i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 5 9 6 1 e3 5 9 7 3

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Comparative life cycle assessment of hydrogen-

fuelled passenger cars

Daniele Candelaresi a, Antonio Valente b,*, Diego Iribarren c,

Javier Dufour c,d, Giuseppe Spazzafumo a
a
Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, University of Cassino and Southern Lazio, Cassino, Italy
b
Department of Chemistry and Applied Biosciences, Institute for Chemical and Bioengineering, ETH Zurich, 8093,
Zurich, Switzerland
c
Systems Analysis Unit, IMDEA Energy, 28935, M
ostoles, Spain
d
Chemical and Environmental Engineering Group, Rey Juan Carlos University, 28933, M
ostoles, Spain

research highlights

Environmental performance comparison between different hydrogen-powered vehicles.

Comparison between fuel cell and hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicles.

Life cycle assessment of hybrid electric vehicles fed with hydrogen.

Natural gas-hydrogen and gasoline-hydrogen vehicles are assessed.

Vehicles fuelled with renewable hydrogen are excellent decarbonisation solutions.

article info abstract

Article history: In order to achieve gradual but timely decarbonisation of the transport sector, it is essential
Received 10 October 2020 to evaluate which types of vehicles provide a suitable environmental performance while
Received in revised form allowing the use of hydrogen as a fuel. This work compares the environmental life-cycle
20 November 2020 performance of three different passenger cars fuelled by hydrogen: a fuel cell electric
Accepted 6 January 2021 vehicle, an internal combustion engine car, and a hybrid electric vehicle. Besides, two
Available online 6 February 2021 vehicles that use hydrogen in a mixture with natural gas or gasoline were considered. In all
cases, hydrogen produced by wind power electrolysis was assumed. The resultant life-
Keywords: cycle profiles were benchmarked against those of a compressed natural gas car and a
Wind electrolysis hybrid electric vehicle fed with natural gas. Vehicle infrastructure was identified as the
Sustainable mobility main source of environmental burdens. Nevertheless, the three pure hydrogen vehicles
Fuel cell electric vehicle were all found to be excellent decarbonisation solutions, whereas vehicles that use
Hydrogen engine hydrogen mixed with natural gas or gasoline represent good opportunities to encourage
Hybrid electric vehicle the use of hydrogen in the short term while reducing emissions compared to ordinary
Hythane vehicles.
© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Hydrogen Energy Publications
LLC. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: antonio.valente@chem.ethz.ch (A. Valente).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.01.034
0360-3199/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
35962 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 5 9 6 1 e3 5 9 7 3
Introduction
In recent years, environmental concerns have grown at an
ever-increasing rate. In the Paris agreement, 195 countries
adopted the first universal and legally binding covenant on the
global climate, defining a global action plan to mitigate
climate change and trying to keep global warming well below
þ2  C compared to the pre-industrial era [1]. Regarding
Europe, the carbon-neutrality goal has been set by 2050 [2].
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change clearly
states that it is urgent to limit global warming to þ1.5  C rather
than þ2  C [3]. The leading cause of these environmental is-
sues lies in the widespread use of fossil fuels for energy pur-
poses. In 2018, world primary energy demand amounted to
14,282 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe), of which 81%
was met by fossil fuels [4]. In particular, the transport sector
alone accounted for 2890 Mtoe, equal to 20% of the global
primary energy demand. To date, this demand is met almost
entirely by fossil fuels (96%) and dominated by petroleum-
derived products (92%). Moreover, there is a continuous
growth in fuel consumption for transport and an increase in
the number of vehicles, especially in non-OECD countries [5].
For these reasons, the transport sector represents a hard
core of the energy transition, being the only sector to have
shown an increase, rather than a reduction, in greenhouse gas
emissions [6]. In particular, light-duty vehicles and passenger
cars represent a large part (46%) of the energy demand from
transport, namely 1323 Mtoe in 2018 [5]. Hydrogen is set to
play a strategic role in the decarbonisation of the transport
sector [7]. Due to environmental criteria, its production should
rely on renewable energy sources [8]. Furthermore, hydrogen
does not involve direct carbon emissions in its use, which
makes it a promising clean fuel for transportation. However,
comprehensive analyses following a life-cycle perspective are
required to check the environmental suitability of hydrogen
and vehicle systems.
In this regard, the standardised methodology of Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) is widely applied to identify potential bot-
tlenecks in the environmental life-cycle performance of
product systems [9,10]. Regarding LCA in the automotive
sector, well-to-wheels (WTW) analyses are often conducted,
which usually include subsets known as well-to-tank (WTT)
and tank-to-wheels (TTW) according to the definition of the
system limits [11e13]. WTW analyses consider all phases of
fuel production and distribution up to the vehicle tank and, in
addition, the fuel use phase. A vehicle LCA, in addition to the
fuel-related stages, should also consider the manufacturing,
maintenance and end-of-life phases of the vehicle itself, thus
extending the boundaries of the system [14,15].
Valente et al. [16] explored the role played by hydrogen as
the fuel in the life-cycle environmental performance of a fuel
cell passenger car, addressing three different hydrogen pro-
duction technologies. They showed that the choice of
hydrogen production technology significantly affects the
whole life-cycle performance of vehicles. Renewable-based
hydrogen, especially when produced through wind power
electrolysis (WPE), was identified as the preferred fuel option.
When using hydrogen from WPE, the ratio of hydrogen impact
to the total impact of the whole system dropped to values
around 20% or less for the evaluated impact indicators,
shifting the main contribution from the fuel to the vehicle
infrastructure. Considering this finding as the background,
this work aims to identify the environmentally-preferred
hydrogen-fuelled vehicle among different alternatives.
LCA studies on hydrogen vehicles usually consider only
fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV). On the other hand, the few
WTW analyses on hydrogen vehicles equipped with an in-
ternal combustion engine do not extend the boundaries of the
system to the vehicle itself. Hence, this study aims to compare
different hydrogen powertrain technologies by means of a
thorough LCA. Technologies for the use of both pure hydrogen
and hydrogen mixed with fossil-based fuels were considered
since the latter could be a short-term solution to reduce
vehicle emissions when hydrogen production is not large
enough to fuel many vehicles. The main novelties of this study
lie thus in (i) comparing the life-cycle environmental perfor-
mance of different hydrogen-powered vehicles (FCEV,
hydrogen vehicles equipped with internal combustion en-
gines, and hydrogen hybrid electric vehicles), and (ii)
providing detailed life-cycle inventories and indicators of ve-
hicles equipped with internal combustion engines fed with
mixtures of hydrogen and a conventional fuel (natural gas or
gasoline).
Material and methods
The goal of this comparative LCA study is to identify, ac-
cording to the current technology level, which type of vehicle
provides a suitable environmental performance when using
hydrogen produced from renewable energy sources. In
particular, all vehicles were assumed to be powered by
hydrogen produced by WPE [16]. Three car options fuelled only
by hydrogen were considered: (i) a fuel cell electric vehicle
(FCEV), (ii) a hydrogen car equipped with an internal com-
bustion engine (H2-ICE), and (iii) a hybrid car fuelled with
hydrogen (HEV H2-ICE). Hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) are
partially electrified vehicles, consisting mainly of an internal
combustion engine, an electric motor, and a small battery.
The benchmarking of their environmental life-cycle per-
formance against a compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle and
its hybrid version (HEV CNG) was pursued. Another objective
addresses further comparison with two passenger vehicles
fuelled by hydrogen-fossil fuel blends: a hythane vehicle
equipped with an internal combustion engine fed with a
gaseous mixture of 20% (vol.) H2 and 80% (vol.) natural gas
(Hythane), and a dual-fuel hydrogen-gasoline vehicle equip-
ped with an internal combustion engine (H2-Gasoline)
considering an energy ratio of the mixture equal to that of
hythane (i.e., H2 provides 7.3% of the mixture energy). Fig. 1
shows a simplified diagram of the various vehicle concepts
considered.
Technical features of the case studies
An average European gasoline car, sedan, 5-door, belonging to
segment C (small family cars/compact cars/medium cars)
[15,17,18] was considered as reference, with a rated vehicle
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 5 9 6 1 e3 5 9 7 3 35963

Fig. 1 e Vehicle concepts under comparison.

power of 80 kW [19]. The main technical specifications of the

Table 2 e Main technical characteristics of the hydrogen
considered average vehicle are listed in Table 1.
vehicles considered in the study.
While FCEVs have already been modelled in Ref. [16], the
Parameter (unit) FCEV H2-ICE HEV H2-ICE
remaining vehicles were modelled taking into account com-
mon components such as the glider (body, chassis, glass H2 consumption (kg/100 km) 0.76 1.68 1.27
surfaces, etc.) as well as all major differences between pow- Weight (kg) 1800 1380 1550
Lifespan (km travelled) 190,000a 300,000b 300,000b
ertrains. Only spark ignition ICE was modelled in this work,
Thermal engine power (kW) e 80 58.4
while compression ignition (diesel) ICE was not considered. Electric motor power (kW) 80 e 48.6
All HEVs considered correspond to the full-hybrid, series/ Driving range (km) 600 300 400
parallel type. The vehicles were modelled by breaking down Storage pressure (bar) 700 700 700
the inventory into main subsystems and components (ICE, air Tank volume (l) 120 120 120
intake system, fuel system, exhaust gas system, control unit, Hydrogen (kg) 5 5 5
etc.). Each subsystem was then subdivided into various com- a
Based on [22].
b
ponents (catalytic converter, exhaust gas manifold, muffler, Based on [24,25].
piping, gaskets, lambda sensors, etc.) [20,21]. The main tech-
nical characteristics of the three hydrogen vehicles under
comparison are presented in Table 2. Vehicle weights and (composite material). A full 120-litre tank at 700 bar can store
lifespans differ, mainly due to differences in powertrains. The about 5 kg H2.
lifespan of the FCEV was assumed to be that of the fuel cell
stack, limited by the durability of the membranes. However, Fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV)
research efforts are currently focused on improving the
durability of fuel cell membranes in order to reach a life target The FCEV, based on a previous work [16], includes the
of 250,000 km travelled [22,23]. For the other vehicles, the following main sub-inventories: fuel cell based on [26e28],
lifespan was considered to be that of the ICE [24,25]. electric motor based on [29], battery (lithium-ion NCM type)
In the three cases, the same type of tank was assumed, based on [30,31], hydrogen tank based on [28,32,33], balance of
with gaseous hydrogen storage at 700 bar in a type IV tank plant (BOP) based on [28,34], and power control unit (PCU)
based on [28,35].

Table 1 e Main technical specifications of an average Hydrogen internal combustion engine (H2-ICE) vehicle
European passenger car.
Parameter Value The H2-ICE vehicle burns hydrogen and air in a spark ignition
Vehicle rated power 80 kW ICE. Thanks to the combustion characteristics, it can count on
Kerb weight 1200e1350 kg very high efficiency and low polluting emissions, also allowing
Lifespan 250,000e300,000 km the use of ultra-lean (air-fuel) mixtures [36,37]. Structurally, its
(20 years) ICE is almost identical to a CNG one [38e40], while there are
Average European driving 12,000e15,000 km year1 minor differences between the two vehicles mainly related to
performance
the storage of hydrogen on board.
35964 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 5 9 6 1 e3 5 9 7 3
Hydrogen hybrid electric vehicle (HEV H2-ICE)
The hydrogen-fuelled HEV considered in this study burns
hydrogen and air within an ICE as in the previous case, but the
main difference lies in the hybridisation of the propulsion
system: the thermal engine (ICE) is paired with an electric
motor/generator that produces electrical power on board, and
a small battery to store the electricity generated [41,42]. In this
way, the ICE can work more often at its point of maximum
efficiency. The vehicle can travel for a few kilometres in full-
electric mode, transferring energy from the battery to the
electric motor. It can also take advantage of regenerative
braking to recharge the battery. The degree of hybridisation
(mild, full, plug-in, range-extender) also defines the battery
size and the ratio of the power of the electrical system to that
of the thermal system. The vehicle considered in this study is
a full-hybrid of the series/parallel type [43,44].
Compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle
Regarding the CNG car, a mono-fuel vehicle designed to run
only on natural gas was considered. It should be noted that to
date, in some countries, commercial CNG vehicles classified
as mono-fuel still involve an additional small gasoline tank
with a capacity below 14 L for fuel reserve and vehicle range.
While a bi-fuel vehicle has two independent fuel systems that
can run alternately [45], better performances could be ach-
ieved if engines were optimised for the use of only CNG [46,47].
The engine considered in this study burns only CNG.
CNG HEV
The CNG HEV is a vehicle with a hybrid electric/thermal pro-
pulsion, whose ICE burns CNG and air [48]. This vehicle rep-
resents the most likely upgrade of the CNG vehicle, as both
CNG and hybrid electric vehicles are two alternative technol-
ogies significantly widespread today [49,50].
Hythane ICE vehicle
Hythane® (also known as HCNG20) is a commercial name for a
blend of hydrogen at 20% (vol.) and natural gas at 80% (vol.). As
far as the hythane-powered vehicle is concerned, it can be
considered almost identical to a CNG vehicle. This vehicle
burns hythane and air in a spark ignition ICE [51,52]. One of
the main advantages of hythane lies in the technical possi-
bility of transporting hydrogen through the natural gas
network, without the need to separate the two fuels before
use. It is thus possible to refuel the vehicle directly with
hythane (already mixed at the refuelling station), which can
be stored in a tank similar to that of CNG vehicles. Current
CNG cars could be converted into hythane vehicles with minor
modifications.
Dual-fuel H2-Gasoline ICE vehicle
The hydrogen-gasoline vehicle is similar to a conventional
gasoline-powered car with the addition of a separate fuel
system dedicated to pure hydrogen [53e55]. Hydrogen is
injected in the engine in small quantities at each operating
cycle, directly (in the cylinder [56]) or indirectly (in the air
intake manifold [57]), together with the conventional gasoline
injection. Thus, a part of gasoline is replaced with hydrogen.
An engine with these characteristics is defined as dual-fuel
[45]; the ICE burns air-gasoline-hydrogen mixtures, but never
only hydrogen or gasoline. In this vehicle, two separate tanks
and fuel distribution systems are present, one for gasoline and
another for hydrogen.
LCA framework
The LCA methodology was applied to each vehicle system.
According to the standards [9,10], LCA involves four interre-
lated stages. In “goal and scope definition”, key aspects such
as the system's function and boundaries, the impact cate-
gories and the functional unit (FU) are defined. The second
stage, “life cycle inventory analysis”, consists in data collec-
tion for the main net flows (materials, energy, emissions and
waste) that enter or leave the system's boundaries. In the third
stage, “life cycle impact assessment” (LCIA), the potential
environmental impacts are quantified through specific char-
acterisation factors that convert an elementary flow into a
level of impact. In the last stage, “interpretation”, the main
conclusions of the study are drawn according to its goals and
scope.
Fig. 2 shows the boundaries considered for each vehicle
system, which involve both the fuel life cycle and the vehicle
life cycle [14,24]. The former includes the stages of production,
distribution and use of the fuel as a WTW-type analysis [12].
The latter involves the vehicle life-cycle stages of
manufacturing, operation, and maintenance.
The fuel and vehicle life cycles converge in the vehicle
operation phase, when the vehicle tank is filled with fuel and
this is used to move the vehicle [14]. A conventional WTW
analysis would consider only the complete fuel life cycle, from
cradle to grave. A complete LCA would instead include all
stages of both the vehicle life cycle and the fuel life cycle
[12,15,58]. However, it should be noted that vehicle end-of-life
was not included in this study due to the acknowledged need
for robust inventory data on this stage [59,60]. As shown in
Fig. 2, the FU of the study was defined as 1 km travelled by
each vehicle.
The life-cycle environmental performance of each vehicle
system was characterised in terms of global warming impact
potential (GWP), acidification impact potential (AP) and cu-
mulative non-renewable energy demand (CED) using IPCC
[61], CML [62] and VDI [63] methods, respectively. The selec-
tion of these categories was based on their relevance in the
specific field of hydrogen energy systems according to the
literature review by Valente et al. [64] on LCA of hydrogen-
related systems.
Data acquisition
In this section, life-cycle inventories are provided for each
vehicle being compared. Concerning fuels, harmonised car-
bon [65], acidification [66] and non-renewable energy [67]
footprints were used for the production of hydrogen via WPE
ethus including capital goodse but adapting the system to the
hydrogen pressure of 700 bar [16]. Hydrogen distribution was
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 5 9 6 1 e3 5 9 7 3
Fig. 2 e System’s boundaries.
considered via road transport (100 km) [68]. Regarding fossil
fuels, background data from the ecoinvent database [69] were
used. In the case of hythane, hydrogen was assumed to be
distributed (100 km) together with natural gas via pipeline up
to the refuelling point [68].
The main inventory data for vehicle manufacturing are
presented in Table 3. The main data sources for vehicle
manufacturing, operation and maintenance were well-
established life cycle databases (ecoinvent [69] and GREET
model [70]), industry specifications, manufacturer's state-
ments, reports and scientific literature (as further specified in
each inventory table). For commercially available vehicles,
data were retrieved from technical datasheets released by
manufacturers. On the other hand, for non-commercially
available vehicles, data collection was based on specific
literature.
The body and the chassis of ICE and HEV vehicles were
modelled based on GREET [70], in proportion to a kerb weight
of the reference vehicle of 1250 kg (Table S1 in Supplementary
Information for further details). HEV and ICE vehicles were
considered to involve the same glider; therefore, weight dif-
ferences in vehicles are due to differences in powertrain
configurations (additional components such as tanks and
batteries). Details on inventory data for FCEV body, chassis
and fluids are provided in Supplementary Information (Tables
S1eS2).
Regarding the H2-ICE vehicle, the main structural modifi-
cations ‒with respect to the CNG vehicle‒ for the use of
hydrogen were taken into account (e.g., hydrogen tank, fuel
distribution system, and modifications to the catalytic con-
verter in the exhaust system). It should be noted that
embrittlement does not represent a limitation for the use of
hydrogen in the combustion chamber since the commonly
used materials already offer good resistance to this phenom-
enon [36,40,77,78]. The inventory for the manufacturing of an
ICE car was mainly based on Notter [29] and ecoinvent (Golf
A4) passenger car [79e81]. Tyres were based on [82]. The
hydrogen tank was considered to be the same as that of the
FCEV. The fuel system (adapted from that of the CNG vehicle
[34,69]) includes pipes, fittings, gaskets, valves, pressure
reducer, safety system, etc. The exhaust system was based on
[29,32,34] and noble metals loads in the three-way catalytic
converter (TWC) were adjusted with respect to engine emis-
sions [71e76].
Concerning the inventory of HEV H2-ICE, the ICE and the
electric engine were based on [83] and other sources [29,35,84],
35965
but adapted to the nominal vehicle power (80 kW). The ICE
was considered as in the H2-ICE vehicle, but with lower
nominal power (58.4 kW). The fuel system and the exhaust
system were assumed the same as in H2-ICE. The electric
motor inventory was based on [29,35] and assumed the same
as the FCEV electric motor, but sized for lower nominal power
(48.6 kW). The Li-ion battery [30,31] and the hydrogen tank
[28,32,33] inventories were considered the same as in the
FCEV. Hybrid vehicles involve the use of a planetary mecha-
nism for the gearbox, which allows energy recovery during
braking, and the presence of a PCU (AC/DC inverter, DC/DC
converter, battery charger and management system, and
power distribution unit) [35] as in the FCEV.
Regarding the CNG vehicle, the main blocks are the ICE,
the CNG tank, the fuel system, and the exhaust system. A
100-litre CNG-II tank type was considered, with 200 bar as
storage pressure [34,85]. Platinum group metals (PGM) in the
TWC were modelled by taking into account the emission
characteristics of a CNG engine [71e76]. In the CNG HEV, the
same components of a CNG vehicle were considered, with
the addition of the electrical system typical of hybrid vehi-
cles. The thermal and electrical systems were sized as for
HEV H2-ICE.
The inventory of the hythane vehicle slightly differs from
that of the CNG car. There is a single cylinder in which the
hythane is stored at pressures similar to those of natural gas,
enabling the use of CNG-I (all metal cylinders) or CNG-II (metal
liner hoop-wrapped with glass fibre and epoxy resin) type
tanks which can store gases up to 200 bar and 250 bar,
respectively [85]. The use of more resistant cylinders (type III
or IV) could be considered in order to increase the pressure so
as to recover the space taken away by the addition of
hydrogen and increase driving range. Additional seals and
safety systems to avoid possible backfires due to the increased
flammability range are also present. The engine has no sig-
nificant changes compared to previous cases, except for small
changes in the gas injectors. The load of noble metals inside
the TWC is similar to that of the CNG vehicle. However,
considering combustion improvements from the addition of
hydrogen, it is possible to reduce the PGM load in the TWC.
Hydrogen addition involves a reduction in unburnt total hy-
drocarbons (HC) and CH4, greater CO conversion to CO2, and
greater tolerance to exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and ultra-
lean combustion (decreasing NOx emissions). In the present
study, the inventory of the hythane vehicle includes a CNG-II
tank (200 bar) with the modifications needed to use hydrogen.
35966 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 5 9 6 1 e3 5 9 7 3

Table 3 e Main inventory data for vehicle manufacture (values per one vehicle).
Item Unit FCEV H2-ICE HEV H2-ICE CNG HEV CNG Hythane H2- Gasoline Ref. for
inventory
Body and chassis p 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Table S1
Fluids p 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Table S2
ICE kW e 80.00 58.40 80.00 58.40 80.00 80.00 Tables S3e4
Steel, low-alloyed kg e 50.41 36.80 50.41 36.80 50.41 51.86
Aluminium kg e 41.40 30.22 41.40 30.22 41.40 42.85
Polyphenylene kg e 24.68 18.02 24.68 18.02 24.68 27.59
sulphide
Lubricating oil kg e 8.73 6.37 8.73 6.37 8.73 8.73
Fuel system p 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Tables S5e7
Copper kg e 3.94 3.94 1.97 1.97 3.94 3.94
Polyvinylchloride kg e 0.92 0.92 0.46 0.46 0.92 0.92
Reinforcing steel kg e e e e e e 1.45
Gasoline tank p e e e e e e 1.00 Table S8
Polyethylene, HDPE kg e e e e e e 17.5
Injection moulding kg e e e e e e 17.5
Tank CNG-II kg e e e 80.00 80.00 80.00 e Tables S9e10
Steel, low-alloyed kg e e e 70.00 70.00 70.00 e
Epoxy resin, liquid kg e e e 6.00 6.00 6.00 e
Glass fibre kg e e e 4.00 4.00 4.00 e
Hydrogen tank (CNG-IV) kg 93.00 93.00 93.00 e e e 18.60 Tables S11e12
Exhaust system p e 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Tables S13e20
Reinforcing steel kg e 34.90 34.90 34.90 34.90 34.90 34.90
Synthetic rubber kg e 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45
Talc kg e 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40
Steel, low-alloyed kg e 25.20 25.20 25.20 25.20 25.20 25.20
Platinum g e 1.40 1.40 2.00 2.00 1.40 1.12 [71e76]
Palladium g e 0.70 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.42 [71e76]
Rhodium g e 0.64 0.64 0.40 0.40 0.64 0.48 [71e76]
Cerium concentrate, kg e 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
60% cerium oxide
Zirconium oxide kg e 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14
Aluminium oxide kg e 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Polyphenylene kg e 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
sulphide
Li-ion battery kWh 1.80 e 1.80 e 1.80 e e [30,31]
Electric motor kW 80.00 e 48.60 e 48.60 e e Tables S21e22
Power control unit kg 33.30 e 33.30 e 33.30 e e [27,28,30,35]
Balance of plant kg 55.00 e e e e e e Table S23
Gearbox kg 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 Table S24
Starting system p e 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Tables S25e27
Cooling system ICE kg e 29.10 29.10 29.10 29.10 29.10 29.10 Table S28
Electronics for control kg 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 Table S29
units
Tyres p 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Table S30
Natural gas MJ 1933 1933 1933 1933 1933 1933 1933 [29,69]
Electricity kWh 691 691 691 691 691 691 691 [29,69]

Concerning the inventory of the H2-Gasoline vehicle, the
main difference compared to a gasoline vehicle lies in the
presence of a composite material cylinder at 700 bar (type-IV
tank) and of small volume (1 kg H2, 25-litre tank) for pure
hydrogen storage. This greatly simplifies the hydrogen storage
issues because of the small amount of hydrogen required.
Other differences with respect to conventional gasoline ve-
hicles refer to minor engine modifications (gaskets, reinforced
valve seats, etc.), TWC with lower load of noble metals (linked
to combustion improvements), and a hydrogen supply system
(filler neck, valves, special pipes, systems to prevent backfire,
pressure reducer, injectors, gaskets, etc.). In addition to the
dedicated hydrogen fuel distribution system, the H2-Gasoline
vehicle also presents a gasoline fuel system consisting of a
plastic gasoline tank, fuel pump, tubes, and gasoline injectors.
Regarding the operational parameters of the vehicles, fuel
economy (i.e., the reciprocal of consumption) and emission
data were collected. Table 4 presents the fuel economy and
tailpipe emission values for each of the seven vehicles under
analysis. Information about direct emissions was retrieved
from commercial vehicles similar to the chosen reference
vehicle, using data declared by the manufacturers, technical
datasheets and the Ecoscore database [68,86,87]. For non-
commercial hydrogen vehicles (H2-ICE and HEV H2-ICE) and
mixed concepts (Hythane and H2-Gasoline), data were
collected from the GREET model or based on specific literature,
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 5 9 6 1 e3 5 9 7 3 35967

maintenance than FCEV. These amounts were retrieved from

Table 4 e Fuel economy and tailpipe emissions for the
GREET.
vehicles under study.
The life-cycle models presented in Tables 3 and 5 were
Vehicle Fuel CO2 CO HC NOx
implemented in SimaPro using ecoinvent as the data source
economy [g/km] [g/km] [g/km] [g/km]
for background processes. The environmental characterisa-
[km/kg]
tion was carried out by taking into account the selected life-
FCEVa 131.58 e e e e
cycle indicators and impact assessment methods.
H2-ICEb 59.239 e 0.05851 0.0082 0.0205
HEV H2-ICEb 78.985 e 0.05851 0.0082 0.0172
CNG 28.571c 94.000c 0.04825c 0.0294d 0.0168d
HEV CNGe 43.290 66.888 0.03233 0.0201 0.0049 Results and discussion
Hythanef 34.382 75.670 0.02779 0.0194 0.0269
H2-Gasolineg 31.352 87.146 0.10227 0.0258 0.0337 The inventories previously presented constitute a key
a
Based on [26]. outcome of this article. Furthermore, these inventories were
b
Based on [70]. all implemented in SimaPro for the subsequent LCIA compu-
c
Based on [86]. tation. In this regard, Table 6 presents the life-cycle profile
d
Based on [88,89].
e
calculated for each vehicle system (carbon, non-renewable
Calculated from CNG according to hybridisation factor, and
energy and acidification footprints per one kilometre trav-
contrasted with [70].
f
Own calculation with amounts based on [90,91]. elled). Under GWP and CED criteria, the most favourable
g
Own calculation based on [92e96]. environmental performance was found for HEV H2-ICE, H2-
ICE, and FCEV. Hythane and H2-Gasoline show an interme-
diate performance between CNG and HEV CNG. Under the AP
following the principle of similarity to the reference vehicle. indicator, Hythane arose as the best option, followed by CNG
Values for fuel consumption refer to NEDC (New European and HEV CNG, whereas H2-Gasoline and FCEV show the
Driving Cycle) under a combined cycle (urban/extra-urban highest values. HEV H2-ICE and H2-ICE rank in an interme-
route). diate performance. These findings indicate that the identifi-
Regarding H2-ICE and HEV H2-ICE, data about fuel con- cation of the best vehicle option, from an environmental point
sumption and emissions were taken from GREET [70]. It of view, ultimately depends on the impact categories to be
should be noted that these values correspond with a conser- prioritised.
vative approach, especially those of CO emissions. In fact, in a Fig. 3 shows the comparison of the pure-hydrogen alter-
hydrogen engine, the fuel is carbon-free, and the only carbon natives with CNG and HEV CNG, using CNG as the benchmark.
source is the lubricating oil, which can partially burn in small This figure also shows the main sources of potential impact. In
quantities [38,39,97]. While ein H2-ICE and HEV H2-ICE vehi- this regard, tank-to-wheels (TTW) and well-to-tank (WTT)
clese CO, HC and particulate matter emissions are associated contributions refer to vehicle operation (tailpipe emissions)
with the partial combustion of lubricating oil, in the remain- and fuel production and distribution, respectively. Infra-
ing vehicles using CNG or gasoline these emissions are asso- structure contribution refers to vehicle manufacturing, while
ciated with both lubricating oil and fuel combustion. use and maintenance contribution includes the consumption
Concerning the CNG vehicle, fuel consumption, CO2 and of lubricating oil, spare parts and other consumables as well
CO emissions were collected from commercial vehicles. HC as wear emissions. Additional data about each contribution
and NOx values for CNG refer to both commercial vehicles and expressed as absolute impacts are provided in Supplementary
real driving emissions (RDE) tests [88,89]. Emissions and con- Information (Tables S33eS35 and Figs. S1eS3).
sumption for CNG HEV were calculated proportionally to CNG Regarding GWP and CED, all vehicles fuelled only with
by assuming the same proportion as between a gasoline hydrogen show the best performance, while an unfavourable
vehicle and a gasoline HEV. performance was identified for the CNG car. HEV CNG shows
Fuel consumption and emissions values for Hythane and an intermediate performance between CNG and hydrogen
H2-Gasoline vehicles were based on literature about experi- vehicles. The situation was found to be different in terms of
mental tests and measures [92e96], according to the hydrogen AP, for which the fuel cell vehicle arose as the worst option
percentage under examination. The values considered for due to vehicle infrastructure. The major contributors were
these two vehicles correspond to a conservative approach and found to be the steel-based car frame (vehicle body and
therefore present room for improvement through engine chassis), carbon fibre for the hydrogen tank, battery and
optimisation. components of the vehicle's electrical system and, to a lesser
Finally, Table 5 shows the main inventory data for vehicle extent, platinum group metals and other components of the
operation and maintenance. Tailpipe emissions and fuel stack.
consumption were derived from the values in Table 4. The Concerning vehicle infrastructure, the fuel cell vehicle is
particulate emissions generated by the abrasion of tyres, road outperformed in all impact categories (especially AP) by ve-
and brakes were calculated in proportion to the weight of each hicles with an internal combustion engine, which is closely
vehicle. Regarding maintenance, one battery change and linked to the lower construction complexity of the latter. In
three tyres replacements were considered over the vehicle any case, the platinum group metals present in the catalytic
useful life. Periodic lubricating oil and antifreeze re- converters of ICE vehicles, together with steel for vehicle body
placements were also considered. All vehicles equipped with and engine and the electrical system for HEVs, provide a sig-
ICE require a larger amount of lubricating oil for their routine nificant contribution to AP.
35968 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 5 9 6 1 e3 5 9 7 3

Table 5 e Main inventory data for vehicle operation and maintenance (values per total kilometres travelled).
Item Unit FCEV H2-ICE HEV H2-ICE CNG HEV CNG Hythane H2- Gasoline Ref. for
inventory
Operational inputs
Vehicle infrastructure p 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Table 3
Hydrogen fuel t 1.44 5.06 3.80 e e 0.28 0.27 [16]
Natural gas GJ e e e 534.00 353.00 430.00 e [69]
Gasoline (unleaded) t e e e e e e 9.30 [69]
Maintenance inputs
Lubricating oil kg 3.560 34.60 34.60 34.60 34.60 34.60 34.60 [69,70]
Ethylene glycol kg 12.90 12.90 12.90 12.90 12.90 12.90 12.90 [69,70]
Decarbonised water kg 8.58 8.58 8.58 8.58 8.58 8.58 8.58 [69,70]
Tyres p 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 [70,82]
Li-ion battery kWh 1.80 e 1.80 e 1.80 e e [30,31]
Emissions
Carbon dioxide t e e 30.10 21.40 24.20 26.10 Table 4
Carbon monoxide kg e 17.60 17.60 15.40 10.30 8.89 30.70 Table 4
Hydrocarbons, unspecified kg e 2.47 2.47 9.41 6.43 6.21 7.73 Table 4
Nitrogen oxides kg e 6.15 5.17 5.38 1.57 8.60 10.10 Table 4
Brake wear emissions g 304.00 368.00 414.00 379.00 422.00 393.00 356.00 [69]
Road wear emissions kg 3.35 4.05 4.55 4.17 4.64 4.32 3.92 [69]
Tyre wear emissions kg 19.60 23.70 26.60 24.40 27.10 25.30 22.9 [69]
Kilometres travelled km 190,000 300,000 300,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 300,000 e

Regarding WTT impacts, the FCEV arose as the best option

Table 6 e Life-cycle profile of each vehicle system (values
under GWP and CED indicators. This is closely related to the
per FU).
excellent fuel economy of this vehicle as well as to the choice
GWP [kg CO2 CED AP [kg SO2
of hydrogen produced through WPE. Under AP, the best value
eq$km1] [MJ$km1] eq$km1]
was found for HEV CNG.
FCEV 5.601$102 9.913$101 5.332$104 As regards TTW impacts, hydrogen vehicles were found to
H2-ICE 4.343$102 7.450$101 3.618$104
be the best option under GWP. No tailpipe greenhouse gas
HEV H2-ICE 4.103$102 7.227$101 3.500$104
CNG 1.317$101 2.367 2.161$104
emissions are associated with FCEV, while H2-ICE and HEV
HEV CNG 1.004$101 1.734 2.229$104 H2-ICE involve negligible values (related to non-CO2 emis-
Hythane 1.106$101 1.996 2.113$104 sions). In the HEV CNG and CNG vehicles, the use of a fossil
H2-Gasoline 1.301$101 2.211 4.019$104 fuel (natural gas) has a great influence on TTW impacts due to

Fig. 3 e Relative environmental impacts of the three pure-hydrogen vehicle systems and the two CNG systems.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 5 9 6 1 e3 5 9 7 3
CO2 emissions. Under AP, the best TTW option is the FCEV
(with no impact), followed by HEV CNG, CNG, HEV H2-ICE and
H2-ICE. Nevertheless, it should be noted that ein all vehiclese
the TTW-related AP (closely related to NOx emissions) is very
low.
Concerning use and maintenance contribution, in all cases,
it has a minor influence on the results. Under all categories,
the best option is given by the CNG vehicle, followed by HEV
CNG, HEV H2-ICE and H2-ICE, while the FCEV shows a rela-
tively unfavourable performance. This is mainly related to
differences in the lifespan of the vehicles under study.
In order to closely explore the environmental performance
of vehicles that involve the use of hydrogen (pure or blended),
Fig. 4 additionally shows the relative impacts of the Hythane
and H2-Gasoline vehicle systems with respect to the FCEV
values.
Under the set of environmental indicators assessed, due to
the use of natural gas instead of gasoline, the hythane vehicle
shows a better performance than the H2-Gasoline vehicle.
However, hydrogen-mixture vehicles were found to perform
significantly worse than FCEV under GWP and CED (due to the
involvement of a fossil fuel), unlike under AP (due to the lower
construction complexity).
Hythane and H2-Gasoline show high TTW-related impacts
in terms of GWP, which is linked to fossil-based CO2 emis-
sions. In fact, concerning TTW performance, the FCEV
advantage of having no harmful emissions was noticeable
only under the GWP category, in contrast to a minor effect on
AP.
Regarding WTT impacts, FCEV is a better option than
Hythane and H2-Gasoline under GWP and CED, which is
linked to its low fuel consumption and the consideration of
renewable hydrogen (produced through WPE). Under AP, the
hythane vehicle shows a better WTT performance than FCEV,
while H2-Gasoline involves the worst performance of all ve-
hicles. This is linked to the acidification footprints of the three
fuels. Hydrogen from WPE has a relatively high AP value, and
Fig. 4 e Hythane and H2-Gasoline life-cycle impacts
relative to FCEV.
35969
it is consumed in reduced quantities in mixture vehicles but in
high quantities in the FCEV. Gasoline has an intermediate AP
value and natural gas has the lowest value. On the other hand,
vehicle fuel consumption must be considered. The balance
between these two terms determines the WTT impact. In this
sense, in the comparison between hythane and FCEV, the
reduced fuel consumption of the latter fails to counterbalance
the reduced fuel-related AP value of the former. The situation
is opposite for the H2-Gasoline vehicle.
Regarding use and maintenance, Hythane outperforms
H2-Gasoline under all the categories. It should be noted that,
due to the reduction in the formation of carbon particle de-
posits in the combustion chamber, natural gas vehicles have
a greater lifespan than gasoline vehicles. The same could be
applied to vehicles with hydrogen engines; however, a con-
servative approach was preferred due to lower technological
maturity.
Overall, the outcomes of the present work expand the
knowledge in the field of hydrogen vehicles by filling the
literature gap in LCA of hythane, hydrogen-gasoline and
hydrogen hybrid electric vehicles. Concerning the life-cycle
performance of the other vehicles addressed in this work,
the findings were found to be in agreement with the recent
literature. In particular, the LCA of the FCEV option concurs
with the study of Evangelisti et al. [28] regarding the main
contributions to carbon, acidification and energy footprints, as
well as with Benitez et al. [98] and Miotti et al. [99] under the
carbon footprint indicator. Finally, regarding the remaining
vehicles, a contextualisation of the results with other authors'
findings was possible only in terms of carbon footprint.
Despite case-specific differences in scope, the life-cycle im-
pacts of CNG, HEV CNG, and H2-ICE vehicles were found to be
generally in line with the studies of Dai et al. [34], Bauer et al.
[100], and Desantes et al. [101].
Conclusions
This comparative LCA study on vehicle systems shows that
hydrogen vehicles are excellent decarbonisation solutions
when fuelled using renewable hydrogen. In particular, albeit
hybrid hydrogen cars with an internal combustion engine
(HEV H2-ICE) require a larger amount of hydrogen with
respect to fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV), they were found to
involve a better life-cycle environmental performance under
the three indicators considered (carbon, energy and acidifi-
cation footprints). A favourable environmental profile was
also found for the option using hydrogen as the sole fuel in an
internal combustion engine (H2-ICE), but the higher hydrogen
consumption than its hybrid version makes its life-cycle
performance slightly worse. This situation is due to the
lower lifespan of the FCEV compared to other vehicles.
Nevertheless, technological advances in fuel cell (membrane)
durability could overturn this situation. Furthermore, in order
to attain a reduction in the infrastructure impact of the FCEV,
actions are needed on technical factors such as reduction in
vehicle weight, use of steel (for the vehicle body) produced
with new environmentally-friendly techniques, alternative
storage system solutions (in particular regarding the carbon
fibre of the tank) and alternative battery options.
35970 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 5 9 6 1 e3 5 9 7 3
Although HEV H2-ICE and H2-ICE vehicles were concluded
to involve relatively low environmental impacts, from a
technical point of view they suffer from a low driving range,
which is a limitation for application in the short term. There is
thus a need to increase their driving range through engine
optimisation and improvement of on-board hydrogen storage
systems. For their deployment, a high penetration of refuel-
ling points is required. Alternatively, they might be used in
applications that do not have refuelling problems (e.g., hub-
and-spoke missions).
Concerning vehicles that use hydrogen mixed with fossil
fuels (gasoline and natural gas), they could be seen as a suit-
able short-term solution to give initial impetus to the
hydrogen economy by temporarily circumventing major
hydrogen storage and distribution issues. For instance, the
H2-Gasoline vehicle, despite an uninspiring life-cycle envi-
ronmental performance, could count on a driving range of
about 1000 km, reducing the problems related to the low
diffusion of refuelling points in an early phase of the hydrogen
economy. Nevertheless, in the medium term, pure-hydrogen
vehicles remain a preferable decarbonisation solution.
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.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.01.034.
references
[1] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Adoption of the Paris agreement. Paris: United Nations;
2015.
[2] European Commission. The European green deal -
COM(2019) 640 final. 2019. Brussels.
[3] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Global
warming of 1.5 C. IPCC-SR15. IPCC; 2018.
[4] International Energy Agency. Key world energy statistics
2020. Paris: IEA; 2020.
[5] U.S. Energy Information Administration. International
energy outlook 2019 - with projections to 2050. Washington,
DC 20585: EIA; 2019.
[6] European Energy Agency. Climate change - driving forces -
statistics Explained. 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
statistics-explained/index.php?title¼Climate_change_-_
driving_forces. [Accessed 16 September 2020].
[7] International Energy Agency. The Future of Hydrogen -
seizing today's opportunities - report prepared for the G20.
Japan. Paris: IEA; 2019.
[8] Dincer I. Green methods for hydrogen production. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2012;37:1954e71. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2011.03.173.
[9] International Organization for Standardization. ISO
14040:2006 environmental management - life cycle
assessment - principles and framework. Geneva: ISO; 2006.
[10] International Organization for Standardization. ISO
14044:2006 environmental management - life cycle
assessment - requirements and guidelines. Geneva: ISO; 2006.
[11] Orsi F, Muratori M, Rocco M, Colombo E, Rizzoni G. A multi-
dimensional well-to-wheels analysis of passenger vehicles
in different regions: primary energy consumption, CO2
emissions, and economic cost. Appl Energy
2016;169:197e209. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2016.02.039.
[12] Torchio MF, Santarelli MG. Energy, environmental and
economic comparison of different powertrain/fuel options
using well-to-wheels assessment, energy and external costs
- European market analysis. Energy 2010;35:4156e71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.06.037.
[13] Yazdanie M, Noembrini F, Dossetto L, Boulouchos K. A
comparative analysis of well-to-wheel primary energy
demand and greenhouse gas emissions for the operation of
alternative and conventional vehicles in Switzerland,
considering various energy carrier production pathways. J
Power Sources 2014;249:333e48. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2013.10.043.
[14] Wang MQ. GREET 1.5 - transportation fuel-cycle model - vol.
1 : methodology, development, use, and results. 9700 south
cass avenue. Argonne, Illinois 60439: Argonne National
Laboratory - Center for Transportation Research; 1999.
https://doi.org/10.2172/14775.
[15] JEC - Joint Research Centre-EUCAR-CONCAWE
collaboration. JRC technical reports: well-to-wheels report
version 4.a. JEC well-to-wheels analysis. https://doi.org/10.
2790/95533; 2014.
[16] Valente A, Iribarren D, Candelaresi D, Spazzafumo G,
Dufour J. Using harmonised life-cycle indicators to explore
the role of hydrogen in the environmental performance of
fuel cell electric vehicles. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2019;45:25758e65. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2019.09.059.
[17] European Commission. Merger procedure article 6 (1)(b) of
council regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - decision on case No IV/
M.1406. Brussels: HYUNDAI/KIA; 1999.
[18] Thiel C, Schmidt J, Van Zyl A, Schmid E. Cost and well-to-
wheel implications of the vehicle fleet CO2 emission
regulation in the European Union. Transport Res Part A
Policy Pract 2014;63:25e42. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tra.2014.02.018.
[19] Trost T, Sterner M, Bruckner T. Impact of electric vehicles
and synthetic gaseous fuels on final energy consumption
and carbon dioxide emissions in Germany based on long-
term vehicle fleet modelling. Energy 2017;141:1215e25.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.10.006.
[20] Ha J, Min SK, Hur T, Kim S. Practical life cycle assessment
methodology for a whole automobile. In: SAE International,
Technical Paper 982188; 1998. https://doi.org/10.4271/
982188.
[21] Kobayashi O, Teulon H, Osset P, Morita Y. Life cycle analysis
of a complex product, application of ISO 14040 to a
complete car. In: SAE International, Technical Paper 982187;
1998. https://doi.org/10.4271/982187.
[22] U.S. Department of Energy. 3.4 fuel cells - fuel cell
technologies office multi-year research, development, and
demonstration plan. Washington: U.S. Department of
Energy; 2016.
[23] Lopes PP, Li D, Lv H, Wang C, Tripkovic D, Zhu Y, et al.
Eliminating dissolution of platinum-based electrocatalysts
at the atomic scale. Nat Mater 2020;19:1207e14. https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41563-020-0735-3. Technical Paper 98218.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 5 9 6 1 e3 5 9 7 3
[24] Zamel N, Li X. Life cycle analysis of vehicles powered by a
fuel cell and by internal combustion engine for Canada. J
Power Sources 2006;155:297e310. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2005.04.024.
[25] Zamel N, Li X. Life cycle comparison of fuel cell vehicles and
internal combustion engine vehicles for Canada and the
United States. J Power Sources 2006;162:1241e53. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2006.08.007.
[26] Toyota Motor Corporation. Toyota mirai technical
specifications. https://media.toyota.co.uk/wp-content/files_
mf/1444919532151015MToyotaMiraiTechSpecFinal.pdf.
[Accessed 17 September 2020].
[27] Simons A, Bauer C. A life-cycle perspective on automotive
fuel cells. Appl Energy 2015;157:884e96. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.02.049.
[28] Evangelisti S, Tagliaferri C, Brett DJL, Lettieri P. Life cycle
assessment of a polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell
system for passenger vehicles. J Clean Prod
2017;142:4339e55. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2016.11.159.
[29] Notter DA, Gauch M, Widmer R, Wa € ger P, Stamp A, Zah R,
et al. Contribution of li-ion batteries to the environmental
impact of electric vehicles. Environ Sci Technol
2010;44:6550e6. https://doi.org/10.1021/es1029156.
[30] Ellingsen LAW, Majeau-Bettez G, Singh B, Srivastava AK,
Valøen LO, Strømman AH. Life cycle assessment of a
lithium-ion battery vehicle pack. J Ind Ecol 2014;18:113e24.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12072.
[31] Majeau-Bettez G, Hawkins TR, Strømman AH. Life cycle
environmental assessment of lithium-ion and nickel metal
hydride batteries for plug-in hybrid and battery electric
vehicles. Environ Sci Technol 2011;45:5454. https://doi.org/
10.1021/es103607c.
[32] Boureima FS, Vincent W, Nele S, Heijke R, Messagie M.
Mierlo J Van CLEVER project - Clean vehicles research: LCA
and policy measures - LCA report. 2009. Science for a
Sustainable Development. Project code SD/TM/04A, https://
www.belspo.be/belspo/fedra/proj.asp?l¼en&COD¼SD/TM/
04A.
[33] Hua TQ, Ahluwalia RK, Peng JK, Kromer M, Lasher S,
McKenney K, et al. Technical assessment of compressed
hydrogen storage tank systems for automotive applications.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2011;36:3037e49. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.11.090.
[34] Dai Q, Lastoskie CM. Life cycle assessment of natural gas-
powered personal mobility options. Energy Fuels
2014;28:5988e97. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef5009874.
[35] Habermacher F. Modeling material inventories and
environmental impacts of electric passenger cars -
comparison of LCA results between electric and
conventional vehicle scenarios - master thesis. Zurich:
Department of Environmental Sciences, ETH; 2011.
[36] Verhelst S, Wallner T. Hydrogen-fueled internal
combustion engines. Prog Energy Combust Sci
2009;35:490e527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2009.08.001.
[37] Yip HL, Srna A, Yuen ACY, Kook S, Taylor RA, Yeoh GH,
et al. A review of hydrogen direct injection for internal
combustion engines: towards carbon-free combustion. Appl
Sci 2019;9:1e30. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9224842.
[38] Szwabowski SJ, Hashemi S, Stockhausen WF, Natkin RJ,
Kabat DM, Reams L, et al. Ford P2000 hydrogen engine
powered P2000 vehicle 2002.
[39] Stockhausen WF, Natkin RJ, Kabat DM, Reams L, Tang X,
Hashemi S, et al. Ford P2000 hydrogen engine design and
vehicle development program. In: SAE International,
Technical Paper 2002-01-0240; 2002. https://doi.org/10.4271/
2002-01-0240.
35971
[40] Hollinger T, Bose T. Hydrogen technology - chapter 7 status
on existing technologies - hydrogen internal combustion
engine. In: Le
on Aline, editor. Hydrog Technol. Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer; 2008. p. 207e33. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-540-69925-5_7.
[41] Weber T. The hybrid model of the new hydrogen
combustion engine as the most efficient powertrain of
tomorrow. Wiesbaden: Springer Vieweg; 2019. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26056-9_6.
[42] Jaura AK, Ortmann W, Stuntz R, Natkin B, Grabowski T.
Ford's H2RV: an industry first HEV propelled with a H2
fueled engine - a fuel efficient and clean solution for
sustainable mobility. SAE Tech Pap 2004;2004. https://
doi.org/10.4271/2004-01-0058.
[43] Ehsani M. Conventional fuel/hybrid electric vehicles. Altern
Fuels Adv Veh Technol Improv Environ Perform Towar Zero
Carbon Transp 2014;632e54. https://doi.org/10.1533/
9780857097422.3.632.
[44] Herrmann F, Rothfuss F. Introduction to hybrid electric
vehicles, battery electric vehicles, and off-road electric
vehicles. Elsevier Ltd.; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-
78242-377-5.00001-7.
[45] International Organization for Standardization. ISO 15501-
1:2016 Road vehicles d compressed natural gas (CNG) fuel
systems d Part 1: safety requirements. Geneva: ISO; 2016.
[46] Weber C, Kramer U, Friedfeldt R, Ruhland H, Kra € mer F.
Development of a new combustion engine dedicated to
methane operation. In: 39th Internationales Wiener
Motorensymposium (Vienna); 2018. p. 26e7.
[47] Horizon 2020 - GasOn Project. gason.eu. 2020. http://www.
gason.eu/page/index/project. [Accessed 21 September 2020].
[48] Burke A, Zhu L. The economics of the transition to fuel cell
vehicles with natural gas, hybrid-electric vehicles as the
bridge. Res Transport Econ 2015;52:65e71. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.retrec.2015.10.005.
[49] Stoffels H, Springer M, Kramer U, Weber C. Hybrid
powertrain with methane engine e the consequent
evolution. Wiesbaden: Springer Vieweg; 2019. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26056-9_7.
[50] Thomson Project. THOMSONeMild Hybrid cost effective
solutions for a fast Market penetration. Contract number:
724037. Topic: horizon 2020 H2020-GV-03-2016 System and
cost optimised hybridisation of road vehicles n.d. http://
www.thomson-project.eu/. [Accessed 21 September 2020].
[51] Çeper BA. Use of hydrogen-methane blends in internal
combustion engines. In: Minic
Dragica, editor. Hydrog.
Energy - challenges perspect; 2012. https://doi.org/10.5772/
50597.
[52] Das LM. Hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines.
Elsevier Ltd.; 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-1-78242-
363-8.00007-4.
[53] Pana C, Negurescu N, Popa MG, Cernat A, Soare D. An
investigation of the hydrogen addition effects to gasoline
fueled spark ignition engine. In: SAE International,
Technical Paper 2007-01-1468; 2007. https://doi.org/10.4271/
2007-01-1468.
[54] Elsemary IMM, Attia AAA, Elnagar KH, Elaraqy AAM.
Experimental investigation on performance of single
cylinder spark ignition engine fueled with hydrogen-
gasoline mixture. Appl Therm Eng 2016;106:850e4. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.05.177.
[55] Niu R, Yu X, Du Y, Xie H, Wu H, Sun Y. Effect of hydrogen
proportion on lean burn performance of a dual fuel SI
engine using hydrogen direct-injection. Fuel
2016;186:792e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.09.021.
[56] Yu X, Du Y, Sun P, Liu L, Wu H, Zuo X. Effects of hydrogen
direct injection strategy on characteristics of lean-burn
35972 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 5 9 6 1 e3 5 9 7 3
hydrogenegasoline engines. Fuel 2017;208:602e11. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.07.059.
[57] Shivaprasad KV, Raviteja S, Chitragar P, Kumar GN.
Experimental investigation of the effect of hydrogen
addition on combustion performance and emissions
characteristics of a spark ignition high speed gasoline
engine. Procedia Technol 2014;14:141e8. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.protcy.2014.08.019.
[58] Moro A, Helmers E. A new hybrid method for reducing the
gap between WTW and LCA in the carbon footprint
assessment of electric vehicles. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2017;22:4e14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0954-z.
[59] Funazaki A, Taneda K, Tahara K, Inaba A. Automobile life
cycle assessment issues at end-of-life and recycling. JSAE
Rev 2003;24:381e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0389-4304(03)
00081-X.
[60] Karagoz S, Aydin N, Simic V. End-of-life vehicle
management: a comprehensive review. J Mater Cycles
Waste Manag 2020;22:416e42. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10163-019-00945-y.
[61] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate
change 2013: the physical science basis - contribution of
working group I to the fifth assessment report of the
intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 2013.
[62] Guine
e J, Gorre

e M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de
Koning A, et al. Life cycle assessment - an operational guide
to the ISO standards. Leiden: Centre of Environmental
Science; 2001.
[63] Verein Deutscher Ingenieure. VDI guideline 4600:
cumulative energy demand (KEA) - terms, definitions,
methods of calculation. Düsseldorf: VDI; 2012.
[64] Valente A, Iribarren D, Dufour J. Life cycle assessment of
hydrogen energy systems: a review of methodological
choices. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2017;22:346e63. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1156-z.
[65] Valente A, Iribarren D, Dufour J. Harmonised life-cycle
global warming impact of renewable hydrogen. J Clean Prod
2017;149:762e72. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2017.02.163.
[66] Valente A, Iribarren D, Dufour J. Harmonising
methodological choices in life cycle assessment of
hydrogen: a focus on acidification and renewable hydrogen.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019:19426e33. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.03.101.
[67] Valente A, Iribarren D, Dufour J. Harmonising the
cumulative energy demand of renewable hydrogen for
robust comparative life-cycle studies. J Clean Prod
2018;175:384e93. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2017.12.069.
[68] Sergeant N, Boureima FS, Matheys J, Timmermans JM,
Van Mierlo J. An environmental analysis of FCEV and
H2-ICE vehicles using the Ecoscore methodology. World
Electr Veh J 2009;3:635e46. https://doi.org/10.3390/
wevj3030635.
[69] Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus H, Doka G, Dones R,
Heck T, et al. Overview and Methodology ‒ ecoinvent report
no. 1. Dübendorf. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories;
2007.
[70] Wang M, Wu Y, Elgowainy A. Operating manual for GREET:
version 1.7. Argonne: Argonne National Laboratory; 2007.
[71] Fornalczyk A, Saternus M. Removal of Platinum Group
Metals from the used auto catalytic converter. Metalurgija
2009;48:133e6.
[72] Jimenez De Aberasturi D, Pinedo R, Ruiz De Larramendi I,
Ruiz De Larramendi JI, Rojo T. Recovery by
hydrometallurgical extraction of the platinum-group
metals from car catalytic converters. Miner Eng
2011;24:505e13. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.mineng.2010.12.009.
[73] Twigg MV. Catalytic control of emissions from cars. Catal
Today 2011;163:33e41. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cattod.2010.12.044.
[74] Zeng F, Hohn KL. Modeling of three-way catalytic converter
performance with exhaust mixture from natural gas-fueled
engines. Appl Catal B Environ 2016;182:570e9. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2015.10.004.
[75] Hussain M, Deorsola FA, Russo N, Fino D, Pirone R.
Abatement of CH4 emitted by CNG vehicles using Pd-SBA-
15 and Pd-KIT-6 catalysts. Fuel 2015;149:2e7. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.12.024.
[76] Matam SK, Otal EH, Aguirre MH, Winkler A, Ulrich A,
Rentsch D, et al. Thermal and chemical aging of model
three-way catalyst Pd/Al 2O 3 and its impact on the
conversion of CNG vehicle exhaust. Catal Today
2012;184:237e44. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cattod.2011.09.030.
[77] Yamagata H. Science and technology of materials in
automotive engines - chapter 1 Engines. Woodhead
Publishing; 2005. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781845690854.1.
[78] Saborı́o-Gonza
lez M, Rojas-Herna
ndez I. Review: hydrogen
embrittlement of metals and alloys in combustion engines.
Rev Tecnol En Marcha 2018;31:3e13. https://doi.org/
10.18845/tm.v31i2.3620.
[79] Schweimer G, Levin M. Life cycle inventory of the golf A4
research, environment and transport. Wolfsburg:
Volkswagen AG; 2000.
[80] Del Duce A, Gauch M, Althaus HJ. Electric passenger car
transport and passenger car life cycle inventories in
ecoinvent version 3. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2016;21:1314e26.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0792-4.
[81] Leuenberger M, Frischknecht R. Life cycle assessment of
battery electric vehicles and concept cars. Uster: ESU-
Services Ltd; 2010.
[82] Bras B, Cobert A. Life-cycle environmental impact of
michelin Tweel® tire for passenger vehicles. SAE Int J
Passeng Cars - Mech Syst 2011;4:32e43. https://doi.org/
10.4271/2011-01-0093.
[83] Toyota Motor Corporation. Toyota yaris hybrid - technical
specifications. 2017.
[84] Tagliaferri C, Evangelisti S, Acconcia F, Domenech T,
Ekins P, Barletta D, et al. Life cycle assessment of future
electric and hybrid vehicles: a cradle-to-grave systems
engineering approach. Chem Eng Res Des 2016;112:298e309.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2016.07.003.
[85] International Organization for Standardization. ISO
11439:2013 Gas cylinders - high pressure cylinders for the
on-board storage of natural gas as a fuel for automotive
vehicles. Geneva: ISO; 2013.
[86] Ecoscore. Ecoscore Database. 2006. https://ecoscore.be.
[Accessed 18 September 2020].
[87] Timmermans J, Matheys J, Mierlo J Van, Lataire P.
Environmental rating of vehicles with different fuels and
drive trains: a univocal and applicable methodology. Eur J
Transport Infrastruct Res 2006;6:313e34. https://doi.org/
10.18757/ejtir.2006.6.4.3455.
[88] Ra
D, Rodman Opre
sic snik S, Seljak T, Vihar R, Ba 
 UZ,
skovic
Wechtersbach T, et al. RDE-based assessment of a factory
bi-fuel CNG/gasoline light-duty vehicle. Atmos Environ
2017;167:523e41. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.atmosenv.2017.08.055.
[89] Bielaczyc P, Woodburn J, Szczotka A. An assessment of
regulated emissions and CO2 emissions from a European
light-duty CNG-fueled vehicle in the context of Euro 6
emissions regulations. Appl Energy 2014;117:134e41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.12.003.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 3 5 9 6 1 e3 5 9 7 3
[90] Genovese A, Contrisciani N, Ortenzi F, Cazzola V. On road
experimental tests of hydrogen/natural gas blends on
transit buses. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2011;36:1775e83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.10.092.
[91] Yan F, Xu L, Wang Y. Application of hydrogen enriched
natural gas in spark ignition IC engines: from fundamental
fuel properties to engine performances and emissions.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;1e32. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.227.
[92] Shi W, Yu X, Zhang H, Li H. Effect of spark timing on
combustion and emissions of a hydrogen direct injection
stratified gasoline engine. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2017;42:5619e26. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2016.02.060.
€
[93] Akif Ceviz M, Sen AK, Küleri AK, Volkan Oner I. Engine
performance, exhaust emissions, and cyclic variations in a
lean-burn SI engine fueled by gasoline-hydrogen blends.
Appl Therm Eng 2012;36:314e24. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.applthermaleng.2011.10.039.
[94] Conte E, Boulouchos K. Hydrogen-enhanced gasoline
stratified combustion in SI-DI engines. J Eng Gas
Turbines Power 2008;130:1e9. https://doi.org/10.1115/
1.2795764.
[95] Du Y, Yu X, Liu L, Li R, Zuo X, Sun Y. Effect of addition of
hydrogen and exhaust gas recirculation on characteristics
of hydrogen gasoline engine. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2017;42:8288e98. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2017.02.197.
35973
[96] Du Y, Yu X, Wang J, Wu H, Dong W, Gu J. Research on
combustion and emission characteristics of a lean burn
gasoline engine with hydrogen direct-injection. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2016;41:3240e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2015.12.025.
[97] Singh S, Bathla VK, Mathai R, Subramanian KA.
Development of dedicated lubricant for hydrogen fuelled
spark ignition engine. SAE Tech Pap 2019;1e9. https://
doi.org/10.4271/2019-28-2511.
[98] Benitez A, Wulf C, de Palmenaer A, Lengersdorf M, Ro € ding T,
Grube T, et al. Ecological assessment of fuel cell electric
vehicles with special focus on type IV carbon fiber hydrogen
tank. J Clean Prod 2021;278:123277. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2020.123277.
[99] Miotti M, Hofer J, Bauer C. Integrated environmental and
economic assessment of current and future fuel cell
vehicles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2017;22:94e110. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0986-4.
[100] Bauer C, Hofer J, Althaus HJ, Del Duce A, Simons A. The
environmental performance of current and future
passenger vehicles: life Cycle Assessment based on a novel
scenario analysis framework. Appl Energy 2015;157:871e83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.019.
[101] Desantes JM, Molina S, Novella R, Lopez-Juarez M.
Comparative global warming impact and NOx emissions of
conventional and hydrogen automotive propulsion
systems. Energy Convers Manag 2020;221:113137. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113137.