the development of hydrogen energy
and fuel cell industries in China (in Chinese). http://www.h2cn.org/detail/449.html
. (Accessed 2 December 2019).
China Hydrogen Alliance, 2019. White paper on hydrogen energy and fuel cell industries
in China (in Chinese). http://www.h2cn.org/publicati/215.html. (Accessed 2
December 2019).
China Society of Automotive Engineers (CSAE), 2020. Energy-saving and New Energy
Vehicle Technology Roadmap 2.0 (Beijing, China).
de Castro, C., Capellán-Pérez, I., 2020. Standard, point of use, and extended energy
return on energy invested (EROI) from comprehensive material requirements of
present global wind, solar, and hydro power technologies. Energies 13 (12), 3036.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en13123036.
Y. Li and F. Taghizadeh-Hesary
Demir, Murat Emre, Dincer, Ibrahim, 2018. Cost assessment and evaluation of various
hydrogen delivery scenarios. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 43 (22), 10420–10430.
Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA), 2019. Demand and supply
potential of hydrogen energy in East Asia. In: Shigeru Kimura and Yanfei Li, ERIA
Research Project Report 2018 No.1, May 2019.
FreedomCar& Fuel Partnership, 2009. Hydrogen Production Roadmap: Technology
Pathways to the Future. Hydrogen Production Technical Team. January 2009.
Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH), 2019. Hydrogen Roadmap Europe.
January 2019.
GEIDCO, 2021. Research Report on Carbon Neutrality before 2060 in China (Beijing).
Hassan, Aymane, Patel, Martin K., Parra, David, 2019. An assessment of the impacts of
renewable and conventional electricity supply on the cost and value of power-to-gas.
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44 (19), 9577–9593, 2019.
He, X., Wang, F., Wallington, T.J., Shen, W., Melaina, M.W., Kim, H.C., De Kleine, R.,
Lin, T., Zhang, S., Keoleian, G.A., Lu, X., Wu, Y., 2021. Well-to-wheels emissions,
costs, and feedstock potentials for light-duty hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in China in
2017 and 2030. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 137, 110477.
Hydrogen Europe, 2018. Hydrogen Enabling a Zero Emission Europe: Technology
Roadmaps Full Pack. September 2018.
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Strategy Council, 2019. The Strategic Road Map for Hydrogen
and Fuel Cells: Industry-academia-government Action Plan to Realize a. Hydrogen
Society. March 2019.
Hydrogen Council, 2020. Pathway to hydrogen competitiveness: a cost perspective. https
://hydrogencouncil.com/en/path-to-hydrogen-competitiveness-a-cost-perspective.
International Energy Agency (IEA), 2015. Technology Roadmap: Hydrogen and Fuel Cell.
IEA, Paris.
International Energy Agency (IEA), 2019. The Future of Hydrogen: Seizing Today’s
Opportunities. IEA, Paris. June 2019.
International Energy Agency (IEA), 2021. Fuel cell electric vehicles stock by region and
by mode, 2020. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/fuel-cell-electric-
vehicles-stock-by-region-and-by-mode-2020.
James, B.D., DeSantis, D.A., Saur, G., 2016. Final Report: Hydrogen Production Pathways
Cost Analysis (2013 – 2016). DOE-Strategic Analysis-6231-1. September 2019.
Kannangara, M., Bensebaa, F., Vasudev, M., 2021. An adaptable life cycle greenhouse gas
emissions assessment framework for electric, hybrid, fuel cell and conventional
vehicles: effect of electricity mix, mileage, battery capacity and battery chemistry in
the context of Canada. J. Clean. Prod. 317, 128394.
Li, J., Li, S., Wu, F., 2020. Research on carbon emission reduction benefit of wind power
project based on life cycle assessment theory. Renew. Energy 155, 456–468.
Liu, B., Liu, S., Guo, S., Zhang, S., 2020. Economic study of a large-scale renewable
hydrogen application utilizing surplus renewable energy and natural gas pipeline
transportation in China. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 45 (3), 1385–1398.
Mao, Z., Mao, Z., Yu, H., 2018. Hydrogen Production Process and Technology (in
Chinese). Chemical Industry Press, Beijing.
Mayyas, A., Ruth, M., Pivovar, B., Bender, G., Wipke, K., 2018. Manufacturing Cost
Analysis for Proton Exchange Membrane Water Electrolyzers. National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. NREL/TP-6A20-72740. https://www.nrel.gov/
docs/fy10osti/72740.pdf.
Miller, M., Raju, A.S.K., Roy, P.S., 2017. The Development of Lifecycle Data forHydrogen
FuelProduction andDelivery. National Centerfor Sustainable Transportation. October
2017.
Mills, M.P., 2020. “Mines, Minerals, and “Green” Energy: A Reality Check”. Manhattan
Institute, New York. July 2020.
Minutillo, M., Perna, A., Forcina, A., Di Micco, S., Jannelli, E., 2021. Analyzing the
levelized cost of hydrogen in refueling stations with on-site hydrogen production via
water electrolysis in the Italian scenario. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46 (26),
13667–13677.
Moreau, V., Reis, P.C.D., Vuille, F., 2019. Enough metals? Resource constraints to supply
a fully renewable energy system. Resources 8 (1), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/
resources8010029.
10
Energy Policy 160 (2022) 112703
Moriarty, P., Honnery, D., 2020. Feasibility of a 100% global renewable energy system.
Energies 13 (21), 5543. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13215543.
National Development and Reform Committee (NDRC), 2019. Advice on Deep
Integration and Development of Advanced Manufacturing and Modern Service
Industries. National Development and Reform Committee. http://zfxxgk.ndrc.gov.
cn/web/iteminfo.jsp?id=16603, 10 November 2019.
National Energy Administration, 2020a. Announcement of the national energy
administration on soliciting public comments on the energy Law of the people’s
Republic of China (draft) (in Chinese), 2020-04-10. http://www.nea.gov.
cn/2020-04/10/c_138963212.htm.
National Energy Administration, 2020b. Notice on the demonstration application of fuel
cell vehicles (in Chinese), 2020-09-21. http://www.nea.gov.cn/2020-09/21/c_1393
84465.htm.
Parra, David, Valverde, Luis, Javier Pino, F., Patel, Martin K., 2019. A review on the role,
cost and value of hydrogen energy systems for deep decarbonisation. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 101, 279–294, 2019.
Reuß, M., Grube, T., Robinius, M., Preuster, P., Wasserscheid, P., Stolten, D., 2017.
Seasonal storage and alternative carriers: a flexible hydrogen supply chain model.
Appl. Energy 200, 290–302, 2017.
Reuß, M., Grube, T., Robinius, M., Stolten, D., 2019. A hydrogen supply chain with
spatial resolution: comparative analysis of infrastructure technologies in Germany.
Appl. Energy 247, 438–453, 2019.
Rahil, A., 2017. Dispatchable hydrogen production at the forecourt for electricity
demand shaping. Sustainability 9, 1785, 2017.
Rahil, A., Gammon, R., Brown, N., 2018. Techno-economic assessment of dispatchable
hydrogen production by multiple electrolysers in Libya. Journal of Energy Storage
16, 46–60, 2018.
Ren, L., Zhou, S., Ou, X., 2020. Life-cycle energy consumption and greenhouse-gas
emissions of hydrogen supply chains for fuel-cell vehicles in China. Energy 209,
118482.
Society of Automotive Engineers of China (SAE), 2017. “Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle
Technology Roadmap”, Strategy Advisory Committee of the Technology Roadmap
for Energy Saving and New Energy Vehicles. November 2017, Beijing.
Song, P., Sui, Y., Shan, T., Hou, J., Wang, X., 2020. Assessment of hydrogen supply
solutions for hydrogen fueling station: a Shanghai case study. Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 45 (58), 32884–32898.
State Council, 2016. Announcement on ‘The 13th Five-Year Plan for the Development of
National Strategic Emerging Industries (in Chinese). State Council, P.R. China, 19
December 2016. http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2016-12/19/content_51
50090.htm.
Teichmann, Daniel, Arlt, W., Wasserscheid, P., 2012. Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers
as an efficient vector for the transport and storage of renewable energy. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 37 (23), 18118–18132.
U.S. Department of Energy, 2015. Advancing systems and technologies to produce
cleaner fuels: technology assessments (Chapter 7). In: Quadrennial Technology
Review 2015: an Assessment of Energy Technologies and Research Opportunities.
September 2015.
U.S. Department of Energy, 2017. Fuel cell system cost - 2017. DOE Hydrogen and Fuel
Cells Program Record, No. 17007, Originator: Adria Wilson, Gregory Kleen, and
Dimitrios Papageorgopoulos. https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/17007_fue
l_cell_system_cost_2017.pdf.
Yıldız, G., Çalış, B., Gürel, A.E., Ceylan, İ., 2020. Investigation of life cycle CO2 emissions
of the polycrystalline and cadmium telluride PV panels. Environmental
Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 14, 100343.
Zhang, G., Zhang, J., Xie, T., 2020. A solution to renewable hydrogen economy for fuel
cell buses – a case study for Zhangjiakou in North China. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 45
(29), 14603–14613.