Applied Energy 101 (2013) 103–111

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Comparison between hydrogen and electric vehicles by life cycle

assessment: A case study in Tuscany, Italy
I. Bartolozzi ⇑, F. Rizzi, M. Frey
Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Istituto di Management, Piazza Martiri della Libertà, 33, 56127 Pisa, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The use of hydrogen produced from renewable energy sources is often reported as an attractive strategy
Available online 27 April 2012 to address the issue of urban environmental sustainability in automotive sector, and a potential alterna-
tive to fossil fuel-fed vehicles. The project ‘Filiera Idrogeno’ (Hydrogen Chain) has investigated the poten-
Keywords: tial realisation of hydrogen production chains from renewables and its use as automotive fuel in Tuscany
Hydrogen Region (Italy). In this context, life cycle assessment was used for evaluating the environmental sustain-
Renewable energy ability of such chains, applied to a fleet of hydrogen vehicles for urban commercial delivery.
Automotive fuel
From the energy supply side, renewable wind and biomass energy sources were considered for hydro-
Life cycle assessment
Environmental sustainability
gen production either by electrolysis or direct separation from biomass gasification syngas, according to
specific simulations. Benchmarking with hydrogen produced by using Italian electricity mix was carried
out. From the transport side, vehicles equipped with either fuel cell or internal combustion engine were
evaluated.
A benchmarking analysis with standard electric vehicles supplied with electricity produced from the
same renewable energy sources was also carried out.
The results give some indications on the environmental aspects of the different alternatives and on the
contribution of the chain phases to the overall impacts.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Transport sector is responsible for a significant contribution to
greenhouse gases emissions (GHG) and to the climate change, as
well as for local air pollution, being quasi dependent (up to 95%)
on liquid fossil fuels derived from crude oil, and accounting for
more than 60% of total world’s oil consumption.
A shift towards a more sustainable transport system is therefore
considered to be crucial to reduce the use of fossil fuels, by adopt-
ing alternatives such as eco-driving [1], coal based alternative vehi-
cle fuels, second generation technology biofuels [2], electricity or
hydrogen. Source-sink modelling reveals that, in case of biofuels,
there are trade-offs between their production and food markets
and, in case of carbon capture and storage, there are trade-offs be-
tween their high capital intensity and investments in a variety of
evolving solutions [3]. The last two alternatives have instead posi-
tive aspects such as no tailpipe emissions as well as the potential to
integrate with renewable energies.
Electric vehicles (EVs) are considered to potentially have the
lowest fuel costs and GHG emissions, due to their high efficiency
throughout the fuel supply chain and the vehicle fuel consumption.
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 050 882781; fax: +39 050 883936.
E-mail addresses: i.bartolozzi@sssup.it (I. Bartolozzi), f.rizzi@sssup.it (F. Rizzi),
m.frey@sssup.it (M. Frey).
EVs can benefit from the flexibility of electric technologies that, as
an example, allow satisfactory integration within hybrid diesel-
electric vehicles [4]. However, the foreseen massive emergence of
EVs brings along the growing need to address potential problems
related to it and much research has been undertaken in order to
put forward solutions to such critical aspects. For instance, in order
to solve problems occurring when a large number of plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles/electric vehicles (PHEVs/PEVs) add energy load to
current power grids, the implementation of suitable algorithms for
the optimal management of a large number of PHEVs/PEVs charg-
ing at a municipal parking station has been proposed [5]. Also ef-
forts to provide optimisation for EVs charging and discharging,
given variations in electricity spot prices and driving patterns of
the vehicle fleet, has been undertaken [6]. Suitable integration of
power and road transport system, with the introduction of electric
drive vehicles, has been investigated by applying a model to find
the optimal configuration for instance in Northern Europe, i.e. Den-
mark, Finland, Germany, Norway, and Sweden [7]. Indeed the
development of electric vehicles is considered not only as a cleaner
and more energy efficient source of transportation but also as a
flexible electricity storage option. For instance, the potential im-
pact of EVs with vehicle to grid (V2G) capability to power system
operation has been investigated in Spain in function of the power
system considered, the number (and type) of EVs, and the
scenarios for renewable energy sources (RES) generation [8]. Also

0306-2619/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.03.021
104 I. Bartolozzi et al. / Applied Energy 101 (2013) 103–111
significant attention should be paid to the power generation mix
and its CO2 intensity, used to feed EVs or PHEVs. The CO2 models
indicate that the best options among EV, PHEV and internal com-
bustion engine (ICE) vehicles depend on the CO2 intensity of the
energy mix and therefore varies upon the country [9]. Low CO2
intensive countries are able to fully take advantage of the ability
of EVs and plug-in hybrid EVs to reduce the CO2 emissions from
automotive transport. Coherently, the future integration of power
and road transport system due to the introduction of electric drive
vehicles influences the economically optimal investments and
optimal operation of the power system [3].
Hydrogen has also been reviewed recurrently as a suitable
alternative to fossil fuel based transport and both advantages to
its use and barriers to its diffusion have been analysed [10].
Being a secondary energy carrier that can be produced from any
(locally available) primary energy source, hydrogen can contribute
to a diversification of automotive fuel sources and may offer the
long term possibility of being produced from renewable energies
and, at the same time, it may be used as a storage medium for elec-
tricity from intermittent renewable energies, such as wind power
[11]. Hydrogen, battery and hybrid hydrogen/battery system are
the options that have to be considered for lightweight electric
vehicle application [12].
Therefore, this link between renewable energy and the transport
sector, may provide global environmental benefits, although it may
still have significant disadvantages such as the incapability to uti-
lise a large part of the available energy and a low cost-effectiveness
compared to hydrogen production from fossil fuels [13]. Even
though at present, approximately 97% of total hydrogen production
is accomplished by steam reforming of natural gas and other fossil
primary energy, and therefore only 3% is based on renewable ener-
gies, the attention paid to these sources is strategic not only from an
environmental point of view but also for the improvement of the
process efficiency as, for instance, it has been demonstrated for a
biomass-gasification-electricity-electrolysis chain [14].
However, the success of a hydrogen economy still has to over-
come significant barriers, both technological and economical. Sig-
nificant effort has been done in the past years to boost such
development, by supporting a large number of projects aimed to
solve these issues. Among the others, H2power, H2ways, HyRaMP,
HyER European projects are intended to provide potential roadm-
aps for overcoming the technical and economic barriers that are
widely discussed in the archival literature [15]. These barriers are
mainly related to the implementation of hydrogen-dedicated
structures and to the impacts of hydrogen policies on consumers’
behaviours, both aspects being strictly connected.
Furthermore, path dependencies and competition between
alternatives can determine the development of hydrogen applica-
tions in the long run. As an example, available infrastructure alter-
natives suffer from both external and internal concurrences. In fact,
focusing on the latter, the potential refuelling methods that are in
competition include cans, barrels, home refuelling outfits, parking
garage refuelling facilities, mobile stations, hand carts and curb
pumps. Melanina [16] argues that, due to the impossibility to
determine ex-ante the optimal replication at systemic level of
one of these methods, research and development strategy that
can support hydrogen delivery and dispensing technologies would
be adaptive, broad in scope, and would extend over a long time
horizon. Similarly, since market penetration of clean vehicle tech-
nologies is an influence on people’s preferences (‘the neighbour ef-
fect’), not only on technical and economic performances, adaptive
strategies are required also for green vehicles marketing policies.
With this regard, Mau et al. [17] argue that, being the consumers’
preference patterns for evolutionary technologies unlikely to apply
to disruptive technologies, the development – as an example – of
electric and hydrogen vehicle markets can have a mutual influence.
Similar dynamics can be extended also outside the boundaries of
green vehicles. Meyer et al. [18] argue that the integration and
competition of a related variety of hydrogen technologies are nec-
essary also from a wider product-oriented perspective. In particu-
lar, the authors find that a coordinated policy approach that
encourages both the purchase of fuel cell vehicles and the building
of hydrogen infrastructure and provides insights into related fac-
tors for technology diffusion of complementary goods is needed.
On the other hand, the low level of hydrogen economy growth calls
for a rational distribution of resources (i.e. to avoid the dispersion
of resources on hopeless alternatives). Policy and decision makers
have to be provided with an adequate technical, economic and
environmental theoretical framework that takes into account also
actual external costs and innovation in a long term perspective.
It is often claimed that electric or hydrogen alternatives provide
a simple displacement of the environmental impacts, especially
when hydrogen and electricity production is based on fossil re-
sources [19]. The integration of multicriteria perspectives into dis-
tributed generation planning and design is fundamental for
supporting a paradigm shift in urban energy systems [20]. The
evaluation of the environmental sustainability of such alternatives
should take into account the whole life cycle of the hydrogen pro-
duction process, including production from renewable energy
sources, purification, storage, transportation, distribution, and final
utilisation. For instance, Lee et al. examined the competitiveness of
a hydrogen station based on wind energy, in both environmental
and economic aspects, under two scenarios, by using life cycle
assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) methodologies [21].
Briguglio et al. applied LCA to compare a renewable hydrogen pro-
duction chain applied to a urban sustainable mobility with a num-
ber of alternatives [22].
In this context, the project ‘Filiera Idrogeno’ (Hydrogen Chain),
supported by Tuscany Region (Italy), has the general objective to
evaluate the technological, economical, social and environmental
aspects of renewable energy hydrogen chains at a regional scale,
with the use of produced hydrogen as automotive fuel. A high-
intensity last-mile service of delivery vans, used for goods distribu-
tion to commercial retail activities in the centre of a mid-size city,
represents the application scenario that is here exogenously intro-
duced as potential starter of the local green mobility market [23].
The evaluation of the environmental sustainability of such scenar-
ios, carried out in parallel with the evaluation of the economical
and technological feasibility, is an important element to support
the decision making process.
To this end, life cycle assessment (LCA) is the suitable tool for
analysing the whole life cycle, from hydrogen production, storage,
transportation and its use as fuel in the operational phase of the
vehicle. Hydrogen production based on Italian energy mix was
analysed as benchmarking element. Also, in order to compare dif-
ferent technological alternatives, benchmarking with electric vehi-
cles based on renewables as well as on Italian electricity mix was
carried out.
2. LCA methodology
LCA is a holistic environmental management tool that deter-
mines the environmental impacts of a product or system over its
entire life cycle, from production, through use and to disposal, as
defined by SETAC, and coded by the ISO 14040 standards, accord-
ing to which the analysis is divided into four steps [24].
– Goal and scope definition is the preliminary stage, in which we
define the goal of the study, the functional unit, the system
boundaries, the amount and quality of data, the assumptions
and limits and the environmental issues to be considered.
 I. Bartolozzi et al. / Applied Energy 101 (2013) 103–111
– Life cycle inventory analysis, LCI is the stage where we perform
the data collection by literature searches, practical data gather-
ing, or both of them.
– Life cycle impact assessment, LCIA is the stage where we assess
the effects on the chosen environmental issues, due to the
resources consumption and pollutants emissions. In this step,
the data calculated during the inventory step are elaborated,
according to the chosen methodology, to give an assessment
of environmental hazard. This stage is further divided into three
steps: in the classification step, the resulting flows of the life
cycle inventory are assigned to the pertinent impact categories;
in the characterisation step, the potential effects are quantified
by multiplying individual inventory elementary flows with the
relevant characterisation factors, to yield aggregated indicator
results (LCIA results); in the normalisation and weighting step,
the use of subjective values are involved to obtain single indica-
tors. This step is usually not applied when the study is intended
to support a comparative assertion to be disclosed to the public
[25].
– Life cycle interpretation, is the final stage of a LCA analysis, with
the aim to highlight eventual hot spots in the life cycle and pro-
pose possible changes in order to reduce the environmental
impacts of the examined processes or activities.
2.1. Context of the analysis
In the scenarios evaluated in this study, hydrogen production
was based either on biomass or wind renewable energy sources,
according to technological configurations investigated within the
Project and the hydrogen was used to supply delivery vehicles
(Porter) equipped with either fuel cell (FC) or internal combustion
engine (ICE).
Fuel production from renewables was benchmarked with pro-
duction based on the Italian electricity mix.
Benchmarking with battery electric vehicles (BEVs) was also
carried out, in order to assess the environmental impacts of similar
hydrogen and electrical scenarios. The renewable electricity pro-
duction chains here considered are the same as those analysed
for the hydrogen production, based either on wind or biomass RES.
The LCA calculations were carried out by using SimaPro 7.2 LCA
software. In the impact assessment step, the CML2000 methodol-
ogy was applied.
3. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen chain
3.1. Goal and scope definition
The objective of this LCA study is to evaluate the environmental
impacts of hydrogen chain scenarios in Tuscany (Italy), which in-
clude the following stages (Fig. 1):
– Hydrogen production chains, at regional scale.
– Storage, transportation and distribution of hydrogen.
– Production, use and end-of-life of vehicle and components.
System boundaries include all the processes within the life cy-
cle phases: extraction of raw materials, fuel production, transpor-
tation, manufacture, use, maintenance and end-of-life of plants
used for electricity and hydrogen production and of vehicles. The
functional unit describes ‘the quantified performance of a product
system for use as a reference in a life cycle assessment study’,
according to the ISO 14040 standard. The function of the vehicle
is to deliver goods within an urban area with an average estimated
daily route of 200 km. Therefore the functional unit is 200 km at
nominal full load.
105
3.2. Life cycle inventory analysis
In order to provide results closer to real conditions, input data
used were experimental data, process simulations and were inte-
grated from literature references and from Ecoinvent database
[26].
3.2.1. Hydrogen and electricity production processes
Three renewable energy hydrogen production chains were
considered:
1. Hydrogen produced by electrolysis supplied by wind electricity
(H2_WE): Wind electricity was produced by a local wind farm
(4 turbines of 2 MW each) [27]. The construction, maintenance,
use and end of life of the plant were described according to
Martinez et al. [28] and integrated with data obtained by the
local plant manager. Hydrogen was then produced by coupling
the wind turbine with an electrolyser with an output of
60 Nm3 H2/h, as described in Table 1 [29].
2. Hydrogen produced by electrolysis supplied with electricity
from biomass gasification (H2_BE): Tuscany is a vocational area
for biomass cultivation, such as short rotation forestry poplar
trees (SRF) [30]. The biomass cultivation process was described
according to Gasola et al. which reports on a similar SRF of pop-
lar in Spain [31]. Biomass was then gasified in small gasification
plants (1 MW h), located near the biomass production sites, to
provide electricity, as simulated with AspenPlusÒ software
(Table 2) [32]. Hydrogen was produced by coupling the electro-
lyser as described before.
3. Hydrogen produced from direct separation in biomass gasifica-
tion process (H2_BS): In this scenario, hydrogen is directly sep-
arated from the syngas produced in the biomass gasification
process with an additional purification step, based on pressure
swing adsorption technology (PSA), which consists in the
adsorption of syngas on zeolites and active carbon [33]. Also
in this case, the operational process was simulated with Aspen-
PlusÒ software as reported in Table 3 [32].
Hydrogen from non-renewable sources was produced from
electrolysis supplied with electricity from the Italian power grid
(benchmarking scenario).
Electricity for the benchmarking electric scenarios was pro-
duced from the same renewable energy sources applied for the
hydrogen production.
3.2.2. Hydrogen storage, transportation and distribution
Hydrogen was compressed and stored in steel tanks at 200 bar,
with an electricity requirement for gas compression of 8 kW h/kg
CH2 [29]. Tanks were transported by truck to the hydrogen filling
station [34].
The network for the electricity distribution was excluded from
the system boundaries.
3.2.3. Vehicle and components
The hydrogen delivery vehicle was equipped with two hydro-
gen tanks at 35 MPa and with either fuel cell (FC) or internal com-
bustion engine (ICE).
The vehicle glider, common to all the configurations, was de-
scribed according to Notter et al. [35]. For the FC vehicle (FC), the
fuel cell and its components (electric machine, converters and bat-
tery) were described according to the prototype developed within
the project (Table 4). In the use phase, the FC vehicle consumes
8.7 g/km of hydrogen (full load, max. constant speed), with 78 g/
km of vapour emission [36].
For the ICE vehicle, the internal combustion hydrogen engine
was described, according to the literature, as a conventional ICE
106 I. Bartolozzi et al. / Applied Energy 101 (2013) 103–111

Fig. 1. General scheme of the investigated scenarios.

Table 1
Characteristics of the electrolyzer described in NEEDS [29]. Table 3
Hydrogen production from direct separation from biomass combustion syngas [32].
Parameter Unit Value
Electricity kW h/kg GH2 62 Inputs Quantity Units
Water required L/kg GH2 10 Biomass Poplar SRF (20% moisture) 40 kg/h
Storage pressure bar 440 Steam, for gasification (2 bar) 25 kg/h
Production capacity kg GH2/yr 47250 Steam WGS (2 bar) 19.8 kg/h
Lifetime yr 15 O2 (95%) 20 kg/h
Area occupied m2 300 Water to scrubber 2670 kg/h
Output 60 Nm3 H2/h at 15 bar or 5394 kg/h which amounts to Electricity 8.3 kW
180 kW/h Sodium hydroxide 0.05 kg
Outputs (120 °C) Quantity Units
H2 (1.5 bar) 2.4 kg/h
Table 2
Air emissions
Production of electricity from combustion of biomass gasification syngas [32].
Water 5.43 kg/h
Inputs Quantity Units O2 6.59 kg/h
CO2 55.2 kg/h
Biomass Poplar SRF (20% moisture) 40 kg/h CO 1.2E 05 kg/h
Water to scrubber 2390 kg N2 46.5 kg/h
Electricity, 0.79 kW NO 1.56E 02 kg/h
Sodium hydroxide 0.041 kg SO2 1.44E 03 kg/h
Outputs Quantity Units HCl 1.93E 04 kg/h

Electricity 40 kW h Solid waste

Water 16.2 kg/h Waste water (syngas purification) 2710 kg/h
Condensed water 11 kg/h
Air emissions
Ash 1 kg/h
O2 20.1 kg/h
CO2 55.8 kg/h
CO 1.21E 05 kg/h
N2 215 kg/h – FC Porter with hydrogen produced by electrolysis supplied with
NO 5.87E 02 kg/h biomass gasification electricity (FC_BE)
SO2 1.50E 03 kg/h
– ICE Porter with hydrogen produced by direct separation in bio-
HCl 1.96E 04 kg/h
mass gasification (ICE_BS)
Solid waste
– FC Porter with hydrogen produced from Italian electricity mix
Waste water (syngas purification) 2400 kg/h
Condensed water 11 kg/h (benchmarking alternative) (FC_IT).
Ash 0.91 kg/h
The benchmarking analysis with electric vehicles was carried
3
engine, while consumptions (0.1 Nm H2/km) and emissions data out with the following scenarios:
were evaluated by test bench experiments [37].
The benchmarking electric vehicle (BEV) was described accord- – Electric Porter with wind electricity (BEV_W)
ing to literature. The vehicle battery, 300 kg and 0.114 kW h/kg – Electric Porter with electricity from biomass gasification
capacity, has an electricity consumption of 17 kW h/km during (BEV_B)
the use phase [35]. – Electric Porter with electricity from Italian electricity mix
(BEV_IT)
3.2.4. Scenarios
Seven alternative scenarios were investigated with the data col- 3.3. Life cycle impact assessment
lected during the inventory phase:
In the life cycle impact assessment phase, the environmental
– FC Porter with hydrogen produced by electrolysis supplied with flows of the seven scenarios, collected in the inventory stage, were
wind electricity (FC_WE) aggregated into ten midpoint impact categories, according to the
 I. Bartolozzi et al. / Applied Energy 101 (2013) 103–111 107

Table 4 Also in this case, Italian energy mix based scenario (BEV_IT)
Inventory data of the FC components of the prototype [36]. shows in general larger impacts than renewable energy scenarios,
Components Materials/energy Quantity Origin while, for GWP, it has a lower value compared to BEV_B scenario
(kg) (35 and 69 kg CO2 eq., respectively) (see Fig. 2).
Fuel cell stack Graphite 14 Italy Regarding the use of non-renewable fossil energy, as expected,
PTFE polymer 8 Italy FC_IT and BEV_IT scenarios, based on the Italian energy mix, have
Platinum (catalyzer) 0.006 Italy larger impacts (1290 and 501 MJ eq., respectively) compared to the
Steel, low-alloyed 29 Italy
Chromium steel 18/8 7 Italy
corresponding renewable energy based scenarios. Among the
Electronic components 2 Italy hydrogen scenarios, FC_WE shows the lowest impact on this cate-
Electricity, assembly 40 Italy gory (437 MJ eq.), and the BEV scenarios show in general lower im-
(kW h) pacts compared to the hydrogen scenarios. The non-renewable
Tank H2 Aluminium alloy 10 Canada
fossil impact category results (according to CED method) are re-
Glass fibre 18 Canada
Steel, low-alloyed 2 Canada ported in Table 6.
Electricity, assembly 40 Italy The life cycle of each alternative scenario, as modelled in this
(kW h) study, include the following stages: (i) vehicle manufacture; (ii)
Battery PEO polymer 37 Korea operational phase, which includes not only the fuel use but also
Electronic components 2 Italy
its production process; (iii) storage and distribution of hydrogen
Steel, low-alloyed 4 Italy
Copper 1 Italy (this phase is not included in BEV scenarios); (iv) vehicle mainte-
Electricity, assembly 40 Italy nance; (v) vehicle end-of-life.
(kW h) The vehicle end-of-life phase shows in general a limited contri-
Electric machine Ferrite 29.8 India
bution (below 1%). For this stage we assumed the almost complete
Copper 4.6 Italy
Permanent magnets 1.76 China recycling of all the vehicles materials, in particular metals and
Insulation material 0.3 Italy glass and the incineration with energy recovery of all the non-recy-
Steel Fe510 28.2 Italy clable plastic parts.
Electricity, assembly 40 Italy For some of the impact categories, considered to be most inter-
(kW h)
esting for the purpose of the study, the contribution of the life cycle
Converters Copper 2 Italy
Insulation material 0.2 Italy phases for each alternative scenario was analysed in more detail:
Silica 0.5 Italy non-renewable fossil energy, global warming potential, abiotic
Ferrite 5 India depletion potential and eutrophication.
H2 circuits Chromium steel 18/8 15 USA/
In the non-renewable fossil energy category, vehicle manufac-
integrated Italy
ture and maintenance in BEV scenarios, covering around 45% and
20% of the total impacts, respectively, are more impacting than
CML2000 method: abiotic depletion, acidification, eutrophication, in FC or ICE alternatives.
global warming (GWP100), ozone layer depletion, human toxicity, In the operational phase, FC_WE shows the lowest consumption
freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity, marine aquatic ecotoxicity, terres- of non-renewable fossil energy (6.2%), while the biomass-based
trial ecotoxicity and photochemical oxidation [38]. hydrogen scenarios, ICE_BS and FC_BE, show a larger contribution
Table 5 shows the environmental impacts of each scenario, re- (about 42%). The operational phase of FC_IT scenario has the larg-
ferred to the functional unit (200 km). est contribution (70%) while, among the BEV alternatives, BEV_B
Renewable energy based hydrogen scenarios provide better and BEV_W have a contribution of 27% and 35%, respectively,
performances compared to FC_IT, based on Italian energy mix, and BEV_IT scenario has about 55%.
which has the largest impacts on all the categories. Among the Storage and hydrogen distribution phase significantly contrib-
renewables-based ones, FC_BE scenario, which includes biomass utes to all the hydrogen scenarios, with 35% for ICE_BS and FC_BE
gasification and electricity production, has the largest impacts on scenarios and 58% for the FC_WE scenario (Fig. 3).
most of the categories, for instance acidification (0.42 kg PO34 In the GWP impact category, vehicle manufacture accounts for
eq.), eutrophication (0.12 kg PO34 eq.) and GWP (53.3 kg CO2 eq.). about 15% for ICE_BS and FC_IT, 25% for FC_BE, while about 40%
On the contrary, FC_WE has the lowest impacts for GWP (33.7 kg for FC_WE. This phase contribution is almost 50% for BEV_W. The
CO2 eq), eutrophication (0.057 kg PO34 eq.), acidification (0.19 kg operational phase gives the largest contribution to this category
SO2 eq.) and abiotic depletion (0.23 kg Sb eq.). in all the alternatives, in particular for FC_IT and BEV_IT, with
BEV scenarios show in general lower impacts than hydrogen about 65% and 60%, respectively, except for FC_WE scenario, with
scenarios, also due to the fact that the (hydrogen) storage and only about 5%. Maintenance phase is more significant for BEV vehi-
transportation phase is not included. cles (about 20%), while hydrogen storage and distribution phase is

Table 5
Impact assessment results of the 7 analysed scenarios, according to CML2000.

Impact category Units BEV_B BEV_W BEV_IT FC_BE FC_WE FC _IT ICE_BS
Abiotic depletion kg Sb eq 0.17 0.19 0.27 0.36 0.23 0.67 0.38
Acidification kg SO2 eq 0.19 0.16 0.21 0.42 0.19 0.49 0.25
Eutrophication kg PO4 3 eq 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.12 0057 0.12 0.08
Global warming (GWP100) kg CO2 eq 22.07 24.24 35.65 53.32 33.77 96.38 50.6
Ozone layer depletion (ODP) kg CFC-11 eq 1.78 E 05 1.84 E 05 1.86 E 05 1.38 E 04 1.35 E 04 1.40 E 04 2.04 E 05
Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 68.66 66.62 69.79 53.71 41.54 57.28 40.85
Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 23.24 21.90 24.13 20.89 14.63 23.69 13.09
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 56382.3 53214.7 58685.3 43554.7 29006.2 50859.2 28719.2
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 0.22 0.22 0.29 0.26 0.19 0.47 0.26
Photochemical oxidation kg C2H4 eq 0014 0008 0010 0056 0009 0021 0006
108 I. Bartolozzi et al. / Applied Energy 101 (2013) 103–111

Table 6
Impact assessment results for non-renewable fossil energy of the 7 analysed scenarios.

Impact category BEV_B BEV_W BEV_IT FC_BE FC_WE FC_IT ICE_BS

Non-renewable, fossil (MJ) 319.8 361.7 501.9 712.8 437.4 1290.5 736.1

Fig. 2. Life cycle impact assessment results for the 7 analysed scenarios.

Fig. 3. Phase contributions to non-renewable fossil energy (MJ) for the 7 analysed scenarios.

relevant in all the hydrogen scenarios in particular for FC_WE sce-
nario with about 55% of the total value (Fig. 4).
Also in the ADP impact category, BEV vehicle manufacture and
maintenance have a largest contribution (up to 45–50% for manu-
facture in BEV_W and BEV_B, respectively and about 20% for main-
tenance), compared to the hydrogen scenarios. As for the
operational phase, the largest contribution occurs for biomass
based hydrogen scenarios, ICE_BS and FC_BE, for about 40%, while
for FC_WE the value is about 10%. Renewable based BEV scenarios
contribute for about 25–30%. Italian electricity mix based scenarios
show the largest contribution with 65% and 50%, for FC_IT and
BEV_IT, respectively. Storage and hydrogen distribution phase sig-
nificantly contributes to all hydrogen scenarios, in a range between
35% and 56% of the total value, depending on the scenario (Fig. 5).
A similar trend was observed for the eutrophication impact cat-
egory. Vehicle manufacture and maintenance for BEV scenarios
 I. Bartolozzi et al. / Applied Energy 101 (2013) 103–111 109

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
GWP (%)

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
ICE_BS FC_BE FC_WE FC_IT BEV_W BEV_B BEV_IT
Porter operational Maintenance storage & distribution End of life

Fig. 4. Phase contributions to GWP for the 7 analysed scenarios.

100

80

60
ADP (%)

40

20

0
ICE_BS FC_BE FC_WE FC_Itmix BEV_W BEV_B BEV_Itmix

Porter operational Maintenance storage & distribution End of life

Fig. 5. Phase contributions to ADP for the 7 analysed scenarios.

100

80
Eutrophication (%)

60

40

20

0
ICE_BS FC_BE FC_WE FC_Itmix BEV_W BEV_B BEV_Itmix
Porter operational Maintenance storage & distribution End of life

Fig. 6. Phase contributions to eutrophication for the 7 analysed scenarios.

110 I. Bartolozzi et al. / Applied Energy 101 (2013) 103–111
contribute for about 50% and 30%, respectively. In hydrogen sce-
narios, vehicle manufacture is about 25%, with the exception of
FC_WE, for which the value is about 50%, while maintenance is al-
ways below 5%. As for the operational phase, hydrogen scenarios
contribute for about 50%, except for FC_WE, which is less than
10%. In BEV scenarios this phase contributes less, about 10–20%.
Storage and hydrogen distribution phase contributes to all hydro-
gen scenarios in a range between 35% and 16% of the total value,
depending on the scenario (Fig. 6).
4. Conclusions
Life cycle assessment was used to evaluate and compare the
environmental impacts of the alternative scenarios for the hydro-
gen chains proposed within the project Filiera Idrogeno, in the re-
gional context of Tuscany (Italy). Benchmarking with a set of
electric vehicle scenarios was also carried out. The benchmarking
of the renewable energy sources with the Italian energy mix was
also provided.
The analysed seven scenarios show similar environmental per-
formances for all the environmental categories analysed. However,
some aspects should be remarked:
– The use of renewable energy source, either for hydrogen or elec-
tricity production, has better performance on most of the con-
sidered impact categories than the use of Italian national
electricity mix. However, there are no overwhelming indica-
tions for a better environmental performance of one alternative
among the renewable sources examined, although wind based
scenarios show the best performances on most of the
categories.
– BEV scenarios have in general better environmental perfor-
mances compared to the hydrogen scenarios, although it should
be remarked that they do not include the storage and distribu-
tion phase, which gives a significant contribution to the hydro-
gen scenarios. However, the worse performance of hydrogen
scenarios descends also from the lower efficiency in the fuel
(H2) production, which is included in the operational phase.
– The analysis of the alternative scenarios shows significant
impact shifts of the different life cycle phases, depending on
the energy source and on the vehicle typology. For instance,
in the operational phase, biomass based hydrogen scenarios
have larger impacts compared to FC_WE scenario; for this last
scenario the impacts are shifted to the vehicle manufacture
and the hydrogen storage and distribution phases. In the elec-
tric scenarios, the impacts are generally shifted to vehicle man-
ufacture and maintenance phases and consequently the
operational phase has smaller impact.
This study emphasises the need of a global analysis to assess the
contribution to the environmental impacts, in order to highlight all
the aspects of complex scenarios such as those here proposed,
where the system boundaries include not only the use of the alter-
native fuel but also its production, storage and transportation, and
the production, maintenance and end-of-life of the vehicle.
These results can usefully integrate information about technical
and economic performances of the investigated alternatives, so as
to provide policy and decision makers with a comprehensive
knowledge base for setting future green mobility goals in Tuscany.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge CIPE (Comitato Interministe-
riale per la Programmazione Economica) and Regione Toscana for
the financial support of the project ‘Filiera Idrogeno’. The authors
wish also to acknowledge Dr. Enrico Biagini of the Department of
Chemical Engineering Industrial Chemistry and Materials Science
of University of Pisa and Dr. Giovanni Lutzenberger of the Depart-
ment of Energy Engineering and Systems of University of Pisa for
providing experimental data for the inventory analysis.
References
[1] Saboohi Y, Farzaneh H. Model for developing an eco-driving strategy of a
passenger vehicle based on the least fuel consumption. Appl Energy
2009;86:1925–32.
[2] Xunmin Ou, Yan Xiaoyu, Zhang Xiliang, Liu Zhen. Life-cycle analysis on energy
consumption and GHG emission intensities of alternative vehicle fuels in
China. Appl Energy 2012;90(1):218–24.
[3] Pekala Lukasz M, Tan Raymond R, Foo Dominic CY, Jezowski Jacek M. Optimal
energy planning models with carbon footprint constraints. Appl Energy
2010;87(6):1903–10.
[4] Jimenez-Espadafor FJ, Marin JJR, Villanueva JAB, Garcia MT, Trujillo EC, Ojeda
FJF. Infantry mobility hybrid electric vehicle performance analysis and design.
Appl Energy 2011;88:2641–52.
[5] Su W, Chow MY. Computational intelligence-based energy management for a
large-scale PHEV/PEV enabled municipal parking deck. Appl Energy 2011.
[6] Kristoffersen TK, Capion K, Meibom P. Optimal charging of electric drive
vehicles in a market environment. Appl Energy 2011;88:1940–8.
[7] Juul N, Meibom P. Road transport and power system scenarios for Northern
Europe in 2030. Appl Energy 2012;92:573–82.
[8] Fernandes C, Frías P, Latorre MJ. Impact of vehicle-to-grid on power system
operation costs: the Spanish case study. Appl Energy 2011.
[9] Doucette RT, McCulloch MD. Modeling the prospects of plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles to reduce CO2 emissions. Appl Energy 2011;88:2315–23.
[10] Balat M. Potential importance of hydrogen as a future solution to
environmental and transportation problems. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33:
4013–29.
[11] Balla M, Wietschelb M. The future of hydrogen – opportunities and challenges.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:615–27.
[12] Tang Y, Yuan W, Pan M, Wan Z. Experimental investigation on the dynamic
performance of a hybrid PEM fuel cell/battery system for lightweight electric
vehicle application. Appl Energy 2011;88:68–76.
[13] Koroneos C, Dompros A, Roumbas G, Moussiopoulos N. Life cycle assessment
of hydrogen fuel production processes. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2004;29:
1443–50.
[14] Koroneos C, Dompros A, Roumbas G. Hydrogen production via biomass
gasification – a life cycle assessment approach. Chem Eng Process 2008;47:
1261–8.
[15] http://www.h2power.it/, http://www.hyer.eu/.
[16] Melanina MW. Turn of the century refueling: a review of innovations in early
gasoline refueling methods and analogies for hydrogen. Energy Policy
2007;35:4919–34.
[17] Mau P, Eyzaguirre J, Jaccard M, Collins-Dodd C, Tiedemann K. The neighbour
effect: simulating dynamics in consumer preferences for new vehicle
technologies. Ecol Econ 2008;68:505–16.
[18] Meyer PE, Winebrake JJ. Modeling technology diffusion of complementary
goods: the case of hydrogen vehicles and refueling infrastructure.
Technovation 2009;29:77–91.
[19] Holden E, Georg Høyer K. The ecological footprints of fuels. Trans Res Part D:
Trans Environ 2005;10:395–403.
[20] Manfren M, Caputo P, Costa G. Paradigm shift in urban energy systems through
distributed generation: methods and models. Appl Energy 2011;88(4):
1032–48.
[21] Lee JY, Anb S, Cha K, Hur T. Life cycle environmental and economic analyses of
a hydrogen station with wind energy. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010;35:
2213–25.
[22] Briguglio N, Andaloro L, Ferraro M, Di Blasi A, Dispenza G, Matteucci F, et al.
Renewable energy hydrogen production and sustainable urban mobility. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2010;35:9996–10003.
[23] Di Bugno M, Guerra S, Ambrosino G, Boero M, Liberato A. A centre for eco-
friendly city freight distribution: urban logistics innovations in a mid-size
historical city in Italy. In: Proceedings of City Logistics 2007, Creete Island,
Greece, July 11–13; 2007.
[24] ISO 14040, Environmental Management e Life Cycle Assessment e Principles
Framework. International Organisation for Standardisation; 2006.
[25] Pennington DW, Potting J, Finnveden G, Lindeijer E, Jolliet O, Rydberg T, et al.
Life cycle assessment Part 2: Current impact assessment practice. Environ Int
2004;30(5):721–39.
[26] Ecoinvent: http://www.ecoinvent.org/.
[27] Annuario eolico italiano 2010.
[28] Martinez E, Sanz F, Pellegrini S, Jimenez E, Blanco J. Life-cycle assessment of a
2–MW rated power wind turbine: CML method. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2009;14:52–63.
[29] Maack M. Life cycle approaches to assess emerging technologies. Generation of
the energy carrier hydrogen in context with electricity buffering generation
through fuel cells. In: NEEDS: New Energy Externalities Developments for
Sustainability, Sixth Framework Programme, Integrated Project.
 I. Bartolozzi et al. / Applied Energy 101 (2013) 103–111 111

[30] Ragaglini G, Triana F, Villani R, Moriondo M, Guidi W, Bonari E. Land suitability electrical drives, automation and motion 2010, SPEEDAM 2010; June 14–16,
assessment for poplar SRC under different climate scenarios at regional level in 2010, Pisa, Italy.
central Italy. In: Proceeding of 17th European biomass conference and [37] Zanforlin S, Poerio T, Frigo S, Gentili R. Two step concept for low-pressure
exhibition 2009. 29 June–3 July 2009, Hamburg, Germany. direct hydrogen injection. In: Proceedings of asme internal combustion engine
[31] Gasola CM, Gabarrella X, Antonc A, Rigolad M, Carrascoe J, Ciriae P, et al. LCA of division 2009 fall technical conference, 2009; September 27–30, 2009,
poplar bioenergy system compared with Brassica carinata energy crop and Lucerne, Switzerland.
natural gas in regional scenario. Biomass Bioenergy 2009;33:119–29. [38] Guinée JB et al. Life cycle assessment: an operational guide to ISO
[32] Biagini E, Masoni L, Tognotti L. Comparative study of thermochemical standards. Amsterdam: Kluwer; 2001.
processes for hydrogen production from biomass fuels. Bioresour Technol
2010;101:6381–8.
[33] Huang Q, Malekian A, Ei M. Optimization of PSA process for producing
Glossary
enriched hydrogen from plasma reactor gas. Sep Purif Technol 2008;62:22–31.
[34] Carcassi MN. In: PLUS editor, Linee guida per la definizione di un piano LCA: life cycle assessment
strategico per lo sviluppo del vettore energetico idrogeno, 2004, Pisa, Italy. FC: fuel cell
[35] Notter DA, Gauch M, Widmer R, Wäger P, Stamp A, Zah R, et al. Contribution of ICE: internal combustion engine
Li-ion batteries to the environmental impact of electric vehicles. Environ Sci BEV: battery electric vehicle
Technol 2010;44:6550–6.
[36] Ceraolo M, Lutzemberger G, Doveri N. Experiences of realisation and test of a
fuel-cell based vehicle. In: International symposium on power electronics,