International Journal of Green Energy

ISSN: 1543-5075 (Print) 1543-5083 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ljge20

An overview of development and challenges in

hydrogen powered vehicles

Seyed Ehsan Hosseini & Brayden Butler

To cite this article: Seyed Ehsan Hosseini & Brayden Butler (2020) An overview of development
and challenges in hydrogen powered vehicles, International Journal of Green Energy, 17:1,
13-37, DOI: 10.1080/15435075.2019.1685999

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2019.1685999

Published online: 18 Nov 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 38979

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 93 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ljge20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY
2020, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 13–37
https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2019.1685999

An overview of development and challenges in hydrogen powered vehicles

Seyed Ehsan Hosseini and Brayden Butler
Combustion and Sustainable Energy Laboratory (ComSEL), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, AR, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Hydrogen has the potential to be the sustainable fuel of the future, decrease the global dependence on Received 30 March 2019
fossil fuel resources, and lower the pollutant emissions from the transportation industry. In this study, Accepted 24 October 2019
recent development in hydrogen-based transportation engines is reviewed to scrutinize the feasibility of KEYWORDS
using hydrogen as a major fuel of future. Using hydrogen in internal combustion engines achieves only Internal combustion engine;
20-25% efficiency and low power output compared to fossil-fueled internal combustion engines. fuel cell; transportation
Although hydrogen-based internal combustion engines have recently received considerable interests, system; hydrogen storage;
several practical barriers have prevented the fast development of this technology. Hence, at the current hydrogen safety; exhaust
stage, using hydrogen as an additive to hydrocarbon fuel systems have been taken into consideration to gas recirculation
produce higher performance than hydrogen-only internal combustion engines. Using the dual-fuel
strategy can increase the combustion stability and thermal efficiency while decreasing the CO and
unburned hydrocarbons emissions, and fuel consumption. Alternatively, hydrogen can be used in fuel
cells for vehicular applications with several automotive manufacturers producing fuel cell vehicles
currently. Fuel cells can achieve efficiencies of up to 60%, while the rest is lost as heat. Strategies that
have been investigated to increase the efficiency, performance, and lifespan of fuel cells are capillary
pumping systems, a chemisorption chiller, nanofluids and supercapacitors. All such strategies improved
the fuel cells in one or more ways. Safety, hydrogen delivery, onboard storage, and the capital and
operating costs of hydrogen powered vehicles are analyzed to approach to clean transportation utopia.

1. Introduction (Chang, Ma, and Wu 2018). Road vehicles consume approxi-

mately 50% of the world’s oil produced (Balat 2008). The
The most significant problem of the 21st century is the global
demand for crude oil has continuously increased because of
demand for enhanced energy generation and the related
economic acceleration. Energy planners of many countries are
environmental issues such as local pollution and global warm-
searching for sustainable solutions to fulfill their energy
ing. In 2016, it was internationally agreed that 2°C of global
demand, especially in the transportation sector (Hosseini
temperature increase is inevitable (Álvarez Fernández et al.
et al. 2013). In this context, research and investments in the
2018). This limit means that the design goals for the energy
utilization of renewable and sustainable alternative fuels, as
system must be widened from only concerning technology
well as the enhancement of energy efficiency of the engines
and economics to including environmental impact, sustain-
have been developed (Hosseini and Wahid 2014). Hydrogen is
ability through its life cycle, constituent materials, and the
one of the most important candidates to supply energy
waste products (Hosseini 2019). A significant amount of the
demands in future and plays a crucial role in most govern-
energy consumed globally is by transportation vehicles and
mental strategic plans (Elnashaie, Chen, and Prasad 2007;
machineries which are almost exclusively dependent on fossil
Hosseini, Wahid, and Ganjehkaviri 2015b). Hydrogen has
fuels (Chapman 2007; Mori and Hirose 2009). Due to fossil
a heating value three times larger than petroleum, on a mass
fuel resources depletion and increasing rate of anthropogenic
basis, and creates significantly less zero harmful tailpipe-
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the possibility of using
emissions in internal combustion engines and fuel cells,
other prime movers and energy carriers is highlighted by
which is one of the most significant drawbacks of fossil fuels
energy strategists and environmentalists (Hosseini and
(Fayaz et al. 2012; Muradov and Vezirolu 2005).
Wahid 2012). Currently, around 65% of the worldwide energy
There are countless benefits to using hydrogen instead of
demand is supplied by fossil fuels in fluid form because they
fossil fuels. The most notable benefits are that it is considered
are easily accessible and convenient to use. In the urban
as an environmentally friendly fuel because it emits only H2
transportation (private cars, taxis, buses, and urban rail tran-
O when used in a fuel cell (Zeng and Zhang 2010). Hydrogen,
sit), the energy consumption of various options is different,
the most plentiful element, has the highest specific energy
with private cars having the highest energy consumption. The
content compared to the fossil fuels (Balat and Balat 2009).
rapid development of the private cars industry has an adverse
Hydrogen possesses an energy yield of 122 kJ/g, which is 2.75
influence on the energy scenario and environment of the cities

CONTACT Seyed Ehsan Hosseini shosseini@atu.edu Combustion and Sustainable Energy Laboratory (ComSEL), Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Arkansas Tech University, 1811 N Boulder Ave, Russellville, AR 72801, USA
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ljge.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
14 S. E. HOSSEINI AND B. BUTLER
times larger than numerous hydrocarbon fuels (Kapdan and
Kargi 2006). Energy per unit mass stored in hydrogen is about
2.6 times more than gasoline; however, hydrogen is disadvan-
tageous because it requires approximately four times more
volume for storage than gasoline when stored as a liquid,
and approximately 19 times more volume when stored as
a gas (Petkov, Veziroǧlu, and Of n.d.). Utilizing hydrogen as
a fuel in an internal combustion engine (ICE) or fuel cell (FC)
propelled vehicles is a promising direction for the future of
the transportation sector. Hydrogen-fueled ICEs (H2ICEs)
have low achievable efficiency of 20–25%, which is a cause
for problems when considering the current hydrogen storage
capabilities in both gas and liquid states. Lacking the ability to
achieve driving ranges comparable to those of fossil-fueled
ICE vehicles makes H2ICEs less appealing to consumers. The
poor efficiency of H2ICEs and low storage capabilities com-
bined with the lack of hydrogen refueling infrastructure
makes the engine type not feasible for consumers at this
time. Studies have investigated methods of improving the
efficiency of hydrogen ICEs to make the application of hydro-
gen in ICE vehicles feasible for light- and heavy-duty vehicles.
To supplement the low storage capabilities of hydrogen, some
studies have investigated the use of dual-fuel fossil fuel-
hydrogen ICEs. On the other hand, hydrogen FC vehicles
offer more potential with the current efficiency of up to
60%; however, the use of rare-earth metals in different types
of FCs increases the cost and creates a limiting factor on the
manufacturability (US Department of Energy 2017a). Certain
types of membranes used in fuel cells are subject to damage
from using less-than-pure quality hydrogen, which shortens
the lifespan of the fuel cell stack. Studies have been conducted
on improving the operation and increasing the efficiency in
order to improve the durability and lifespan of FCs.
A hydrogen-based transportation system would drastically
alter the fuel production industry and introduces several
new economic challenges and opportunities (Chen et al.
2019).
Several experimental methods to produce hydrogen
(hydrogen from wind energy (Nagasawa et al. 2019), solar
energy (Burhan et al. 2017), biomass (Hosseini et al. 2015a),
geothermal (Kianfard, Khalilarya, and Jafarmadar 2018),
nuclear energy (Sorgulu and Dincer 2018), dissociating
water by electrolysis (Dos Santos et al. 2017), fossil fuels
(Lee, Elgowainy, and Dai 2018a), etc.) have been investigated,
but the majority of hydrogen is generated from costly, non-
renewable sources (Holladay et al. 2009). A variety of clean/
highly efficient methods have been developed to convert the
chemical energy of hydrogen to a desirable energy type (fuel
cell (Das et al. 2017), gas turbine (Ditaranto, Li, and Løvås
2015), internal combustion engine (ICE) (Yang et al. 2018),
etc.) (Hosseini and Wahid 2016). The annual hydrogen pro-
duction is estimated to be about 50 million tons; where the
share of natural gas (NG), oil, coal, and renewable energy
sources is 48%, 30%, 18% and 4%, respectively (Srinivasan
2006). Electrolysis is a production method that can use renew-
able energy, but it is an energy extensive process, making it
not ideal for sustainable use at this time (Hwang 2013).
Hydrogen is a clean, versatile, and efficient fuel if it is pro-
duced from any of the variety of renewable energy sources
and methods; however, only a few of these methods are
currently commercially viable (Barbir 2009). Presently, the
price of hydrogen is more than double that of diesel and
petrol on a mass basis. To enable hydrogen production to be
environmentally sustainable and competitively priced, sub-
stantial progress must be made. To establish an operational
hydrogen economy, the required energy for pure hydrogen
production, its storage and transport should be estimated
(Herzog and Tatsutani 2005).
Although very low density of hydrogen has made some
challenges for its bulk storage, as well as its distribution and
onboard vehicle storage, the advantages of hydrogen utiliza-
tion in the transportation system are significant enough to
introduce hydrogen as a serious energy carrier candidate for
modern transportation systems (Verhelst and Wallner 2009).
Renewable energy can provide hydrogen locally; however,
they are not adequate sources to provide enough hydrogen
to meet the global requirement (Lindorfer et al. 2019). This is
because there are currently no adequate storage solutions for
hydrogen that are inexpensive. According to the US
Department of Energy (DOE), solar is most likely the only
source of renewable energy that could produce sufficient
hydrogen to develop the hydrogen economy (Edwards et al.
2008).
Due to the several challenges in hydrogen production and
utilization processes, investigation about development and
various characteristics of hydrogen, especially in the transpor-
tation engines application, has become one of the most sig-
nificant research directions. Hence, in this paper, recent
developments in hydrogen-based transportation engines with
special focus on ICEs and fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) is reviewed
to evaluate the feasibility of a hydrogen-based transportation
system.
2. Hydrogen transportation engines
Two main hydrogen-based technologies have been employed to
power vehicles: hydrogen fuel cell (HFC) (Ehsani et al. 2018),
and hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engine (H2ICE)
(Boretti 2011). The benefits of hydrogen FCVs are the high
efficiency, the lack of harmful emissions (water vapor is the
only emission which is harmless compared to the emissions
created by the fossil fuels combustion, such as nitric oxide,
nitrogen dioxide, carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide), they
operate quietly, and are modular (Dicks and Rand 2018).
FCVs use electrochemical reactions to produce electricity
from hydrogen and oxygen. Alternatively, the benefits of
H2ICEs are the reliance on a mature industry with a huge
production infrastructure, the ability to offer “flex-fuel” to aid
in the transitional period which could aid in the deployment of
the hydrogen infrastructure, lower requirements for hydrogen
compared to HFCs, ultra-low emissions, raised peak and part
load efficiencies in comparison with conventionally fueled
ICEs, and they are not dependent on rare materials (Verhelst
2014). FCVs and battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) use rare mate-
rials which could limit the spread of these devices. FCs require
platinum, which is already expensive and will increase in price
as the demand raises. BEVs use rare earth elements that would
be difficult to produce in large quantities. It is estimated that

FCVs are capable of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
by 80% in the US in 2100 compared with that of 1990, and the
country will become independent of gasoline fuel in the trans-
portation system by the 2100s (Dougherty et al. 2009). An
extensive amount of progress has been made in hydrogen
ICE vehicles and hydrogen FCVs in the past century. The
current hydrogen-fueled vehicles available on the market and
some of the most innovative test engines have been compared
to the most environmentally friendly fossil-fueled vehicles
available today in Table 1.
3. Challenges in hydrogen powered vehicles
3.1. Safety of hydrogen vehicles
Fuels with low density, high diffusion coefficient, and higher
specific heat are safer. The higher specific heat alleviates the
temperature mitigations for a given heat input (Singh et al.
2015). For a specific fuel, some characteristics like wider
ignition limits and lower ignition temperature cause the fuel
to become less safe by increasing the limits in which a fire
could occur. Higher emissivity/temperature of the flame and
high explosive energy make the fuel less safe because the fire
will be more damaging [8]. Table 2 summarizes the fire
hazard properties of gasoline, methane, and hydrogen
(Veziroğlu and Şahi˙n 2008).
Hydrogen is very light (~6.9% density of air), 4 times as
diffusive as NG, and 12 times as diffusive as gasoline; hence,
a risk of combustion or explosion is minimal (Sharma and
Ghoshal 2015). Due to the non-toxicity characteristic of
hydrogen, its leakage would not damage the environment.
An explosion of hydrogen is very difficult to create, so it is
much more likely that a quick burning fire would result if
a hydrogen/air mixture experienced a spark (Hawkins and
Hughes 2006). A safety advantage of hydrogen is that it blazes
with little heat radiation, therefore only things immediately
next to the flame would burn (Alazemi and Andrews 2015).
The clear flame can also not sear skin at a distance due to its
low thermal radiation. Hydrogen can burn in lower concen-
trations which causes safety concerns (Midilli et al. 2005).
The US DOE has set parameters for storage and system
safety. For permeation and leakage, the system must fulfill
SAE J2579 for system safety; for toxicity, the system must
meet applicable standards; and failure analysis must be con-
ducted and evaluated for the system. The permeation and
leakage tests are for the entire storage system, rather than
each component or storage material. The toxicity criteria are
regulated by government standards such as the EPA’s Toxic
Substances Control Act Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA
Inventory) and the US Department of Labor Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OHSHA). The safety
instructions cover the transport system, manufacture, certifi-
cation and operation of vehicles, fuel dispensing, and end of
life issues, which each must comply with applicable federal,
state, and local standards. The onboard storage systems
should comply with SAE J2579 and the United Nations
Global Technical Regulation No. 13 and the applicable stan-
dards for the country that the vehicle is deployed.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 15
3.2. Hydrogen storage tank
There are several levels of hydrogen storage that are required to
develop a successful hydrogen economy: at production centers,
at filling stations, onboard vehicles, and nationally as a strategic
reserve. The storage of hydrogen is the most difficult challenge
associated with the hydrogen economy (Chang et al. 2016).
Before a hydrogen transportation economy can be built, an
appropriate storage system must be developed for hydrogen
powered vehicles. Due to hydrogen’s extremely low density,
a huge onboard storage tank would be needed to transport the
fuel. To mimic the 400 km range of a standard car, only 8 kg of
hydrogen is required for an ICE or 4 kg of hydrogen for an FC
(Schlapbach and Züttel 2010). The challenge at hand is finding
a material for the storage container that fulfills three require-
ments: high hydrogen density, fast release/charge kinetics with
minimum energy barriers to hydrogen release and charge, and
reversibility of the release/charge cycle at moderate temperatures
(70–100°C) must be compatible with the FCs. The tank material
must have strong chemical bonds and close atomic packing. The
material also needs loose enough atomic packing to assist fast
diffusion of gaseous hydrogen between the surface and the bulk.
An adequate thermal conductivity of the material is required to
hamper decomposition by the heat released upon hydrating
(Sharma and Ghoshal 2015). Investigations show that several
materials can meet two of the requirements, but none have been
found that fulfill all the necessary requirements. Whichever
material is selected must also be cost effective, a practical weight,
have an adequate lifetime, and meet safety requirements
(Hydrogen Fuel: Production, Transport, and Storage, 2008;
Satyapal et al. 2007). The gravimetric and volumetric density in
a storage tank material is very important in both mobile and
stationary applications of gaseous hydrogen (Atkinson et al.
2001). Carbon nanotubes have been discovered to be a source
of hydrogen storage, which spurred a massive influx of research
devoted to nanostructures (Hirscher et al. 2001). By physio-
chemical or chemical treatments, the state of hydrogen can be
changed and it can be stored in solid or liquid phases (Dalai et al.
2014). Various materials such as boron compounds (Fakioğlu,
Yürüm, and Nejat Veziroğlu 2004), chemical hydrides (Biniwale
et al. 2008), carbon-based materials (Xu et al. 2007), Mg-based
alloys (Jurczyk et al. 2008), and metal hydrides (Muthukumar,
Prakash Maiya, and Murthy 2005; Sakintuna, Lamari-Darkrim,
and Hirscher 2007; Xiao et al. 2008) have been employed in
hydrogen storage systems to achieve the best performance.
There are six different methods for storing hydrogen
(Züttel 2004):
● Liquid hydrogen in cryogenic tanks (at 21 K)
● Absorbed on interstitial sites in a host metal (at ambient
temperature/pressure)
● Chemically bonded in covalent and ionic compounds (at
ambient pressure)
● High-pressure gas cylinders (up to 800 bar)
● Adsorbed hydrogen on materials with a large specific
surface area (at T < 100 K)
● Oxidation of reactive metals (i.e. Li, Na, Mg, Al, Zn) in
water.
 16

Table 1. Comparisons of the most important engine characteristics for current experimental and developed engine technologies.
Engine 1 Engine 2 Engine 3 Engine 4
Gasoline only Diesel only Fuel Cell Gasoline-H2 dual-fuel Engine 5 Engine 6 Engine 7
Characteristic [43–45] [43,44] [46–48] [49] Diesel-H2 dual-fuel [50] Hydrogen only [29] Fuel Cell [1,51]
Engine Make/Model GM 1.4 L Ecotec Ford 3.0L Power Stroke 113 kW AC Synchronous MeM3-245 (modified) Kirloskar, Model TV1 Jaling JH600 (modified) Hyundai ix35
DOHC F-150 (PEMFC) (modified) (modified)
S. E. HOSSEINI AND B. BUTLER

Fuel Type Gasoline multi-PFI Diesel DI CH2 gas Gasoline DI; HHO Diesel DI, CH2 H2 gas Spaced dual CH2 gas
gasd gas (max 20%) PFI injection
(5.9% H2) DI
Fuel Storage: HPDEa HPDEa Type-IV CFc – CH2 at 130 bar- CH2- CH2 at 700 bar
• Method 34.1 98 122.4 142
• Tank volume (dm3)
Classification DE DE DE EX EX EX EX
• Experimental (EX) or Developed
(DE)
Orientation; Number of Cylinders/ In-line; 4-cylinder- V-6, 60
- -370 In-line; – Single cylinder- Single cylinder- -440
Number of cells per stack
Displacement Volume (dm3) 1.399 2.99 – 1.091 0.661 – –
Compression Ratio 10.6:1 16.0:1 – 9.5:1 17.5:1 9.7:1 –
Bore  Stroke (mm) 74  81.3 84  90 – 72  67 87.5  110 94  85 –
Power output (kW) 73 186 114 37.5 5.2 30 100
Torque (N-m) 127 596 335 78.5 30 51 300
Cost: 14,170 41,687 58,500 – – – –
• Average vehicle cost ($) 1,050 1,800 3,150
• Annual fuel cost ($/year for 15,000
miles)
Availability 114,555 189,290 4,644 – – – –
• # of vehicles sold the US from (approx.)
2015–2018
Efficiency: 33 mpg– 25 mpg– 66 mi/kg– -33.3- –27 –35–41 (at 49 mi/kg–
• Fuel economy 1000–6000 rpm)
• Brake Thermal Efficiency (%)
• Indicated Thermal Efficiency (%)
Driving Range (miles/1 full tank) 297 650 312 – – – 66–398
Environmental 8 4 10 – –; 35 –; 0 10
• GHG Ratingb 273; - 412; - 0; 0 0; 0
• CO2 Emissions (gram/mi; ppm)
a
HDPE is high-density polyethylene.
b
The US DOE Fuel Economy Guide ranks vehicles on a scale of 1–10, 1 being the worst and 10 being the best in terms of GHG emissions.
c
CF is carbon fiber reinforced.
d
Oxyhydrogen (HHO) is a hydrogen-containing gas.

Table 2. Fire hazard of various transportation fuels (Veziroğlu and Şahi˙n 2008).
Property Gasoline Methane
Densitya (kg/m3) 4.4 0.65
Diffusion coefficient in air (cm2/s) 0.05 0.16
Specific heat at constant pressurea (J/gK) 1.2 2.22
Ignition limits in air (vol %) 1.0–7.6 5.3–15.0
Ignition energy in air (mJ) 0.24 0.29
Ignition temperature (°C) 228–471 540
Flame temperature in air (°C) 2197 1875
Explosion energyb (gTNT/kJ) 0.25 0.19
Flame emissivity (%) 34–43 25–33
a
At normal temperature and pressure.
b
Theoretical maximum; actual 10% of theoretical.
In the gaseous state, hydrogen has extremely low density
(0.09 kg/NA m3), and very low boiling point (20.2 K); how-
ever, in liquid phase, the density of hydrogen is exceptionally
high (70.9 kg/NA m3) (Balat 2008). These properties make
storing hydrogen very complicated in mobile application. The
current method for storing hydrogen in transportation
engines is as a liquid in cryogenic reservoirs (at 20 K) or as
a gas in high-pressure cylinders (at up to 700 bar). Neither of
these two methods are exceptionally efficient. Compressing
the gaseous hydrogen uses up to 20% and liquefying hydrogen
requires up to 40% of the energy content. Solid-phase hydro-
gen storage is compatible with electrolyzers and FCs.
A porous material can absorb hydrogen molecules, but gen-
erally, an attractive capacity can only be obtained at cryogenic
temperatures. The most commonly used material for solid-
state hydrogen storage is interstitial metal hydride. Metals are
the only reversible solid-phase hydrogen storage that have
been commercialized, primarily for stationary applications.
The available tanks for FCVs to the public utilize com-
pressed hydrogen carbon-fiber Type IV tanks that store about
5%wt when pressurized at a global standard of 700 bar. Bus
fuel tanks are generally 350 bar composite tanks since energy
density is less important in larger vehicles. Another type of
compressed hydrogen tank is the composite Type III tanks
(Lee et al. 2018b). The tanks are composed of an aluminum
liner wrapped in epoxy resin-coated, aerospace-grade carbon
fiber. The aluminum liner does not have any seams, is more
tolerant to impacts than traditional gas tanks, is resistant to
heat, can be filled in all weather conditions, fills as quickly as
a gasoline tank, has a burst safety factor of 3.0, and has a built-
in leak-before-burst fatigue failure design. Liquid hydrogen is
compatible with electrolyzers and FCs, but the complexity and
cost of a cryogenic liquefier make it impractical for small-scale
use; therefore, storing hydrogen in liquid form at low pres-
sures is commonly employed for bulk hydrogen storage and
transport (Zhang et al. 2005). Currently, limited development
has been made for onboard liquid hydrogen fuel tanks for
automotive use (Salvi and Subramanian 2015). The least
expensive technique for creating high-performance composite
fuel tanks is filament winding (Vasiliev and Morozov 2001).
Cold (sub-ambient but higher than 150 K) or cryogenic
(below 150 K) storage methods are being investigated because
higher fuel density can be achieved at reduced temperatures
(“Physical Hydrogen Storage | Department of Energy,” n.d.).
Ahluwalia et al. (Ahluwalia, Hua, and Peng 2012) claimed that
the cryo-compressed storage system is the best storage
method at this point because it met all the storage targets
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 17
for well-to-tank efficiency, well-to-engine efficiency, emis-
Hydrogen sions on a per kilogram of hydrogen basis and on a per mile
0.084 basis, refueling cost, and ownership cost, but not initial cost
0.61
14.89
and onboard efficiency.
4.0–75.0 Paster et al. (Paster et al. 2011) studied GHG emission, energy
0.02 efficiency, the well-to-wheel costs and performance of five hydro-
585
2045 gen storage techniques. The five systems were cold, compressed
0.17 gaseous hydrogen at 500 bar and 200 K; cryo-compressed liquid
17–25
hydrogen (CcH2) at 275 bar and 30 K; compressed gas hydrogen
at 350 bar; compressed gas hydrogen at 700 bar; and metal
hydride sorbent metal-organic frame work (MOF 177) at 250
bar and 100 K. From this study, the most attractive storage system
was determined to be the CcH2 system due to its low price since it
runs at lower pressures than the compressed gas systems, used
a smaller tank, and can fulfill the DOE’s volumetric efficiency goal
even though this system had the highest GHG emissions, hydro-
gen cost, and energy use. For all five storage methods, the GHG
emissions are largely dictated by the method used to produce the
hydrogen. The systems that utilized liquid hydrogen required
significantly more energy to convert the gaseous hydrogen into
a liquid state, thus these systems also have higher GHG emissions.
Refueling compressed gaseous hydrogen tanks takes no
more than 5 min, which is comparable to gasoline. DOE
Fuel Cell Technologies Office (FCTO) is currently deploying
safe, low cost and high-performance storage systems that
support a driving range of more than 300 miles (US
Department of Energy 2017b). The technical system targets
that FCTO has set for onboard hydrogen storage systems in
light-duty FCVs is shown below in Table 3.
By 2020, there will be 100 hydrogen refueling stations
constructed in California. The targets are set to assure the
initial and operational costs of the storage system is compar-
able to the incumbent technology by 2020.
The most favorable method of hydrogen storage is physical
containment, specifically compressed tanks, because they are
readily available (Jorgensen 2011). The fill time of these tanks
is competitive with fossil fuels when the hydrogen is pre-
cooled (Maus et al. 2008). Cost is the main setback for the
wide scale use of compressed hydrogen (CH2) tanks because
the material and assembly are expensive. Another potential
setback is the public’s concern of using such high pressure (70
MPa) storage tanks in vehicles. An alternative to traditional
CH2 tanks that is still being researched is a tank with an
internal skeleton, which is a complex design of struts in
tension within the tank to resist the forces of the compressed
hydrogen (Aceves et al. 2006). Liquid hydrogen (LH2) storage
has improved significantly, achieving the best specific mass
(15%) of other onboard hydrogen storage systems (Fieseler
and Allidiers 2006). Energy efficiency is decreased when
liquid hydrogen is used. To widely develop LH2 systems, the
boil off property should be improved. A promising alternative
design is a cryo-compressed tank in which hydrogen is highly
compressed at cryogenic temperatures. More studies must be
done on this method to determine long-term durability and
public acceptance of the system. Hydride storage systems
require substantial research and progress to meet the require-
ments for large-scale use. The most well studied hydride is
NaAlH4, but it does not have the capacity necessary for
application. Based on the results of the few studies, it is
18 S. E. HOSSEINI AND B. BUTLER

Table 3. Technical system targets: On-board hydrogen storage for light-duty FCVs (US Department of Energy 2017b).
Storage Parameter Units 2020 2025 Ultimate
System Gravimetric Capacity: kWh/kg 1.5 1.8 2.2
Usable, specific-energy from H2 (kgH2/kg (0.045) (0.055) (0.065)
(net useful energy/max system mass) system)
System Volumetric Capacity: kWh/L 1.0 1.3 1.7
Useable energy density from H2 (kgH2/L (0.030) (0.040) (0.050)
(net useful energy/max system mass) system)
Storage System Cost: $/kWh net 10 9 8
($/kg H2) 333 300 266
Durability/Operability:
• Operating ambient temperature °C −40/60 (sun) −40/60 (sun) −40/60 (sun)
• Min/max delivery temperature °C -40/85 -40/85 -40/85
• Operational cycle life (1/4 tank to full) Cycles 1500 1500 1500
• Min delivery pressure from storage system bar (abs) 5 5 5
• Max Delivery pressure from storage system bar (abs) 12 12 12
• Onboard efficiency % 90 90 90
• “Well” to powerplant efficiency % 60 60 60
Charging/Discharging Rates:
• System fill time min 3–5 3–5 3–5
• Minimum full flow rate (e.g.,1.6 g/s target for 80kW rated fuel cell power) (g/s)/kW 0.02 0.02 0.02
• Average flow rate (g/s)/kW 0.004 0.004 0.004
• Start time to full flow (20 °C) $ 5 5 5
• Start time to full flow (−20 °C) $ 15 15 15
• Transient response at operating temperature 10%-90% and 90%-0% (based on full flow rate) $ 0.75 0.75 0.75
Fuel quality (H2 from storage) % H2 Meet or exceed SAE J2719
Dormancy:
• Dormancy time target (Minimum unit first release from initial 95% useable capacity) Days 7 10 14
• Boil-off loss target (max reduction from initial 95% useable capacity after 30 days) % 10 10 10
Environmental Health& Safety:
• Permeation & leakage – • Meet or exceed SAE J2579 for system safety
• Toxicity – • Meet or exceed applicable standards
• Safety – • Conduct and evaluate failure analysis

indicated that tanks with no internal heat transfer elements volume density than LH2 (Zhou 2005). Figure 1 demonstrates
could be constructed based on the moderate heat of absorp- a comparison between different onboard hydrogen storage
tion of hydrogen on surfaces (Paggiaro et al. 2010). systems with respect to volume-mass of fuel sufficient for
Cold hydrogen must be used in this system to double as 418 km of vehicle operation. According to this figure, the
the fuel and the coolant. High surface area, low-density pow- storage tank mass of compressed hydrogen is very high,
ders are used in absorption storage systems. The storage which limits the suitability of this method; however, the
media must be compressed into pellets or pucks to increase stored mass of metal hydrides is low, while the storage system
the amount of media in the tank, but this decreases the volume is high (xPetkov, Veziroǧlu, and Of n.d.).
specific hydrogen capacity of the media. The system mass
and cost are reduced by decreasing the system’s volume and
compressing the media, which makes up for the lost capacity. 3.3. Hydrogen transport and delivery
Hydrogen stored via reactive chemicals usually involves bor- A successful hydrogen-based transportation system needs
ohydride hydrolysis which is a method of fast hydrogen infrastructure to deliver hydrogen from production plants
production. This method for use on transportation engines
is limited by the high level of heat generation during the
reaction, high energy needed to recycle boron oxide and
hydroxide by products, and the severe wear on parts in con-
tact with the borohydride solution. Progress has been made in
organic liquid carriers which have lower temperature reac-
tions and higher hydrogen capacity than other chemical sto-
rage systems (Hovland et al. 2003).
Hydrogen storage requires extensive research and a major
technological breakthrough to develop alternative methods to
compressed and liquefied hydrogen (Aasadnia and
Mehrpooya 2018). There are various types of materials for
solid-state hydrogen storage that have higher energy density
than liquid hydrogen, but extensive investigations are
required to ameliorate the materials hydrogen desorption
and absorption characteristics. In future, the widely used
hydrogen storage method could be solid materials that either
chemically bind or physically absorb hydrogen at a greater Figure 1. On-board hydrogen storage with respect to volume-mass (Petkov,
Veziroǧlu, and Of n.d).

to refueling stations (Grüger et al. 2018). The potential
hydrogen delivery methods are compressed gas pipelines,
cryogenic liquid trucks, and compressed tube trailers (Yang
and Ogden 2007). Any combination of these methods could
be utilized at varying stages of the hydrogen automotive
transportation. Delivery distance and the number of stations
are the crucial factors affecting the cost of delivering hydro-
gen (Yang, Nicholas, and Ogden 2006). Pipelines could be
used for transporting hydrogen farther distances, while
trucks carry smaller amounts shorter distances. Due to the
low density of hydrogen, transportation of liquid or pressur-
ized hydrogen is inefficient (Lasn and Echtermeyer 2014).
High-purity stainless steel piping with a maximum hardness
of 80 HRB is preferred for pipelines (Cadwallader and
Herring 1999). The lowest cost choice depends upon market
and specific geographical characteristics. For the past 50
years, pipelines have been used to transport hydrogen.
Currently, there are approximately 16,000 km of hydrogen
pipelines throughout the world that transfer hydrogen to
chemical plants and refineries (Ball and Wietschel 2009).
Although the capital cost of pipelines is high, their operation
cost is low especially for compressor power. Liquid hydrogen
could be transported on ships, railcars or trucks, but its
operating cost is very high because of the electricity required
for liquefaction (about 30–60% of the total liquefaction
costs), which may leave a considerable carbon footprint.
Distance is an important factor to select the hydrogen deliv-
ery method. Investments in the construction of pipelines of
high-quality materials must be made due to the specific
physical and chemical characteristics of hydrogen (Ball and
Weeda 2015).
4. Hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines
The transportation system is heavily reliant on ICEs, which
consume huge amounts of liquid fossil fuels in the form of
diesel and gasoline. The energy conversion of petroleum fuel
in ICEs via combustion releases various pollutants such as
carbon monoxide (CO), nitric oxide (NOx), unburned hydro-
carbons (UHCs), particulate matter (PM) and GHGs (Reitz
2013). Compared to gasoline engines, the high energy content
of H2ICEs combined with their physical and chemical proper-
ties allow these engines to operate more effectively on exces-
sively lean mixtures. Hydrogen has greater diffusivity, much
lower ignition energy (0.02 MJ), and higher ignition tempera-
ture compared to the other fuels (Schlapbach and Züttel
2010). Hydrogen possesses greater dispersion in air than gaso-
line, which is majorly accredited to the ease constitution of
a uniform air/fuel mixture, and the rapid dispersion of hydro-
gen when a leak develops. Because of the low density of
hydrogen, two main issues arise when it is used in ICEs.
First, to give the vehicle the ability to drive an adequate
range, a large storage volume is required. Second, the power
output is mitigated by the energy density of the hydrogen/air
mixture (Balat 2008).
In recent decades, many investigations have been per-
formed to find adequate substitutions for ICEs in transporta-
tion systems; however, none of those efforts have yet
succeeded in challenging the dominant role of fossil-fueled
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 19
ICEs. Nevertheless, innovative techniques have been proposed
to improve ICEs efficiency and emission characteristics to
meet the ever-rising challenges of environmental crisis and
petroleum demand (Yan, Xu, and Wang 2018).
4.1. Hydrogen-only ICEs
Since the octane number of hydrogen is higher than that of
gasoline fuel, it can be considered as a serious candidate to use
in IC transportation engines. Some hydrogen properties, such
as its higher diffusivity compared to gasoline and methane,
lower ignition energy requirement, and higher flame velocity
are desirable for spark ignition (SI) engines (Luo and Sun
2016). Since hydrogen flame speed is approximately five times
higher than gasoline and methane and ten-times higher than
diesel, hydrogen-fueled SI engines can be run with lower
cyclic variations (Bradley et al. 2007).
Hydrogen in SI engines is used in one of the following
ways (Acar and Dincer 2018):
● Manifold induction: Low-temperature hydrogen is
injected to the manifold via a passage which is con-
trolled by a valve.
● Direct introduction: A cryogenic cylinder is used to
store hydrogen. A pump sends the liquid hydrogen to
a heat exchanger to evaporate it and then cold hydrogen
gas is injected into the engine. By using cold hydrogen
gas, pre-ignition is avoided and NOx formation in the
combustion process is reduced.
● Hydrogen addition to gasoline: In this method,
a hydrogen-gasoline mixture is introduced to the ICE
where the compressed mixture is ignited by a spark.
Hydrogen also can be employed in a compression ignition
(CI) engine. The generated power from a CI engine has been
found to be twice that of the same engine worked in the
premixed system (Ganesan 2012). In hydrogen-based CI
motors, an injector is used to inject high-pressure hydrogen
into the cylinder (Naber and Siebers 1998). Therefore, not
only the design of engine structure is important, but the
design of the injector is crucial because the injection nozzle
controls how the pressurized hydrogen is injected into the
system (Gomes Antunes, Mikalsen, and Roskilly 2009).
Hydrogen supply in CI engines has illustrated significant
reductions in CO2, CO, HC and smoke levels that under
optimum circumstances can reach as much as over 50%. An
apparent effect of using high amounts of hydrogen in IC
engines (high load conditions) is a sharp rise in heat release
rate (and consequently the increased in-cylinder temperatures
and high rates of NOx formation) and brake thermal effi-
ciency (Dimitriou and Tsujimura 2017).
Szwaja and Grab-Rogalinski (Szwaja and Grab-Rogalinski
2009) used pure hydrogen in homogeneous charge compres-
sion ignition (HCCI) engine. To achieve hydrogen auto-
ignition under the HCCI mode, a compression ratio of at
least 16 was used. It was found that using a stoichiometric
hydrogen–air mixture in the HCCI mode generates an extre-
mely high combustion knock. Therefore, various methods
20 S. E. HOSSEINI AND B. BUTLER
such as leaning combustible mixture or EGR should be
employed to reduce the knock effect.
In the pressure-boosted H2ICE structure, a hydrogen gas
compression chamber is used to raise the intake-air/hydrogen
pressure to maximize engine power density of ICEs. In this
condition, the hydrogen pressure is increased to achieve
hydrogen volumetric efficiencies closer to the gasoline fuel
(White, Steeper, and Lutz 2006). Using liquid hydrogen is
another method which does not require significant changes
in conventional ICEs. In this system, liquefied hydrogen is
injected to an expansion chamber to convert to a cold hydro-
gen gas and ultimately it is conducted to the combustion
chamber. Using cold hydrogen decreases NOx emission as
well as pre-ignition (Gurz et al. 2017). Figure 2 shows these
two types of H2ICEs.
Currently, direct injection (DI) and PFI are the injection
methods being investigated for H2ICEs. DI offers high effi-
ciencies and controlled emissions, but the durability of DI
injectors is low. Injection needs high pressure, which further
limits the storage options. Hydrogen could be stored in cryo-
genic tanks in the liquid state and injection pressure are
generated onboard, or compressed hydrogen is stored, which
limits the tank capacity and onboard compression would
negate the efficiency benefits of DI (Peschka 1998).
Numerous labs and organizations have been conducting
research in direct injection for hydrogen fuels. The DOE
program targeted demonstrating a peak brake thermal effi-
ciency (BTE) of 45%, a part-load BTE of 31% with part load
Figure 2. Schematic of (a) Pressure-boosted H2ICE (b) Liquid hydrogen internal combustion engine (Gurz et al. 2017).
point set at 2 bar brake mean effective pressure (bmep) at
1500 rpm, and “Tier II Bin 5” emissions (which limit NOx
emissions to 0.07 g/mile) (FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership
Plan -March 2006). The National Traffic Safety &
Environment Laboratory (NTSEL) project aimed a peak
power output of 100 kW from a 4-cylinder naturally aspirated
engine with less than 0.05 g/kWh of NOx on a JE05 transient
emission testing cycle.
Sopena et al. (Sopena et al. 2010) modified an SI gasoline-
fueled ICE of a transportation vehicle (suitable for both inter-
urban and city) to operate on hydrogen fuel only. The most
important modifications were performed on the electronic
management unit, gas injectors, inlet manifold, and oil radia-
tor. Verhelst and Sierens (Verhelst and Sierens 2001)
upgraded a GM/Crusader V8 engine from fossil fuels to
hydrogen only to investigate its capability in public transpor-
tation bus. The specifications of a hydrogen port fuel injection
(PFI) GM 454 spark ignition test engine are shown in Table 4.
The engine was equipped with a port fuel injection system,
which supplied hydrogen at 3 bar. The compressed hydrogen
was stored in steel bottles at 200 bar. Since backfire is an
important issue in hydrogen-fueled engines (Dhyani and
Subramanian 2018), the authors claimed that this problem
can be avoided by using a lean mixture. Limiting the air–
fuel ratio caused the power output of the engine to decrease.
The minimum 90 kW power output and 300 N  m torque
required for a city bus were reached. The necessity of smaller
spark plug gaps, the choice of injection pressure, the

Table 4. Specifications for a hydrogen PFI GM 454 spark ignition test engine
(Verhelst and Sierens 2001).
Engine type GM 454 spark ignition
Fuel type Hydrogen PFI
Number of cylinders 8 tional to the supplied energy and inversely proportional to the
Bore  stroke 107.95  101.60 mm
Displacement volume 7.4 dm3
Compression ratio 8.5:1
Engine speed 750–4000 rpm
Ignition sequence 18436572
Intake valve timing IVO 42
C A before TDC; IVC 95
C A after BDC
Exhaust valve timing EVO 93
C A before BDC; EVC 62
C A after TDC
deterioration of the lubricating oil, and the calibration of the
oxygen sensors for use in extremely low mixtures in hydrogen
ICEs were analyzed. Additionally, the advantages of using lean
mixtures to operate at low-load conditions without using
a throttle valve was analyzed. The disadvantage of removing
the throttle valve was an increased hydrogen concentration in
the exhaust gas when the engine was idling, which led to the
undesirable result of increased fuel consumption.
Lee et al. (Lee et al. 2014) experimentally assessed the
potential of simultaneously obtaining high output without
backfire, like a gasoline engine, by using lean boosting in
a single cylinder hydrogen engine with Mechanical
Continuous Variable Valve Timing (MCVVT). The specifica-
tions of the engine used in the experiment are shown in
Table 5. The MCVVT is a timing belt that continuously varies
the opening and closing periods of the intake and exhaust
valve during ignition. In the test engine, a low-pressure sole-
noid injector was used to inject gaseous hydrogen.
Through experimentation, the equivalence ratio was
increased at 0.1 increments to observe the occurrence of
backfire and locate the backfire limit. The amount of residual
gases present in the cylinder affects the likelihood of backfire
occurring at certain cylinder wall temperatures and equiva-
lence ratios. The amount of exhaust gases is dependent on the
amount of residual gases, thus the change in exhaust pressure
is related to the change in residual gases. The backfire limit
was observed to not be significantly impacted by the exhaust
pressure, as well as the exhaust valve closing (EVC) timing.
This indicates that the inlet valve opening (IVO) timing
impacts backfiring more significantly than EVC timing.
Through experimentation, it was determined that backfiring
occurred consistently beyond stoichiometric combustion,
above ϕ ¼ 1:3 at 1000 rpm when the intake valve timing
was IVO (intake valve opening) BTDC 10
C A due to
a rich air–fuel mixture. The equivalence ratio where the back-
fire limit occurred decreased as the engine speed increased,
leveling out at ϕ ¼ 0:7 at approximately 1600 rpm and
Table 5. Specifications for a single cylinder hydrogen test engine with mechan-
ical continuous variable valve timing (Lee et al. 2014).
Fuel type Hydrogen DI
Valve mechanism Double overhead cam (DOHC)
Bore  stroke 86  86 mm
Compression ratio 10.5
Displacement volume 0.4996 dm3
Valve timing control MCVVT system
Duration of IVO 257
C A
Duration of EVO 224
C A
Range of valve timing 50
C A
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 21
remaining constant thereafter. The inevitable backfiring was
controlled by slowing the IVO and by applying lean boosting.
From Eq (1), the gas temperature; Tg , in the engine is propor-
specific heat at constant volume and the mass of fresh
air (mi ).
!1
X
n
mk
Tg ¼ T1  ε n1
þ Q mi  Cvk (1)
k¼1
mi
Where T1 is the temperature at position one,Q is energy
supplied by the combustion process, mi is the mass of fresh
air and Cv is the specific heat of the species.
Due to hydrogen’s high specific heat, the maximum tem-
perature mitigation rate from lean boosting was greater than
other fuels. Hydrogen can achieve stable combustion at ultra-
lean equivalence ratios (ϕ ¼ 0:2), which allows for nearly NOx
-free emissions when operated at power outputs equivalent to
gasoline-level outputs. The experiment was successful with the
single cylinder engine, but further detailed analysis is neces-
sary to achieve similar results from a multi-cylinder engine,
turbocharger, and at other various operating conditions.
Bai-gang et al. (Bai-gang, Hua-yu, and Fu-shui 2014) inves-
tigated various characteristics of the combustion duration in
hydrogen H2ICE through engine experimentation and analy-
sis of the physical properties of hydrogen in comparison to
gasoline. Graphing the pressure rise rate versus the crank
angle at 4000 rpm showed a proportional relationship
between the richness of the mixture, the peak cylinder pres-
sure and the increasing pressure rate, which are dependent on
combustion speed. Graphing pressure versus crank angle
shows that with the augmentation of equivalence ratio, the
heat release rate increases while the combustion duration
decreases. The combustion duration tends to the same value
as the engine speed increases regardless of mixture concentra-
tion as long as the equivalence ratio is above 0.6.
Port fuel injection is another method of fuel injection that
is currently being heavily reviewed due to its ability to pro-
duce high part load efficiency and extremely low emissions;
however, it has a low power output. Sun et al. (Sun, Zhang,
and Liu 2013) studied how the covariance of indicated mean
effective pressure (COVimep) effected the cycle variations in
a PFI hydrogen-fueled ICE. The specifications for the PFI test
engine are shown in Table 6. It was verified that COVimep is
the most appropriate parameter for assessing cycle variations
in H2ICEs. Through experimentation, it was found that 150
cycles were enough to evaluate the cycle variations in H2ICEs.
When the COVimep was less than 5% and the fuel–air ratio
was greater than 0.2, the COVimep decreased as the fuel–air
Table 6. Specifications for employed hydrogen-fueled ICE to evaluate how the
covariance of indicated mean effective pressure (COVimep) effected the cycle
variations (Sun, Zhang, and Liu 2013).
Fuel type Hydrogen PFI
Number of cylinders 4
Bore  stroke 86  86 mm
Compression ratio 10
Length of connecting rod 142.8 mm
Displacement volume 1.998 dm3
22 S. E. HOSSEINI AND B. BUTLER
ratio increased at 1000–5000 rpm. The engine speed had no
significant impact on the COVimep as the variation trend of
COVimep with fuel–air ratio tended to be the same at differ-
ent engine speeds of the H2ICE. For all ignition advance
angles, the COVimep decreased as fuel–air ratio increased.
With a rich mixture, the effect of ignition advance angle on
COVimep lessened, and gradually varied with ignition
advance angle, which proves that ignition advance angle
does not affect COVimep as significantly as fuel–air ratio
does. At less than 20% throttle, COVimep quickly decreased
as throttle position increased. No notable changes in
COVimep were observed with larger throttle positions. The
hydrogen injection process significantly affected COVimep
when the engine was at idle, but minimal affects were
observed at high speed conditions.
Wang et al. (Wang et al. 2017) reported that nozzle posi-
tion does not have a significant impact on the uniformity of
the hydrogen–air mixture in an H2ICEs; however, a larger
distance between the inlet valve and the nozzle, increased the
probability that backfiring would occur. The closest position
to the inlet valve would be the optimal nozzle position.
Due to wide flammability range of hydrogen and its low
ignition energy, fast combustion of hydrogen–air mixture in
ICEs is unavoidable; therefore, undesired backfiring and pre-
ignition should be controlled (Duan, Liu, and Sun 2014).
Engine malfunctions like sudden increases in pressure, high
engine temperature, acoustic oscillations, and high waste heat
release are the results of pre-ignition (Ferguson and
Kirkpatrick n.d.). Moreover, pre-ignition reduces the peak
power output of the system and consequently decreases the
efficiencies of H2ICEs (Das 2016).
5. Mixing hydrogen with conventional fuels in ICEs
Utilization of hydrogen fuel in ICEs has recently been inves-
tigated, which has presented several practical barriers such as
hydrogen production, storage and fueling infrastructures that
are preventing the fast development of this technology.
Therefore, at the current step, using hydrogen as an additive
to hydrocarbon fuels in ICEs is a method that can instigate
the use of hydrogen in transportation engines (Juste and
Benavides 2008; Tartakovsky and Sheintuch 2018).
Internal combustion engines do not require pure hydrogen
gas to achieve power generation like fuel cells do; therefore,
oxyhydrogen gas can be used as an additional fuel type to the
combustion process. Oxyhydrogen (HHO) gas in an effective
additive in fossil fuel combustion because it has only two
combustible atoms, whereas hydrocarbon fuels consist of
thousands of large carbohydrate molecules (EL-Kassaby
et al. 2016). HHO gas has been observed to increase the
thermal efficiency of the engine as well as reduce the specific
fuel consumption. Another benefit to introducing HHO gas to
the combustion process is the decrease of unburned hydro-
carbons in the exhaust gases. In a study conducted by
Gutarevych et al. (Gutarevych et al. 2018) the effects of adding
HHO gas to a gasoline-powered MeM3-245 engine operating
in the idle mode were investigated. The fuel consumption, CO
emissions, UHC emissions, NOx, excess air, and engine effi-
ciency were observed when the engine ran without HHO gas
addition and with HHO gas addition. The effects of operating
the engine with 5.9% additive HHO gas are decreased fuel
consumption (gasoline) from 0.57 kg/h to 0.49 kg/h, a 14%
decrease. The CO concentration in the exhaust gases
decreased from 1.12% to 0.65%. The UHC concentration
decreased from 262 ppm without HHO gas addition to 225
ppm with HHO gas addition. The NOx concentration
decreased as well from 48 ppm to 42 ppm while in idle
mode; however, when the engine was operating in a low-
load mode the NOx concentration increased from 1290 ppm
to 1360 ppm. Adding HHO to the combustion process causes
the engine cylinder temperature to increase, thus NOx pro-
duction is increased, which is not a desirable effect. Overall,
the indicated engine efficiency improved by 6.7% with HHO
addition and the indicated power increased by 2.8%. Using
hydrogen or HHO gas addition in diesel engines, especially
biodiesel engines, aids to raise the lower heating value (LHV).
Hydrogen has a high LHV compared to diesel and biodiesel,
so when it is used as an additive in a diesel or biodiesel
engine, the engine performance increases (Arat 2018).
Although adding hydrogen to the liquid/gas fossil fuels has
demonstrated several benefits, performance improvement of
ICEs is not guaranteed by simply blending hydrogen with
fossil fuels. Several design factors and operation parameters
should be optimized to achieve the desirable hydrogen/fuel
blend. Reduction of combustion duration and augmentation
of in-cycle temperature in ICEs are the main consequences of
adding hydrogen to the conventional fuels; therefore,
a complete combustion with higher efficiency and lower CO
and UHCs emissions is expected. However, due to the high
combustion temperature in this condition, higher rate of NOx
formation is unavoidable. Consequently, many research inves-
tigations have been implemented to determine the optimal
condition of ICEs when hydrogen is added to the conven-
tional fuel (Ma et al. 2009; Moreno et al. 2012).
Yu et al. (Yu et al. 2016) studied combustion variations of
a four-cylinder gasoline direct injection spark ignition (DISI)
engine under lean burn conditions (Table 7). The engine was
modified from gasoline to a dual-fuel engine with gasoline
PFI and hydrogen DI for the tests. The impacts of hydrogen
fraction of 10% with different amounts of excess air ratio and
throttle positions were experimentally observed. A self-
developed hydrogen electric control unit (HECU) was
employed to regulate the duration of hydrogen injection
into the cylinder. To adjust the amount of air/fuel mixture
and the excess air ratio, a throttle controlled by a step motor
was used. It was reported that the coefficient of variation
(COV) at indicated mean effective pressure decreases initially,
then increases afterward with the retardation of ignition
Table 7. Specifications of a Dual-fuel (gasoline PFI, hydrogen DI) engine test (Yu
et al. 2016).
Fuel type Dual-fuel: gasoline PFI, hydrogen DI
Number of cylinders 4
Displacement volume 1.798 dm3
Bore  stroke 82.5  84.2 mm
Compression ratio 9.6:1
Rated power/speed 118 kW/(50008 rpm–62008 rpm)
Rated torque/speed 250 N m/(15008 rpm–42008 rpm)
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 23

timing at different throttle positions and excess air ratio. of hydrogen addition lead to increased thermal efficiency,
Thus, it is proven that a minimum cycle-by-cycle variations mean effective pressure and combustion speed. The highest
(MCV) ignition timing for various throttle position and thermal efficiency was obtained at 1.2 excessive air ratio. As
excess air ratio exists. The second conclusion reached was the hydrogen fraction increased at a certain excess air coeffi-
that the maximum rate of pressure rise increases, the peak cient and throttle opening, the development of flame and
cylinder pressure increases, and the cycle-by-cycle variations combustion durations decreased while the maximum pressure
mitigate when hydrogen is added to the engine operating at rise rate, maximum mean temperature, maximum heat release
MCV ignition timing. When hydrogen is introduced to the rate and the maximum cylinder pressure increased. Under
mixture, a strong correlation between peak cylinder pressure, this circumstance, as the hydrogen fraction addition
maximum rate of pressure rise, and the corresponding crank increased, the CO and HC emissions decreased, but the NOx
angle, which weakens as the excess air ratio increases. The formation increased as a result of the increased mean tem-
combustion stability is kept down by the increase of excess air perature. The volumetric efficiency did not decrease by using
ratio, but the cycle-by-cycle variations reduce by enlarging the the hydrogen DI and gasoline port injection. With the given
throttle opening. Lastly, hydrogen addition extended the system, the addition of hydrogen allowed the engine to have
engine lean burn limit, which indicated that the addition of stable combustion at 1.5 excessive air ratio. The thermal
hydrogen by DI enhanced the stable combustion for the efficiency of the system was increased by the addition of
reduction of cycle-by-cycle variations. hydrogen. The similar results for pollutants formation were
Ezzat and Dincer (Ezzat and Dincer 2018) proposed a novel reported by Kim et al. (Kim et al. 2017) when they experi-
carbon-free ammonia-hydrogen fuel ICEV and claimed that the mentally ran an in-line four-cylinder 2.0 L T-GDI gasoline
overall energy and exergy efficiencies of the system are 31.1% engine with the specifications denoted in Table 9.
and 28.94%, respectively. Kamil and Rahman (Kamil and To inject hydrogen into a diesel power generator, Oliveira
Rahman 2015) evaluated the performance of an SI engine et al. (de Oliveira et al. 2013) tested an electronic control
using methane–hydrogen and gasoline-hydrogen blends. It was system using a multipoint gas fuel injection rail with an
stipulated that using methane–hydrogen blend indicates better electronic control unit (ECU), a speed sensor, and injection
results compared to the gasoline–hydrogen blends. The authors valves. The injector was designed to operate a dual fuel (die-
concluded that the benefits of hydrogen addition are signifi- sel/hydrogen) system. The engine and generator specifications
cantly stronger than the limitations. are shown in Table 10. The generator used was a 3-phase
According to Tsujimura et al. (Tsujimura and Suzuki 2017) generator with a 55 kVA power rating and 60 Hz frequency.
tests (Table 8), as the hydrogen fraction increases up to 50% The system was tested under eight different conditions at 5%,
under higher engine load operations, pre-ignition occurs. 10%, 15%, and 20% hydrogen concentration at different
Under this circumstance, the temperature of cylinder head is power and pressures. The comparison between hydrogen
strongly dependent on the hydrogen fraction which is related mass flow rate and the load power in kilowatts demonstrated
to the change in combustion behavior. Abnormal combustion that as the hydrogen mass flow rate increased so did the load
of hydrogen takes place at the hot region of the chamber power and hydrogen concentration in the fuel.
when the equivalence ratio exceeds 0.35. In hydrogen-fueled Shi et al. (Shi et al. 2017) studied the effects of spark timing
engines, because of the faster flame speed of hydrogen, the net on the characteristics of combustion and pollutant emissions
heat release rate is two times higher and the peak cylinder
pressure is 1.36 times higher compared to the gasoline SI
engine (Navale, Kulkarni, and Thipse 2017). Table 9. Specifications for in-line, T-GDI, DOHC test engine ran by Kim et al. (Kim
Du et al. (Du et al. 2016) experimentally evaluated the et al. 2017) [122].
influences of hydrogen fractions (0% −11.09%) on lean burn Engine type In-line, T-GDI, DOHC
combustion, as well as the emissions of an SI gasoline engine Fuel type Gasoline DI with hydrogen addition
on a premixed gasoline engine with hydrogen DI under the Number of cylinders 4
Displacement volume 1.998 dm3
condition of the excessive air coefficient from 1.0 to 1.5. Bore  stroke 86  86 mm
A gasoline direct-injection engine was modified into Compression ratio 9.5:1
a hydrogen DI system with gasoline port fuel injection. The Maximum power 204 kW at 6000 rpm
Maximum torque 352 N m at 1750–4500 rpm
hydrogen volume fraction was set at 0%, 3.99%, 5.87%, 7.68%,
9.41%, and 11.09%, respectively. The authors reported that at
different throttle openings and excessive air coefficients, the Table 10. Specifications for test engine and generator ran by Oliveira et al. (de
various levels of hydrogen addition ratio had great impacts on Oliveira et al. 2013) [123].
the emissions and engine performance. The increasing levels Engine Cycle Four strokes
Fuel type Diesel DI
Number of cylinders 4, in-line
Displacement volume 3.922 dm3
Table 8. Specification for dual-fuel (hydrogen PFI, diesel DI) test engine ran by Bore  stroke 102  120 mm
Tsujimura et al. (Tsujimura and Suzuki 2017) [119]. Intake system Naturally aspirated
Rated power 44 kW
Fuel type Dual-fuel: hydrogen PFI, diesel DI Generator Number of poles 4
Number of cylinders 1 Voltage 220 V
Displacement volume 1.3 dm3 Number of phases 3
Bore  stroke 115  125 mm Rated power 55 kVA
Compression ratio 17.5:1 Frequency 60 Hz
24 S. E. HOSSEINI AND B. BUTLER
of a hydrogen DI stratified gasoline engine. The engine used
in the experiment was a 1.8 L four-cylinder gasoline engine
with the original injection system modified to a hydrogen
injection system. To control hydrogen/gasoline injection tim-
ing as well as the spark timing, a gasoline port fuel injection
system and a hydrogen–gasoline ECU were considered in the
engine design. The engine was worked at 1500 rpm; the intake
hydrogen volume fraction (αH2 ) was regulated between 0%
and 10% and the excessive air ratio (λ) was maintained at 1.2
using the following equations:
 . .  engines. To investigate the influences of exhaust gas recircula-
mH 2  . 
αH2 ¼ ρH2 mH2  100% (2)
ρ þ Vair
H2
 
λ ¼ Vair ρair mH2 AFH2 ;ST þ mgas AFgas;ST (3)
The authors claimed that a good stratified effect with the
hydrogen injection timing at 110°C A before top dead center
(BTDC) is achievable which improved fuel economy and BTE,
and reduced emissions (Shi et al. 2017). The volumetric effi-
ciency was increased by using direct injection when the intake
valve was closed. The BTE was first increased then reduced as
the spark advance angle increased. Overall, the BTE and the
combustion rate increased as the hydrogen volume fraction
increased. Optimal spark advance angle for maximum BTE
was 10°C A BTDC at 9% hydrogen volume fraction. The
maximum pressure raised with the spark advance angle,
which further raised with the addition of hydrogen. The
maximum rate of pressure rises resulted from the augmenta-
tion of spark advance angle and hydrogen volume fraction for
each volume fraction. NOx emissions rose quickly; the spark
advance angle increased at specific hydrogen volume frac-
tions, while CO and HC emissions rose slowly. By increasing
the hydrogen volume fraction, NOx rose, but CO and HC
emissions reduced.
The thermal efficiency (ηth ) of an Ideal Otto Cycle is
calculated by (Faizal and Saidur 2017):
1 design, hydrogen and CO were supplied into the EGR system as
ηth ¼ 1  ð Þγ1 (4)
cr
Compared to gasoline (γ = 1.1), the molecular structure of
hydrogen is simpler its specific heat ratio (γ = 1.4) is larger.
Hence, the thermal efficiency of H2ICEs is theoretically
higher than gasoline-powered engines (Amrouche et al.
2016). Overall, the actual thermal efficiency of an H2ICE is
much lower than the Ideal Otto Cycle efficiency due to losses
from incomplete combustion and heat loss. Combusting
hydrogen in an ICE can be achieved at a very lean air–fuel
ratio (ϕ = 0.19), which decreases the fuel consumption, but
also results in higher instances of incomplete combustion of
the fuel in comparison to gasoline- or diesel-only engines. The
losses due to incomplete combustion in a gasoline engine are
approximately 3%, whereas in a hydrogen engine the losses
are slightly higher (Verhelst and Wallner 2009). To create
a homogeneous mixture inside the engine cylinder, the hydro-
gen is directly injected during the compression stroke. Adding
hydrogen during the compression stroke allows the lower
heating value of the mixture to increase. Theoretically, to
decrease the amount of work required for compressions, the
specific heat ratio must be decreased. The actual amount of
compression work is highly dependent on the injection strat-
egy, such as timing and duration, which can increase the
engine efficiency up to 4% when the system is optimized
(Wallner 2004).
6. Exhaust gas recirculation in H2ICEs
In addition to modifying the combustion process itself,
exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) has been used to improve
the performance of hydrogen-only and hydrogen-fossil fuel
tion (EGR) on the pollutant formation and combustion char-
acteristics under various hydrogen ratios, Du et al. (Du et al.
2017) employed an engine with a gasoline intake port injec-
tion and hydrogen DI. For hydrogen addition ratios of 0%,
5%, and 25%, the engine’s output torque, in-cylinder pressure,
cylinder temperature, exhaust temperature, NOx emissions
(ppm), HC emissions (ppm), and CO emissions (%) were
measured. From the experiments, it was found that when
a small amount of hydrogen was added into the combustion
process, the peak cylinder pressure increased by 9.8% and the
engine torque increased by 11%. Using a 20% EGR ratio and
a 5% hydrogen ratio improved the engine torque output about
20% and reduced the NOx formation by 54.8% compared to
the original engine without hydrogen addition. The fuel econ-
omy of engine raised after the addition of hydrogen and the
trend in brake specific fuel consumption changed slowly,
which created a wider economical range for the engine. The
CO and HC emissions were decreased significantly by adding
hydrogen to the system. The fuel consumption is greatly
decreased with the co-control of EGR and hydrogen addition
in the engine.
A similar test was performed by Fennell et al. (Fennell,
Herreros, and Tsolakis 2014) modifying a conventional EGR
system to a reformed exhaust gas recirculation (REGR) to
improve the performance of a gasoline DI system. In the REGR
shown in Figure 3. The results indicated that the REGR improved
the engine efficiency in comparison to the gasoline engine, and the
REGR outperformed EGR due to the extended dilution limit. The
REGR largely decreased NOx formation and had moderately
increased HC emissions. Both the EGR and REGR reduced or
eliminated knock, as well as reduced the particulate matter num-
ber and mass emissions.
7. Hydrogen fuel cell
7.1. Application of HFC in transportation engines
Electricity generation is continually moving away from cen-
tralized generation based on fossil fuels as the technology is
becoming more complex and diverse. Hydrogen and fuel cells
can be incorporated into the global energy sector, but it will
be difficult due to the intricacy of the structure of the energy
sector. HFCs are static energy conversion systems that gen-
erate electrical energy through an electro-chemical reaction of
hydrogen and oxygen. The electrical energy will be generated
by HFCs as long as hydrogen/oxygen is conducted into the
system. FCs have low-efficiency ratings, around 50% at lower

Figure 3. Schematic of a modified hydrogen-fueled engine with reformed exhaust gas recirculation (Fennell, Herreros, and Tsolakis 2014).
heating value, which is inferior to batteries; however, the
volumetric energy density of an HFC is much higher than
the equivalent electricity capacity of a battery (Gray et al.
2011). Unlike in batteries, FCs do not self-discharge the
hydrogen stored, because the FC itself is not the storage
device which is important for long-term storage. A unique
and appealing characteristic of hydrogen fuel cells is the
decoupling of energy and power ratings (Eriksson and Gray
2017). These are proportional in a battery, which is why
battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) with a large driving range
are expensive, heavy, and very powerful. HFCs are superior
to BEVs in the aspect of power availability because, the FC
itself dictates the power capacity while the hydrogen storage
sets the duration of the energy supply, similar to an ICE.
HFCs alone can be used to replace a traditional ICE in the
transportation sector on this similarity. Since 2007, more than
100 automobiles of the generation HydroGen4 illustrated in
Figure 4 were manufactured in countries like the United
States and Germany (Harrop and Das n.d.).
Although experiments with different types of FCs in
hydrogen transportation engines have been conducted, the
principal behind their function is similar. Generally, an
anode, a cathode, and an electrolyte are the main components
of an HFC engine where oxygen is charged to the cathode and
Figure 4. GM HydroGen4 vehicle (Harrop and Das n.d).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 25
hydrogen is supplied to the anode. Electrons are separated
from hydrogen atoms at the anode and the process is accel-
erated by a catalyst. The electrons are conducted through
a path to power an attached device and leading to the cathode,
decreasing oxygen whereas the generated protons pass
through a proton-conducting electrolyte. At the cathode
side, the protons and oxygen are combined to form water.
Generally, the HFC system employs oxygen and hydrogen to
generate electricity and water with no other pollutants
(Kraytsberg and Ein-Eli 2014).
Alkaline Fuel Cells (AFCs) or Alkaline Membrane Fuel
Cells (AMFCs) and Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells
(PEMFCs), also known as Polymer Electrolyte Membrane
Fuel Cells, are the two main types of FCs. AMFCs are similar
to PEMFCs, the difference being that PEMFCs use an acid
membrane instead of an alkaline membrane. AFCs can use
a variety of non-precious metal catalysts at the anode and
cathode, making them more affordable than PEMFCs. The
challenges for AMFCs are tolerance to carbon dioxide, mem-
brane durability and conductivity, higher temperature opera-
tion, power density, water management, and anode
electrocatalysis (Alesker et al. 2016; Deng et al. 2016).
The second type of FC is PEMFC which operates at tem-
peratures less than 120°C using perfluorosulfonic acid as the
26 S. E. HOSSEINI AND B. BUTLER
charge carrier material (Ye et al. 2015). They are ideal for
transportation applications because they can achieve faster
start-up times than other types of FCs. PEMFCs do require
a significant amount of precious metals for construction,
particularly platinum, which must be minimized or elimi-
nated to improve the cell durability and manage water trans-
port within the cell. Flooding is a common problem in
PEMFCs operation which accrues due to enhancement of
gas humidity which accelerates Platinum dissolution–precipi-
tation and carbon support corrosion (Gang and Kwon 2016;
Pei and Chen 2014).
A schematic of the AFC and PEMFC is shown in Figure 5.
7.2. Technical challenges in hydrogen FCVs
During the chemical reaction within hydrogen FCs, electricity
is produced with H2O and heat as byproducts. PEMFCs
achieve approximately 50% efficiency and the energy that is
not converted into electrical power is lost in the form of low-
temperature heat (between 60°C and 80°C) (Barbir 2013).
There are opportunities to recover the waste heat in an inte-
grated system to raise the overall efficiency of the system. The
membranes used in HFCs are sensitive to temperature, so
a thermal control system should be employed to avoid causing
any damage to the membrane and to optimize the perfor-
mance of the FC system. Typically, the temperature of the
HFC is controlled using forced convection of air or water (Lee
and Skala 2002). Because of a thermal boundary layer, high
thermal gradient was produced using this method, which
decreased the performance of the HFC. To combat this
issue, alternative techniques have been proposed. One techni-
que is the using of capillary pumping systems to create higher
thermal homogeneity, which improves the system perfor-
mance (Oro and Bazzo 2015; Silva et al. 2012).
Figure 5. The operation diagram of HFC (a) Alkaline Fuel Cell (b) Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell (Hames et al. 2018).
Vinicio et al. (Oro, de Oliveira, and Bazzo 2018) used the
waste heat from a PEMFC to operate a chemisorption chiller,
using sodium bromide impregnated in expanded graphite as the
adsorbent and ammonia as refrigerant. A thermosiphon acted as
the heat reservoir to decrease the temperature drop in the
PEMFC stack and to integrate the thermal energy between the
chemisorption system and the PEMFC. A simulation of the
system was produced and validated by experimental results.
The HFC power output range increased the useful energy of
the hydrogen fuel, increasing the overall efficiency to 63%.
Zakaria et al. (Zakaria et al. 2018) used Al2O3 nanofluid as
an alternative coolant for a PEMFC system and studied the
thermo-electrical performance of the system. The volume
concentrations of Al2O3 nanoparticles were 0.1%, 0.3%, and
0.5% in both water and a 60:40 water and Ethylene glycol
mixture. The 0.5% volume concentration nanofluid in water
had superior thermal conductivity compared to the base fluid,
water, resulting in the cooling rate increasing by 187%. The
use of nanofluids resulted in a high voltage/pressure drop.
Upon analyzing the thermo-electrical ratios, it was deter-
mined that the 0.1% volume concentration of Al2O3 in
water was the most advantageous nanofluid for use in
a liquid-cooled PEMFC system.
Hydrogen FCs have lower power density and slower power
response than batteries or ICEs so supercapacitors (SCAPs),
batteries, and energy storage systems can be combined with
the FC to make the system more comparable to an ICE (Ayad,
Becherif, and Henni 2011; Ren, Ma, and Cong 2015; Tie and
Tan 2013). Compared to the traditional batteries, SCAPs have
a higher power density because the employed electrodes in
SCAPs have lower internal resistance (Bauman and Kazerani
2008). Furthermore, SCAPs offer higher longevity/efficiency
and their charging is done faster (Zhang et al. 2008). SCAPs
can supply enough power to the engine system with little or

no time delay, thus integrating them into an FC system is
a great way to improve the power of the system. To optimize
the output power management of the system, an advanced
control system must be employed.
Control systems record data from the traction motor and
energy storage systems, the nominal output power of the FC is
compared to the vehicle power demand and the parameters
are continually calculated and adjusted (Emadi et al. 2005).
Using an energy storage device, such as a SCAP or a battery,
in the FC system allows regenerative braking to be utilized. It
is claimed that because automobiles are used for a limited
amount of time, energy stored in the on-board hydrogen
tanks of FCVs can be employed to generate power when
they are parked (Alavi et al. 2017).
Fangzhu and Philip (Fangzhu and Cooke 2009) compared
characteristics of an HFC car (FCX Clarity made by Honda)
and an electric car (E6 model made by Chinese Company
BYD) as demonstrated in Table 11.
According to this table, the HFC automobile is lighter and
refill time is significantly faster compared to the electric car.
The energy storage in HFC car could increase to 136 kWh by
improving storage technologies, which promises
a considerable potential for the future of the transportation
system (Wilberforce et al. 2017).
Figure 6. summarizes well to wheel (WTW) efficiencies of
an ICE vehicle, hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), BEV and HFC
vehicle (Tanç et al. 2018). The WTW efficiency is character-
ized as the overall efficiency from the point where the fuel is
obtained and refined into an useable product, through all of
the internal components of the drivetrain, to the final power
output that propels the vehicle on the road. The intermediate
efficiencies vary based upon drivetrain type in the vehicle,
which will be detailed further following the figure.
This figure illustrates the efficiency differences between the
listed. For a traditional gasoline or diesel ICE, the well-to-tank
efficiency, ηWT , is approximately 84%. The engine efficiency,
ηeng , of a gasoline engine is approximately 30% and 40% for
a diesel engine. The tank to wheel efficiency, ηTW , for
a gasoline engine is approximately 17% and 20% for a diesel
engine. The well-to-wheel efficiency for an ICE is calculated
using the following equation:
Table 11. Comparison between an electric car and a hydrogen FCV (Fangzhu and Cooke 2009).
Characteristics of vehicle Electric car
L  W  H (m) 4.55  1.82  1.63
Curb weight (kg) 2100
Max. power (kW) 115–200
Max. speed (km/h) 160
Range (km) >300
Energy storage Li- ion battery pack
Type kWh >60
Refill time: home >20 h
Refill time: fast 50% in 10 min
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 27
ηWW ¼ ηWT  ηTW (5)
The resulting well-to-wheel efficiency for gasoline and diesel
ICEs is approximately 17% and 20%, respectively.
The well-to-wheel efficiency for hybrid electric vehicles,
electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles. The figure depicts the
wheel-to-well efficiency for a parallel hybrid electric vehicle,
which utilizes a dual-clutch transmission that allows either the
electric motor or the ICE to be coupled with the drive axel.
The well-to-tank efficiency for an HEV is the same as
a traditional ICE at ηWT ¼ 84%. The efficiency of the IC
engine, ηeng , is approximately 35%. On the electric side of the
system from the electric motor to the driveshaft, the power-
train-to-wheel efficiency, ηptW , is approximately 80%. The
wheel-to-well efficiency for the system with a gasoline IC
engine is calculated using the following equation:
ηWW ¼ ηWT  ηeng  ηptW (6)
The resulting well-to-wheel efficiency of a parallel hybrid
electric vehicle is approximately 24%.
For battery electric vehicles, there is no well-to-tank effi-
ciency because the vehicle is energy storage system is a battery
instead of a tank-like ICE vehicles, HEVs, and FCVs. The grid
efficiency, ηgrid , is the efficiency for the generation, transmis-
sion, and distribution of electricity from the average public
grid. The estimated grid efficiency is 40% based on fossil-
fueled power plants. The charging efficiency of the battery,
ηC , is approximately 85%. The battery-to-wheel powertrain
efficiency, ηBW , is approximately 80% for the average BEV.
The overall well-to-wheel efficiency for the BEV is calculated
using the following equation:
ηWW ¼ ηgrid  ηC  ηBW (7)
The resulting well-to-wheel efficiency of a battery electric
vehicle is approximately 27%.
Similar to the HEV, the FCV system involves an energy
storage system that absorbs transient power demands on the
electric motors and regenerative power from the braking
system. The hydrogen used as fuel in the FCV is assumed to
be produced via steam reforming of natural gas, which results
in the well-to-tank efficiency of 60%. In this vehicle, the fuel
Fuel cell hydrogen car
4.83  10.85  1.47
1600
100
160
430
Hydrogen (at 350 bar)
-
-
2-3 min
28 S. E. HOSSEINI AND B. BUTLER
Figure 6. Well to wheel efficiencies of IC engine vehicle, HEV, BEV, and HFC vehicles (Tanç et al. 2018).
cell stack acts in place of a motor or a power inverter. The
efficiency of the fuel cell stack, ηfc , is approximately 58% when
operating in optimum power mode and a battery is used to
supplement the power output. The powertrain-to-wheel effi-
ciency is 78%, which is slightly lower than that of HEVs due
to the FC boost converter. The overall well-to-wheel efficiency
of the FCV is calculated using the following equation:
ηWW ¼ ηWT  ηfc  ηptW
The overall well-to-wheel efficiency of the hydrogen fuel cell
vehicle is approximately 27%.
The FCV and BEV have the highest well-to-wheel effi-
ciency in comparison to the ICE and HEV. There are many
factors that can affect the well-to-tank efficiency of the FCV
and BEV. The grid power is dependent on the type of power
plant used to produce electricity; therefore, the location of the
user will affect the well-to-wheel efficiency of the vehicle.
Coal- and oil-fired power plants, the most common type of
power plant in the United States, generally operate around
(8) 40% efficiency. On the higher end of efficient power plants,
there is combined-cycle gas-fired power plants that operate
from 56% to 60% efficiency, and hydropower plants that
operate from 85% to 90% (Theus 2010). Conversely,

photovoltaic solar power plants operate at the lowest effi-
ciency of approximately 12% (Green et al. 2019). It is impor-
tant to note that the FCV has higher well-to-wheel efficiency
than the ICE despite the well-to-tank efficiency being lower
for the FCV, as natural gas reforming is less efficient than
refining crude oil to gasoline.
Hames et al. (Hames et al. 2018) analyzed four different FC
control systems available and selected the ideal one based on
safety, low cost, and high efficiency. The four different control
systems investigated are peak power source strategy (PPSS),
operating mode control strategy (OMCS), fuzzy logic control
strategy (FLCS), and equivalent consumption minimization
strategy (ECMS). The PPSS determines the acceleration or
deceleration of the vehicle and regenerative braking energy,
if regenerative braking is incorporated into the vehicle. The
OMCS controls power variances and sharing between the fuel
cell and battery, ensuring that enough battery power is used to
meet the demand of the vehicle that is not provided by the
fuel cell. The OMCS can indicate the operating mode at three
different charging states: fast charge mode, charge mode, and
discharge mode. The FLCS controls the power between energy
storage systems to increase system efficiency and optimize the
fuel economy of the vehicle. The downside of the FLCS was
that it had the highest computation time due to its complex-
ity. The ECMS controls changes in vehicle performance bat-
teries, while the system utilizes SCAPs in addition to an FC.
The battery is charged by the FC and the energy exchange is
controlled by the ECM system. From comparing the four
control strategies, they all have similar results. The preferred
strategy is ECMS because the hydrogen consumed by the FC
and battery/SCAP equivalent hydrogen consumption were
minimized, it has the simplest parameters, and can be used
in many vehicles while keeping the performance high. The
PPSS, OMCS, and ECMS can be easily applied to different
FCVs with only minor modifications due to the simplicity of
the systems.
Piela et al. (Piela and Mitzel 2015) suggested a new defini-
tion of FC efficiency at stack level for PEMFCs. Stack losses
are the stack polarization loss and reaction losses from the
fuel cell itself. The reaction losses include entropy and
enthalpy losses due to the fuel oxidation reaction occurring
incompletely. There are some losses from the fuel not being
completely used to produce useful energy due to leaks or fuel
crossover through the stack membranes. The stack energy
conversion efficiency, which includes electrical performance
of the FC stack and considers the theoretical energy expendi-
tures for altering the conditions of the stack feed streams and
the fuel loss in the stack, was defined as:
Pu  Pmcloss
ηstack ¼  ηF  ηfuel;stack (9)
Pe þ Ph
Where Pu is the useful power of the stack, Pmcloss is the
minimum theoretical power expense for stack feed streams
conditioning, Pe is the measured electric power output of
stack, Ph is the calculated heat power output of stack, ηF is
the Faradaic efficiency of the fuel cell reaction, and ηfuel;stack is
the fuel efficiency of the stack. The Faradaic efficiency of the
reaction and the fuel efficiency were, respectively, defined as:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 29
ΔH 
ηF ¼ (10)
ΔH
Pe þ Ph
ηfuel;stack ¼ (11)
n_ fuel;stack  ðΔH  Þ
Where ΔH  is the effective HHV enthalpy change of the fuel
cell reaction at stack inlet conditions and ΔH is the HHV
enthalpy change of ideal fuel cell reaction at stack inlet con-
ditions. The measured electric power output of the stack and
the calculated heat power output of the stack were, respec-
tively, defined as:
Pe ¼ U  I (12)
Ph ¼ ðUth  U Þ  I (13)
Where Uth the thermal stack voltage and I is the measured
stack current. The thermal stack voltage is defined as:
ΔH 
Uth ¼ N (14)
z:F
Where z is the number of electrons exchanged in fuel cell
reaction, F is Faraday’s constant, and N is the number of cells
per stack.
The Balance-of-Plant (BoP) causes energy losses from the
conditions of the input and output of the stack, namely the
pressure, pumping, humidification, etc. Fuel loss can also
occur at the BoP when there is an excess of fuel inputted
into the stack, thus a leak in the BoP occurs. Considering all
of the stated losses, the BoP efficiency is defined as:
Pu;net
ηBoP ¼ η (15)
Pu  Pmcloss fuel;BoP
where Pu;net is the fuel cell system net useful power and
ηfuel;BoP is the fuel efficiency of fuel cell system BoP, which is
defined as:
n_ fuel;stack
ηfuel;BoP ¼ (16)
n_ fuel;system
Where n_ fuel;stack and n_ fuel;system are the molar rate of fuel con-
sumed by fuel cell stack and the molar rate of fuel consumed
by the fuel cell system, respectively.
The system efficiency is defined as:
ηsys ¼ ηstack  ηBoP (17)
The equation for energy conversion efficiency at the stack
level was experimentally verified using a hydrogen-fueled,
liquid-cooled PEMFC stack that had 10 cells of 96 cm2 geo-
metrical working area and a nominal electric power of 480
W each. Grade 5.0 hydrogen and 5.2 grade nitrogen were used
with deionized water and ambient air. The tests involved stack
startup and shutdown, testing at constant load, and polariza-
tion-curve test which followed the procedures outlined in the
European Stack-Test project (Ju et al. 2015). The approach to
designing an effective FC power system includes the selection
of a stack for the system, selection of the components, making
schematics for the operating scenario, and optimization of the
operating conditions of the stack to obtain the highest com-
bined system efficiency. Through the tests, it was determined
that the equations developed in this experiment provide an
30 S. E. HOSSEINI AND B. BUTLER
accurate way of calculating the efficiency and optimizing the
stack operating parameters of stationary hydrogen-fueled
combined heat and power (CHP) system, hydrogen-fueled
power-only mobile systems, and direct methanol fuel cell
(DMFC) systems. The results obtained from the stack polar-
ization tests showed that the calculated quantities were accu-
rate in the test bench environment.
7.3. Economic challenges of hydrogen FCVs
The market entry of FCVs is dependent on early adopters
purchasing or leasing the vehicles. The early adopters are
people generally characterized by having a high household
income, high level of education, being in larger household
units, being willing to accept lifestyle changes, and other
similar attributes (Rogers 2003). As of June 2018, there have
been more than 6500 FCVs delivered to consumers. California
is the leading market for FCVs with nearly 3000 vehicles being
delivered due to its largest network of hydrogen refueling
stations (Hardman and Tal 2018). In Europe, it is projected
to have 600 HFC vehicles added to the current taxi fleet by the
end of 2020. Zero Emission Fleet vehicles for European Roll-
out (ZEFER) project, will add a total of 180 HFC vehicles, in
60 vehicle fleets, of to London, Paris and Brussels, for use in
urban fleets such as police cars, private-hire vehicles and taxis
(“Hype hydrogen fuel cell taxi fleet in Paris reaches 100
vehicles 2018). South Korea plans to expand the number of
HFCVs from 100 in 2016 to 10,000 in 2020 (Yoo, Kim, and
Song 2018). According to the International Energy Agency
(IEA) Technology Roadmap, about 150 million FCVs seals is
expected by 2050 (Ambrose et al. 2017).
Presently, several automakers are manufacturing various
HFCVs, which are often compared to BEVs. Both FCVs and
BEVs offer zero tailpipe emissions, the ability to be fueled
using renewable energy sources, and use electric motors. The
most notable differences between FCVs and BEVs are the
driving range and refueling style. FCVs have above a 300-
mile driving range and can be refueled in less than 10 min at
a hydrogen refueling station, which is more comparable to
a traditional ICE fossil fuel-powered vehicle, whereas BEVs
require up to several hours to recharge completely (Lipman,
Elke, and Lidicker 2018). The most recent FCV can be
refueled in 4–5 min and have driving ranges of approximately
450–580 km (Oak Ridge National Laboratory n.d).
The four FCVs currently on the market in North America,
Europe, and Asia are the Hyundai Tuscon/ix35 FCEV, Nexo
(“Hyundai Nexo – Sign Up For Updates | HyundaiUSA.com,”
n.d.), Toyota Mirai FCEV (with a range of approximately
650 km, a maximum speed of 175 km/h, and full tank refuel-
ing in less than 3 min) (“2018 Toyota Mirai Hydrogen Fuel
Cell Vehicle | The Future of Everyday [WWW Document] n.
d), Honda Clarity FCEV (“2018 Honda Clarity Fuel Cell –
Hydrogen Powered Car | Honda [WWW Document] n.d) and
Daimler manufacturing the Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL
(“The new Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL.,” n.d.). All four of
these vehicles utilize proton exchange membrane fuel cells
(PEMFCs) and use composite compressed hydrogen tanks.
Increasing the performance and efficiency of FCVs is being
heavily researched currently.
The numerous aforementioned government plans to
implement FCV fleets in the form of public transportation
will allow the hydrogen refueling station networks to maintain
steady usage and help improve the public’s perception of
hydrogen FCVs.
Colmenar-Santos et al. (Campíñez-Romero et al. 2018)
designed a strategy to overcome the dilemma of implementing
FCVs or creating hydrogen refueling infrastructure first by
using a fleet of taxis as a stable market for hydrogen con-
sumption. There are three objectives of the design: ensuring
a consistent hydrogen supply, having alternative refueling
stations throughout the city, and achieving a maximum utili-
zation rate of the infrastructure. The city used for this model
was Madrid, Spain with 15,000 HFC taxis. A base case busi-
ness plan that is technically viable and financially feasible for
the construction and operation of the hydrogen refueling
station (HRS) network capable of supplying the hydrogen
demand for the fuel cell electric taxi (FCET) fleet. The case
is a simulation of the first year of operation where utilization
is at its lowest and the construction and operation costs are at
their highest. Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and Annual Debt
Service Coverage Rate (ADSCR) methods were used to quan-
tify the feasibility and financially viability of HRS. The Net
Present Value (NPV) of the investment was evaluated from
yearly income, accounting for costs assumed by the investor
with 0% interest rate. From the study, it was determined that
the development of an HRS network is only feasible if govern-
ment support is received in the form of politics and subsidies
that promote and fund the hydrogen retail infrastructure. The
allocation of funds would need to aid in the construction of
the HRSs, operation costs, and give tax exemptions. The
optimal solution would be a subsidy package with 50% of
Capex executed at the beginning of the investment, 50% of
operating costs and 50% of tax exemption over 25 years. This
ensures around 10% of shareholder IRR in the first 25 years,
which is reasonably feasible. The estimated cost of imple-
menting the HRS in Madrid is $415 million over 25 years,
which an attainable amount in a large city. The substitution of
the whole taxi fleet by FCETs in a large city would cut down
CO2 emissions by around 300 kilotons per year (kt/year),
which is about 3% of GHG emissions from transportation in
the city.
8. Future aspects of hydrogen utilization in
transportation system
The future hydrogen market depends upon potential long-
term restrictions on GHGs, the cost of hydrogen and the
advancement rates of different technologies that employ
hydrogen (Forsberg 2005). The hydrogen required for FCVs
must be of high purity to improve the performance and life of
the stack which increases the cost of the fuel. An efficient and
economical method for monitoring hydrogen purity must be
integrated into the refueling network and production facil-
ities. The motor companies must be able to achieve an accep-
table return on investment when implementing the hydrogen
FCV to the market. The vehicles must be sold at a reasonable
profit after the engineering and manufacturing costs are
recovered (Frenette and Forthoffer 2009).

Many social, environmental and economic benefits of
hydrogen made it a promising clean energy career for future
transportation system (Andrews and Shabani 2014).
Currently, there are three important barriers that should be
solved to technically/economically move forward toward
a hydrogen-based transportation system. First, the cost of
hydrogen production and its delivery should be considerably
mitigated to introduce it on par with other fuels, such as
gasoline. Hydrogen cost depends on the process applied for
its production, the primary energy source, and the model
adopted (centralized or decentralized methods) (Lemus and
Martínez Duart 2010). In centralized models, hydrogen cost is
influenced by the method of delivery from the production
factories to the refueling stations (cryogenic liquid or com-
pressed gas trucks, compressed gas pipelines, etc.) (Brey,
Carazo, and Brey 2018). Second, a new or improved method
of hydrogen storage for transportation vehicles should be
found to ensure reasonable driving ranges. Finally, the cost
of hydrogen-based vehicles (H2ICE or FCVs) should be
reduced with respect to improvement in their lifetime. The
future scenario of using hydrogen in the transportation sys-
tem significantly depends upon the cost of hydrogen com-
pared to the other fuels, as well as technological development
in vehicles’ engine design toward hydrogen-based engines
(Müller and Arlt 2013). Moreover, social-cultural factors
play a crucial role on the development of hydrogen in the
transportation system as issues related to mobility and house-
hold equipment of current conventional fossil fuel-based
engines are regulated. It has been found that information
campaigns have a significant influence on the development
of hydrogen technologies especially at this early stage, to
enhance awareness for those with low or no knowledge and
to positively impact attitudes toward hydrogen vehicles (Bögel
et al. 2018).
H2ICEs are not being researched as heavily as hydrogen
fuel cells for cars and light-duty vehicles (LDV). Using hydro-
gen in IC engines achieves only 20–25% efficiency in compar-
ison to FCs that achieve 60% or higher. A much larger fuel
storage tank is required to supply a competitive driving range
for vehicles due to lower efficiency of IC engines. The use of
hydrogen in IC engines on heavy-duty vehicles (HDV) is
more appealing. The existing diesel engines can be easily
modified to support hydrogen fuel, making the adoption of
hydrogen both easier and more affordable than adopting fuel
cells. Medium- and heavy-duty (MHD) vehicles (including
about one million buses and eleven million trucks) consume
approximately 20–25% of energy in the US transportation
sector (“National Transportation Statistics [WWW
Document] 2017). In the U.S. transportation sector, after
light-duty vehicles (pickup trucks, sports-utility vehicles, and
passenger cars), MHD vehicles are the largest energy consu-
mers and GHGs emitters (Davis, Williams, and Boundy n.d;
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) n.d.). Due to
fast growing demand for MHD vehicles in the US transporta-
tion market, H2ICEs could be deployed in HDV for clean and
sustainable transportation. In the UK, the strategy of using
H2ICEs in MHD vehicles has been seriously considered; how-
ever, since they cannot achieve a competitive driving range to
conventional IC engines, the strategy has not been adopted.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 31
Some companies, like ULEMCo in the UK, works to retrofit
semitrucks from diesel to a dual-fuel hydrogen-diesel engine,
which is slowly shifting HDV market toward a hydrogen-
based future (“ULEMCo to Demonstrate First Zero
Emission Combustion Engine Truck,” n.d.).
There have been numerous studies that showed ways to
improve the performance and efficiency of HFCs, and these
methods can be applied to vehicles fuel cell stacks.
Nevertheless, a lack of a harmonized standards and codes to
ensure the insurability and safety of HFC technology in the
transportation system is observed (US Department of Energy
2017a). Without a doubt, transition to hydrogen transporta-
tion engines would lead to an augmentation in gross domestic
product (GDP), investment and employment opportunities
(Köhler et al. 2010).
9. Conclusion
This study reviewed the development and challenges toward
creating a clean transportation system using hydrogen-
powered vehicles. As the major fuel of future, applications
of hydrogen in various types of transportation engines,
namely fuel cells, and IC engines were considered.
Compared to fossil fuel-based ICEs, using H2 ICEs obtains
20–25% efficiency. Due to several technical barriers in
H2ICEs, using hydrogen as an additive to hydrocarbon
fuels has been developed as a transient solution for GHG
reduction in transportation engines. Strong adaptability to
rapid load changes, high energy conversion efficiency,
appropriate dynamic features, low operating noise, and
zero tailpipe emissions have been found as the most impor-
tant characteristics of FCVs. These characteristics have
made FCVs comparable to H2ICEs in terms of storage
time and range, acceleration, and speed. FC engines can
achieve efficiencies of up to 60%, while the rest is lost as
heat. The main challenge preventing the use of hydrogen in
vehicles is the on-board storage and inaccessibility to refuel-
ing stations. Significant progress must be made to provide
an adequate solution to the storage issue. Both infrastruc-
ture and financial resources must be allocated to develop the
hydrogen economy, which will require major political
support.
Nomenclature
AFH2 ;ST Stoichiometric air-fuel ratios of hydrogen (kg/kg)
Fgas;ST Stoichiometric air-fuel ratios of gasoline (kg/kg)
Cv Specific heat at constant volume (J/kg.K)
F Faraday’s constant (C mol−1)
I Measured stack current (A)
mi Mass of inlet air (kg)
_ H2
m Mass flowrate of hydrogen (kg/s)
m_ gas Mass flowrate of gasoline (kg/s)
n Polytropic index
N Number of cells in stack
Pu Stack useful power (W)
Pu;net Fuel cell system net useful power (W)
Pmcloss Minimum (theoretical) power expense for stack feed streams
conditioning (W)
Pe Measured electric power output of stack (W)
Ph Calculated heat power output of stack (W)
32 S. E. HOSSEINI AND B. BUTLER

Q Supplied thermal energy (W) MCVVT Mechanical Continuous Variable Valve Timing
T Temperature (K) MHD Medium- and heavy-duty
T1 Temperature at position 1 (
C) NG Natural gas
U Stack voltage measured at stack electrical terminals (V) NOx Nitric oxide
Uth Thermal stack voltage (V) NPV Net Present Value
Vair Air volume flow rate (dm3/s) of at normal condition NTSEL National Traffic Safety & Environment Laboratory
Number of electrons exchanged in fuel cell reaction OMCS Operating mode control strategy
ρair Densities of air (kg/dm3) at normal condition PFI Port fuel injection
ρH2 Densities of hydrogen (kg/dm3) at normal condition PEMFC Polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells
ε Compression ratio PFIHICE Port fuel injection hydrogen internal combustion engine
λ Hydrogen equivalence ratio PM Particulate matter
φ Equivalence ratio PPSS Peak power source strategy
ηth Thermal efficiency (%) REGR Reformed exhaust gas recirculation
γ Specific heat ratio SCAP Supercapacitors
ΔH HHV enthalpy change of ideal fuel cell reaction at stack inlet SI Spark ignition
conditions; (J.mol−1) UHC Unburned hydrocarbons
ΔH Effective HHV enthalpy change of fuel cell reaction at stack WTW Well-to-wheel
inlet conditions (J.mol−1) ZEFER Zero Emission Fleet vehicles for European Roll-out
n_ fuel;stack Molar rate of fuel consumed by fuel cell stack (mol.s−1)
ηF Faradaic efficiency of fuel cell reaction (%)
ηfuel;stack Fuel efficiency of stack (%) References
ηfuel;BoP Fuel efficiency of fuel cell system BoP (%)
2018 Honda Clarity Fuel Cell – Hydrogen Powered Car | Honda [WWW
n_ fuel;system Molar rate of fuel consumed by fuel cell system (mol.s−1) Document]. n.d. Accessed December 3, 2018. https://automobiles.
ηBoP Energy conversion efficiency of fuel cell system BoP (%) honda.com/clarity-fuel-cell.
ηstack Energy conversion efficiency at stack level (%) 2018 Toyota Mirai Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle | The Future of Everyday
[WWW Document]. n.d. Accessed December 3, 2018. https://ssl.
toyota.com/mirai/fcv.html
Abbreviations Aasadnia, M., and M. Mehrpooya. 2018. Large-scale liquid hydrogen
production methods and approaches: A review. Applied Energy
ADSCR Annual Debt Service Coverage Rate 212:57–83. doi:10.1016/J.APENERGY.2017.12.033.
AFC Alkaline Fuel Cell Acar, C., and I. Dincer. 2018. The potential role of hydrogen as
AMFC Alkaline Membrane Fuel Cell a sustainable transportation fuel to combat global warming.
bmep Brake mean effective pressure International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. doi:10.1016/J.
BEV Battery electric vehicle IJHYDENE.2018.10.149.
BoP Balance-of-Plant Aceves, S. M., G. D. Berry, A. H. Weisberg, F. Espinosa-Loza, and
BTDC Before top dead center S. A. Perfect, 2006. Advanced concepts for vehicular containment of
BTE Brake thermal efficiency compressed and cryogenic hydrogen. 16th World Hydrog. Energy
CO Carbon monoxide ConfWHEC, Lyon, France. 3, 94550. doi:10.1103/
CH2 Compressed hydrogen PhysRevLett.98.010504
CI Compression ignition Ahluwalia, R. K., T. Q. Hua, and J. K. Peng. 2012. On-board and
COV Coefficient of variation Off-board performance of hydrogen storage options for light-duty
COVimep Covariance of indicated mean effective pressure vehicles. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 37:2891–910.
cr Compression ratio doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2011.05.040.
DI Direct injection Alavi, F., E. Park Lee, N. van de Wouw, B. De Schutter, and Z. Lukszo.
DOE Department of Energy 2017. Fuel cell cars in a microgrid for synergies between hydrogen and
ECMS Equivalent consumption minimization strategy electricity networks. Applied Energy 192:296–304. doi:10.1016/J.
ECU Electronic control unit APENERGY.2016.10.084.
EGR Exhaust gas recirculation Alazemi, J., and J. Andrews. 2015. Automotive hydrogen fuelling sta-
EVC Exhaust valve closing tions: An international review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
FCV Fuel cell vehicle Reviews 48:483–99. doi:10.1016/J.RSER.2015.03.085.
FCET Fuel cell electric taxi Alesker, M., M. Page, M. Shviro, Y. Paska, G. Gershinsky, D. R. Dekel,
FCTO Fuel Cell Technologies Office and D. Zitoun. 2016. Palladium/nickel bifunctional electrocatalyst for
FLCS Fuzzy logic control strategy hydrogen oxidation reaction in alkaline membrane fuel cell. Journal of
GDI Gasoline direct injection Power Sources 304:332–39. doi:10.1016/J.JPOWSOUR.2015.11.026.
GDP Gross domestic product Álvarez Fernández, R., S. Corbera Caraballo, F. Beltrán Cilleruelo, and
GHG Greenhouse gas J. A. Lozano. 2018. Fuel optimization strategy for hydrogen fuel cell
H2ICE Hydrogen fueled internal combustion engine range extender vehicles applying genetic algorithms. Renewable and
HCCI Homogeneous charge compression ignition Sustainable Energy Reviews 81:655–68. doi:10.1016/J.
HECU Hydrogen electric control unit RSER.2017.08.047.
HEV Hybrid electric vehicle Ambrose, A. F., A. Q. Al-Amin, R. Rasiah, R. Saidur, and N. Amin. 2017.
HFC Hydrogen fuel cell Prospects for introducing hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Malaysia.
HRS Hydrogen refueling station International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 42:9125–34. doi:10.1016/J.
ICE Internal combustion engines IJHYDENE.2016.05.122.
IEA International Energy Agency Amrouche, F., P. A. Erickson, J. W. Park, and S. Varnhagen. 2016.
IRR Internal Rate of Return Extending the lean operation limit of a gasoline Wankel rotary engine
IVO Intake valve opening using hydrogen enrichment. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
LDV Light-duty vehicles 41:14261–71. doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2016.06.250.
LHV Lower heating value Andrews, J., and B. Shabani. 2014. The role of hydrogen in a global
LH2 Liquid hydrogen sustainable energy strategy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy
MCV Minimum cycle-by-cycle variations and Environment 3:474–89. doi:10.1002/wene.103.

Arat, H. T. 2018. Simulation of diesel hybrid electric vehicle containing
hydrogen enriched CI engine. International Journal Hydrogen Energy.
doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2018.10.004.
Atkinson, K., S. Roth, M. Hirscher, and W. Grünwald. 2001. Carbon
nanostructures: An efficient hydrogen storage medium for fuel cells.
Fuel Cells Bulletin 4:9–12. doi:10.1016/S1464-2859(01)80733-1.
Ayad, M. Y., M. Becherif, and A. Henni. 2011. Vehicle hybridization with
fuel cell, supercapacitors and batteries by sliding mode control.
Renewable Energy 36:2627–34. doi:10.1016/J.RENENE.2010.06.012.
Bai-gang, S., T. Hua-yu, and L. Fu-shui. 2014. The distinctive character-
istics of combustion duration in hydrogen internal combustion
engine. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 39:14472–78.
doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2014.04.013.
Balat, M. 2008. Potential importance of hydrogen as a future solution to
environmental and transportation problems. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy 33:4013–29. doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2008.05.047.
Balat, M., and M. Balat. 2009. Political, economic and environmental
impacts of biomass-based hydrogen. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy 34:3589–603. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.02.067.
Ball, M., and M. Weeda. 2015. The hydrogen economy – Vision or
reality? International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 40:7903–19.
doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2015.04.032.
Ball, M., and M. Wietschel. 2009. The future of hydrogen –
Opportunities and challenges☆. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy 34:615–27. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.11.014.
Barbir, F. 2009. Transition to renewable energy systems with hydrogen as
an energy carrier. Energy 34:308–12. doi:10.1016/J.
ENERGY.2008.07.007.
Barbir, F. 2013. PEM fuel cells : Theory and practice. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Bauman, J., and M. Kazerani. 2008. A comparative study of fuel-
cell–battery, fuel-cell–Ultracapacitor, and fuel-
cell–battery–Ultracapacitor vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular
Technology 57:760–69. doi:10.1109/TVT.2007.906379.
Biniwale, R. B., S. Rayalu, S. Devotta, and M. Ichikawa. 2008. Chemical
hydrides: A solution to high capacity hydrogen storage and supply.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 33:360–65. doi:10.1016/J.
IJHYDENE.2007.07.028.
Bögel, P., C. Oltra, R. Sala, M. Lores, P. Upham, E. Dütschke,
U. Schneider, and P. Wiemann. 2018. The role of attitudes in tech-
nology acceptance management: Reflections on the case of hydrogen
fuel cells in Europe. Journal of Cleaner Production 188:125–35.
doi:10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2018.03.266.
Boretti, A. 2011. Advantages of the direct injection of both diesel and
hydrogen in dual fuel H2ICE. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy 36:9312–17. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.05.037.
Bradley, D., M. Lawes, K. Liu, S. Verhelst, and R. Woolley. 2007. Laminar
burning velocities of lean hydrogen–Air mixtures at pressures up to
1.0 MPa. Combustion and Flame 149:162–72. doi:10.1016/J.
COMBUSTFLAME.2006.12.002.
Brey, J. J., A. F. Carazo, and R. Brey. 2018. Exploring the marketability of
fuel cell electric vehicles in terms of infrastructure and hydrogen costs
in Spain. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82:2893–99.
doi:10.1016/J.RSER.2017.10.042.
Burhan, M., S. J. Oh, K. J. E. Chua, and K. C. Ng. 2017. Solar to
hydrogen: Compact and cost effective CPV field for rooftop operation
and hydrogen production. Applied Energy 194:255–66. doi:10.1016/J.
APENERGY.2016.11.062.
Cadwallader, L. C., and J. S. Herring. 1999. Safety Issues with Hydrogen
as a Vehicle Fuel. Contract. US: Department of Energy.
Campíñez-Romero, S., A. Colmenar-Santos, C. Pérez-Molina, and
F. Mur-Pérez. 2018. A hydrogen refuelling stations infrastructure
deployment for cities supported on fuel cell taxi roll-out. Energy
148:1018–31. doi:10.1016/J.ENERGY.2018.02.009.
Chang, W.-C., A. Y.-J. Huang, D.-R. Huang, and T.-Y. Chen. 2016. An
economic evaluation on the purification and storage of waste hydro-
gen for the use of fuel cell scooters. International Journal of Green
Energy 13:1608–14. doi:10.1080/15435075.2016.1212199.
Chang, X., T. Ma, and R. Wu. 2018. Impact of urban development on
residents’ public transportation travel energy consumption in China:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 33
An analysis of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles alternatives. International
Journal Hydrogen Energy. doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2018.09.099.
Chapman, L. 2007. Transport and climate change: A review. Journal of
Transport Geography 15:354–67. doi:10.1016/J.
JTRANGEO.2006.11.008.
Charles, W. 2006. Hydrogen markets: Implications for hydrogen produc-
tion technologies. USA: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Chen, S., A. Kumar, W. C. Wong, M.-S. Chiu, and X. Wang. 2019.
Hydrogen value chain and fuel cells within hybrid renewable energy
systems: Advanced operation and control strategies. Applied Energy
233–234:321–37. doi:10.1016/J.APENERGY.2018.10.003.
Dalai, S., S. Vijayalakshmi, P. Sharma, and K. Y. Choo. 2014. Magnesium
and iron loaded hollow glass microspheres (HGMs) for hydrogen
storage. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 39:16451–58.
doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2014.03.062.
Das, L. M. 2016. Hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines.
Compend. Hydrogen Energy 177–217. doi:10.1016/B978-1-78242-
363-8.00007-4.
Das, V., S. Padmanaban, K. Venkitusamy, R. Selvamuthukumaran,
F. Blaabjerg, and P. Siano. 2017. Recent advances and challenges of
fuel cell based power system architectures and control – A review.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 73:10–18. doi:10.1016/J.
RSER.2017.01.148.
Davis, S. C., S. E. Williams, and R. G. Boundy. n.d. Transportation
energy data book: Edition 36.2 - Full Document [WWW
Document]. Oak Ridge Natl. Lab. Accessed December 1, 2018.
https://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedbfiles/Edition36_Full_Doc.pdf.
de Oliveira, A., E. C. Moreira Dos Santos, G. C. Botelho, O. S. Valente,
and J. R. Sodré. 2013. Hydrogen electronic injection system for
a diesel power generator. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
38:7986–93. doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2013.04.118.
Deng, H., D. Wang, X. Xie, Y. Zhou, Y. Yin, Q. Du, and K. Jiao. 2016.
Modeling of hydrogen alkaline membrane fuel cell with interfacial
effect and water management optimization. Renewable Energy
91:166–77. doi:10.1016/J.RENENE.2016.01.054.
Dhyani, V., and K. A. Subramanian. 2018. Experimental investigation on
effects of knocking on backfire and its control in a hydrogen fueled
spark ignition engine. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
43:7169–78. doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2018.02.125.
Dicks, A. L., and D. A. J. Rand. 2018. Fuel cell systems explained.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. doi:10.1002/9781118706992.
Dimitriou, P., and T. Tsujimura. 2017. A review of hydrogen as
a compression ignition engine fuel. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy 42:24470–86. doi:10.1016/J.
IJHYDENE.2017.07.232.
Ditaranto, M., H. Li, and T. Løvås. 2015. Concept of hydrogen fired gas
turbine cycle with exhaust gas recirculation: Assessment of combus-
tion and emissions performance. International Journal of Greenhouse
Gas Control 37:377–83. doi:10.1016/J.IJGGC.2015.04.004.
Dos Santos, K. G., C. T. Eckert, E. De Rossi, R. A. Bariccatti, E. P. Frigo,
C. A. Lindino, and H. J. Alves. 2017. Hydrogen production in the
electrolysis of water in Brazil, a review. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 68:563–71. doi:10.1016/J.RSER.2016.09.128.
Dougherty, W., S. Kartha, C. Rajan, M. Lazarus, A. Bailie, B. Runkle, and
A. Fencl. 2009. Greenhouse gas reduction benefits and costs of a
large-scale transition to hydrogen in the USA. Energy Policy
37:56–67. doi:10.1016/J.ENPOL.2008.06.039.
Du, Y., X. Yu, J. Wang, H. Wu, W. Dong, and J. Gu. 2016. Research
on combustion and emission characteristics of a lean burn gaso-
line engine with hydrogen direct-injection. International Journal
of Hydrogen Energy 41:3240–48. doi:10.1016/J.
IJHYDENE.2015.12.025.
Du, Y., X. Yu, L. Liu, R. Li, X. Zuo, and Y. Sun. 2017. Effect of addition
of hydrogen and exhaust gas recirculation on characteristics of hydro-
gen gasoline engine. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
42:8288–98. doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2017.02.197.
Duan, J., F. Liu, and B. Sun. 2014. Backfire control and power
enhancement of a hydrogen internal combustion engine.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 39:4581–89. doi:10.1016/
J.IJHYDENE.2013.12.175.
34 S. E. HOSSEINI AND B. BUTLER
Edwards, P. P., V. L. Kuznetsov, W. I. F. David, and N. P. Brandon. 2008.
Hydrogen and fuel cells: Towards a sustainable energy future. Energy
Policy 36:4356–62. doi:10.1016/J.ENPOL.2008.09.036.
Ehsani, M., Y. Gao, S. Longo, and K. Ebrahimi. 2018. Modern electric,
hybrid electric, and fuel cell vehicles, Third ed. New York, NY: CRC
Press. doi:10.1201/9780429504884.
EL-Kassaby, M. M., Y. A. Eldrainy, M. E. Khidr, and K. I. Khidr. 2016.
Effect of hydroxy (HHO) gas addition on gasoline engine perfor-
mance and emissions. Alexandria Engineering Journal 55:243–51.
doi:10.1016/J.AEJ.2015.10.016.
Elnashaie, S., Z. Chen, and P. Prasad. 2007. Efficient Production and
Economics of Clean-Fuel Hydrogen∗. International Journal of Green
Energy 4:249–82. doi:10.1080/15435070701193100.
Emadi, A., K. Rajashekara, S. S. Williamson, and S. M. Lukic. 2005.
Topological overview of hybrid electric and fuel cell vehicular power
system architectures and configurations. IEEE Transactions on
Vehicular Technology 54:763–70. doi:10.1109/TVT.2005.847445.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). n.d. Inventory of U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:1990–2014 [WWW
Document]. Accessed December 1, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/ghge
missions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks
Eriksson, E. L. V., and E. M. Gray. 2017. Optimization and integration of
hybrid renewable energy hydrogen fuel cell energy systems – A critical
review. Applied Energy 202:348–64. doi:10.1016/J.
APENERGY.2017.03.132.
Ezzat, M., and I. Dincer. 2018. Development and assessment of a new
hybrid vehicle with ammonia and hydrogen. Applied Energy
219:226–39. doi:10.1016/J.APENERGY.2018.03.012.
Faizal, M., and R. Saidur. 2017. Comparative thermodynamics analysis of
gasoline and hydrogen fuelled internal combustion engines.
International Journal of Advanced Science Research and Management 2
(3).
Fakioğlu, E., Y. Yürüm, and T. Nejat Veziroğlu. 2004. A review of
hydrogen storage systems based on boron and its compounds.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 29:1371–76. doi:10.1016/J.
IJHYDENE.2003.12.010.
Fangzhu, Z., and P. Cooke. 2009. The green vehicle trend: Electric,
plug-in or hybrid or hydrogen fuel cell? [WWW document]. http://
www.dime-eu.org/working-papers/sal3-green.
Fayaz, H., R. Saidur, N. Razali, F. S. Anuar, A. R. Saleman, and
M. R. Islam. 2012. An overview of hydrogen as a vehicle fuel.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 16:5511–28. doi:10.1016/J.
RSER.2012.06.012.
Fennell, D., J. Herreros, and A. Tsolakis. 2014. Improving gasoline direct
injection (GDI) engine efficiency and emissions with hydrogen from
exhaust gas fuel reforming. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
39:5153–62. doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2014.01.065.
Ferguson, C. R., and A. Kirkpatrick. n.d. Internal combustion engines :
Applied thermosciences. UK: Wiley.
Fieseler, H., and L. Allidiers, 2006. Liquid hydrogen technologies for
mobile use. 16th World Hydrog. Energy Conf, Lyon, France, 1–9.
Forsberg, C. W. 2005. Hydrogen markets : Implications for hydrogen
production technologies. International Journal Hydrogen 1–13.
https://www.edenguard.fr/Docs%20NRJ%20Et%20Cie/Meyer%20et%
20Co/122902.pdf
Frenette, G., and D. Forthoffer. 2009. Economic & commercial viability
of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles from an automotive manufacturer
perspective. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 34:3578–88.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.02.072.
Ganesan, V. 2012. Internal combustion engines. New Delhi, India:
McGraw Hill Education (India) Pvt Ltd.
Gang, B. G., and S. Kwon. 2016. The proton exchange membrane fuel
cell systems using methanolysis of sodium borohydride as a hydrogen
source with cobalt catalysts. International Journal of Green Energy
13:1224–31. doi:10.1080/15435075.2016.1183494.
Gomes Antunes, J. M., R. Mikalsen, and A. P. Roskilly. 2009. An experi-
mental study of a direct injection compression ignition hydrogen
engine. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 34:6516–22.
doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2009.05.142.
Gray, E. M., C. J. Webb, J. Andrews, B. Shabani, P. J. Tsai, and
S. L. I. Chan. 2011. Hydrogen storage for off-grid power supply.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 36:654–63. doi:10.1016/J.
IJHYDENE.2010.09.051.
Green, M. A., Y. Hishikawa, E. D. Dunlop, D. H. Levi, J. Hohl-Ebinger,
M. Yoshita, and A. W. Y. Ho-Baillie. 2019. Solar cell efficiency tables
(Version 53). Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications
27:3–12. doi:10.1002/pip.3102.
Grüger, F., L. Dylewski, M. Robinius, and D. Stolten. 2018. Carsharing
with fuel cell vehicles: Sizing hydrogen refueling stations based on
refueling behavior. Applied Energy 228:1540–49. doi:10.1016/J.
APENERGY.2018.07.014.
Gurz, M., E. Baltacioglu, Y. Hames, and K. Kaya. 2017. The meeting of
hydrogen and automotive: A review. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy 42:23334–46. doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2017.02.124.
Gutarevych, Y., Y. Shuba, J. Matijošius, S. Karev, E. Sokolovskij, and
A. Rimkus. 2018. Intensification of the combustion process in
a gasoline engine by adding a hydrogen-containing gas.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 43:16334–43. doi:10.1016/J.
IJHYDENE.2018.06.124.
Hames, Y., K. Kaya, E. Baltacioglu, and A. Turksoy. 2018. Analysis of the
control strategies for fuel saving in the hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 43:10810–21. doi:10.1016/J.
IJHYDENE.2017.12.150.
Hardman, S., and G. Tal. 2018. Who are the early adopters of fuel cell
vehicles? Int. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 43:17857–66.
doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2018.08.006.
Harrop, P., and R. Das, n.d. Hybrid and pure electric cars 2009–2019
[WWW document]. http://www.idtechex.com/research/reports/
hybrid_and_pure_electric_cars_2009_2019_000227.asp.
Hawkins, A. S., and N. Hughes. 2006. Technological characterisation of
hydrogen storage and distribution technologies. Social Science 1–28.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/5465208/h2stora
gedistributiontechnologycharacterisation.pdf?response-content-dispo
sition=inline%3B%20filename%3DTechnological_characterisation_
of_hydrog.pdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-
Credential=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A%2F20191105%2Fus-east-
1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20191105T210751Z&X-
Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-
Signature=5120930bf6e3293b6fb6a0f45e10dfd9f1fc6492c939740c
1889aa701f17958b
Herzog, A., and M. Tatsutani. 2005. A Hydrogen future? An economic
and environmental assessment of hydrogen production pathways.
Natural Resources Defense Council Issue Paper 23. https://www.nrdc.
org/sites/default/files/hydrogen.pdf
Hirscher, M., M. Becher, M. Haluska, U. Dettlaff-Weglikowska,
A. Quintel, G. S. Duesberg, Y.-M. Choi, P. Downes, M. Hulman,
S. Roth, et al. 2001. Hydrogen storage in sonicated carbon materials.
Applied Physics A Materials Science & Processing 72:129–32.
doi:10.1007/s003390100816.
Holladay, J. D., J. Hu, D. L. King, and Y. Wang. 2009. An overview of
hydrogen production technologies. Catalysis Today 139:244–60.
doi:10.1016/J.CATTOD.2008.08.039.
Hosseini, S. E. 2019. Development of solar energy towards solar city
Utopia. Energy sources, Part A recover. Utilization and Environmental
Effects 1–14. doi:10.1080/15567036.2019.1576803.
Hosseini, S. E., A. M. Andwari, M. A. Wahid, and G. Bagheri. 2013. A review
on green energy potentials in Iran. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 27:533–45. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.07.015.
Hosseini, S. E., M. Abdul Wahid, M. Jamil, A. A. M. Azli, and
F. M. Mohamad. 2015a. A review on biomass-based hydrogen pro-
duction for renewable energy supply. International Journal of Energy
Research 39:1597–615. doi:10.1002/er.
Hosseini, S. E., and M. A. Wahid. 2012. Necessity of biodiesel utilization
as a source of renewable energy in Malaysia. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 16:5732–40. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.05.025.
Hosseini, S. E., and M. A. Wahid. 2014. Development of biogas combus-
tion in combined heat and power generation. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 40:868–75. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.204.

Hosseini, S. E., and M. A. Wahid. 2016. Hydrogen production from
renewable and sustainable energy resources: Promising green energy
carrier for clean development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 57. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.112.
Hosseini, S. E., M. A. Wahid, and A. Ganjehkaviri. 2015b. An overview
of renewable hydrogen production from thermochemical process of
oil palm solid waste in Malaysia. Energy Conversion and Management
94:415–29. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2015.02.012.
Hovland, V., A. Pesaran, R. M. Mohring, I. A. Eason, G. M. Smith,
D. Tran, R. Schaller, and T. Smith. 2003. Water and heat balance in
a fuel cell vehicle with a sodium borohydride hydrogen fuel processor.
SAE Transactions. doi:10.4271/2003-01-2271.
Hwang, J. J. 2013. Sustainability study of hydrogen pathways for fuel cell
vehicle applications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
19:220–29. doi:10.1016/J.RSER.2012.11.033.
2018. Hype hydrogen fuel cell taxi fleet in Paris reaches 100 vehicles. Fuel
Cells Bull 2 2018 (8):2. doi: 10.1016/S1464-2859(18)30271-2. https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1464285918302712
Jorgensen, S. W. 2011. Hydrogen storage tanks for vehicles: Recent
progress and current status. Current Opinion in Solid State and
Materials Science 15:39–43. doi:10.1016/J.COSSMS.2010.09.004.
Ju, F. C. H., G. Agreement, T. Jungmann, C. Harms, and S. Rosini. 2015.
Development of PEM fuel cell stack reference test procedures for industry.
http://stacktest.zsw-bw.de
Jurczyk, M., L. Smardz, I. Okonska, E. Jankowska, M. Nowak, and
K. Smardz. 2008. Nanoscale Mg-based materials for hydrogen
storage. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 33:374–80.
doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2007.07.022.
Juste, G. L., and E. M. Benavides. 2008. Feasibility analysis of hydrogen as
additional fuel in aircraft propulsion. International Journal of Green
Energy 5:69–86. doi:10.1080/15435070701839421.
Kamil, M., and M. M. Rahman. 2015. Performance prediction of
spark-ignition engine running on gasoline-hydrogen and
methane-hydrogen blends. Applied Energy 158:556–67. doi:10.1016/J.
APENERGY.2015.08.041.
Kapdan, I. K., and F. Kargi. 2006. Bio-hydrogen production from waste
materials. Enzyme and Microbial Technology 38:569–82. doi:10.1016/j.
enzmictec.2005.09.015.
Kianfard, H., S. Khalilarya, and S. Jafarmadar. 2018. Exergy and exergoe-
conomic evaluation of hydrogen and distilled water production via
combination of PEM electrolyzer, RO desalination unit and geother-
mal driven dual fluid ORC. Energy Conversion and Management
177:339–49. doi:10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2018.09.057.
Kim, J., K. M. Chun, S. Song, H.-K. Baek, and S. W. Lee. 2017. The
effects of hydrogen on the combustion, performance and emissions of
a turbo gasoline direct-injection engine with exhaust gas recirculation.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 42:25074–87. doi:10.1016/J.
IJHYDENE.2017.08.097.
Köhler, J., M. Wietschel, L. Whitmarsh, D. Keles, and W. Schade. 2010.
Infrastructure investment for a transition to hydrogen automobiles.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 77:1237–48. doi:10.1016/
J.TECHFORE.2010.03.010.
Kraytsberg, A., and Y. Ein-Eli. 2014. Review of advanced materials for
proton exchange membrane fuel cells. Energy and Fuels 28:7303–30.
doi:10.1021/ef501977k.
Lasn, K., and A. T. Echtermeyer. 2014. Safety approach for composite
pressure vessels for road transport of hydrogen. Part 1: Acceptable
probability of failure and hydrogen mass. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy 39:14132–41. doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2014.06.116.
Lee, D.-Y., A. Elgowainy, A. Kotz, R. Vijayagopal, and J. Marcinkoski.
2018b. Life-cycle implications of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle
technology for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. Journal of Power
Sources 393:217–29. doi:10.1016/J.JPOWSOUR.2018.05.012.
Lee, D.-Y., A. Elgowainy, and Q. Dai. 2018a. Life cycle greenhouse gas
emissions of hydrogen fuel production from chlor-alkali processes in
the United States. Applied Energy 217:467–79. doi:10.1016/J.
APENERGY.2018.02.132.
Lee, J., K. Lee, J. Lee, and B. Anh. 2014. High power performance with
zero NOx emission in a hydrogen-fueled spark ignition engine by
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 35
valve timing and lean boosting. Fuel 128:381–89. doi:10.1016/J.
FUEL.2014.03.010.
Lee, J. H., and G. W. Skala. 2002. Cooling system for a fuel cell stack. U.S.
Patent No. 6,866,955. 15 Mar. 2005.
Lemus, R. G., and J. M. Martínez Duart. 2010. Updated hydrogen
production costs and parities for conventional and renewable
technologies. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 35:3929–36.
doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2010.02.034.
Lindorfer, J., G. Reiter, R. Tichler, and H. Steinmüller. 2019. Hydrogen
fuel, fuel cells, and methane. Management Global Warming 419–53.
doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-814104-5.00014-4.
Lipman, T. E., M. Elke, and J. Lidicker. 2018. Hydrogen fuel cell electric
vehicle performance and user-response assessment: Results of an
extended driver study. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
43:12442–54. doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2018.04.172.
Luo, Q., and B. Sun. 2016. Inducing factors and frequency of combustion
knock in hydrogen internal combustion engines. International Journal
of Hydrogen Energy 41:16296–305. doi:10.1016/J.
IJHYDENE.2016.05.257.
Ma, F., Y. Wang, S. Ding, and L. Jiang. 2009. Twenty percent
hydrogen-enriched natural gas transient performance research.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 34:6523–31. doi:10.1016/J.
IJHYDENE.2009.05.135.
Maus, S., J. Hapke, C. N. Ranong, E. Wüchner, G. Friedlmeier, and
D. Wenger. 2008. Filling procedure for vehicles with compressed
hydrogen tanks. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
33:4612–21. doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2008.06.052.
Midilli, A., M. Ay, I. Dincer, and M. A. Rosen. 2005. On hydrogen and
hydrogen energy strategies: I: Current status and needs. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 9:255–71. doi:10.1016/J.
RSER.2004.05.003.
Moreno, F., M. Muñoz, J. Arroyo, O. Magén, C. Monné, and I. Suelves.
2012. Efficiency and emissions in a vehicle spark ignition engine
fueled with hydrogen and methane blends. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy 37:11495–503. doi:10.1016/J.
IJHYDENE.2012.04.012.
Mori, D., and K. Hirose. 2009. Recent challenges of hydrogen storage
technologies for fuel cell vehicles. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy 34:4569–74. doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2008.07.115.
Müller, K., and W. Arlt. 2013. Status and development in hydrogen
transport and storage for energy applications. Energy Technology
1:501–11. doi:10.1002/ente.201300055.
Muradov, N., and T. Vezirolu. 2005. From hydrocarbon to hydrogen?
carbon to hydrogen economy. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy 30:225–37. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2004.03.033.
Muthukumar, P., M. Prakash Maiya, and S. S. Murthy. 2005.
Experiments on a metal hydride-based hydrogen storage device.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30:1569–81. doi:10.1016/J.
IJHYDENE.2004.12.007.
Naber, J. D., and D. L. Siebers. 1998. Hydrogen combustion under diesel
engine conditions. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
23:363–71. doi:10.1016/S0360-3199(97)00083-9.
Nagasawa, K., F. T. Davidson, A. C. Lloyd, and M. E. Webber. 2019.
Impacts of renewable hydrogen production from wind energy in
electricity markets on potential hydrogen demand for light-duty
vehicles. Applied Energy 235:1001–16. doi:10.1016/J.
APENERGY.2018.10.067.
National Transportation Statistics [WWW Document]. 2017. DOT (U.S.
Dep. Transp. Accessed November 30, 2018. https://www.bts.gov/rita.
Navale, S. J., R. R. Kulkarni, and S. S. Thipse. 2017. An experimental
study on performance, emission and combustion parameters of
hydrogen fueled spark ignition engine with the timed manifold injec-
tion system. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 42:8299–309.
doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2017.01.059.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. n.d. Vehicle technologies market report -
2016. US Department of Energy.
Oro, M. V., and E. Bazzo. 2015. Flat heat pipes for potential application
in fuel cell cooling. Applied Thermal Engineering 90:848–57.
doi:10.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2015.07.055.
36 S. E. HOSSEINI AND B. BUTLER
Oro, M. V., R. G. de Oliveira, and E. Bazzo. 2018. An integrated solution
for waste heat recovery from fuel cells applied to adsorption systems.
Applied Thermal Engineering 136:747–54. doi:10.1016/J.
APPLTHERMALENG.2018.01.081.
Paggiaro, R., F. Michl, P. Bénard, and W. Polifke. 2010. Cryo-adsorptive
hydrogen storage on activated carbon. II: Investigation of the thermal
effects during filling at cryogenic temperatures. International Journal
of Hydrogen Energy 35:648–59. doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2009.11.013.
Paster, M. D., R. K. Ahluwalia, G. Berry, A. Elgowainy, S. Lasher,
K. McKenney, and M. Gardiner. 2011. Hydrogen storage technology
options for fuel cell vehicles: Well-to-wheel costs, energy efficiencies,
and greenhouse gas emissions. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy 36:14534–51. doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2011.07.056.
Pei, P., and H. Chen. 2014. Main factors affecting the lifetime of proton
exchange membrane fuel cells in vehicle applications: A review.
Applied Energy 125:60–75. doi:10.1016/J.APENERGY.2014.03.048.
Peschka, W. 1998. Hydrogen: The future cryofuel in internal combustion
engines. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 23:27–43.
doi:10.1016/S0360-3199(97)00015-3.
Petkov, T., T. Veziroǧlu, and J. S. Of. n.d. An outlook of hydrogen as an
automotive fuel. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 14:449–74.
doi:10.1016/0360-3199(89)90031-1.
Physical Hydrogen Storage | Department of Energy [WWW Document].
n.d. Accessed February.2 2018. https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/
physical-hydrogen-storage.
Piela, P., and J. Mitzel. 2015. Polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell
efficiency at the stack level. Journal of Power Sources 292:95–103.
doi:10.1016/J.JPOWSOUR.2015.05.043.
Ram, B. G. 2008. Hydrogen fuel: production, transport, and storage. USA:
CRC Press.
Reitz, R. D. 2013. Directions in internal combustion engine research.
Combustion and Flame 160:1–8. doi:10.1016/j.combustflame.2012.11.002.
Ren, G., G. Ma, and N. Cong. 2015. Review of electrical energy storage
system for vehicular applications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 41:225–36. doi:10.1016/J.RSER.2014.08.003.
Rogers, E. M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations. USA: Free Press.
Sakintuna, B., F. Lamari-Darkrim, and M. Hirscher. 2007. Metal hydride
materials for solid hydrogen storage: A review. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy 32:1121–40. doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2006.11.022.
Salvi, B. L., and K. A. Subramanian. 2015. Sustainable development of
road transportation sector using hydrogen energy system. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 51:1132–55. doi:10.1016/J.
RSER.2015.07.030.
Satyapal, S., J. Petrovic, C. Read, G. Thomas, and G. Ordaz. 2007. The
U.S. Department of energy’s national hydrogen storage project:
Progress towards meeting hydrogen-powered vehicle requirements.
Catalysis Today 120:246–56. doi:10.1016/J.CATTOD.2006.09.022.
Schlapbach, L., and A. Züttel. 2010. Hydrogen-storage materials for
mobile applications. In Materials for sustainable energy, ed.
by Dusastre, V., 265–70. UK: Co-Published with Macmillan
Publishers Ltd. doi:10.1142/9789814317665_0038.
Sharma, S., and S. K. Ghoshal. 2015. Hydrogen the future transportation
fuel: From production to applications. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 43:1151–58. doi:10.1016/J.RSER.2014.11.093.
Shi, W., X. Yu, H. Zhang, and H. Li. 2017. Effect of spark timing on
combustion and emissions of a hydrogen direct injection stratified
gasoline engine. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 42:5619–26.
doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2016.02.060.
Silva, A. P., R. M. Galante, P. R. Pelizza, and E. Bazzo. 2012. A combined
capillary cooling system for fuel cells. Applied Thermal Engineering
41:104–10. doi:10.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2012.01.008.
Singh, S., S. Jain, V. PS, A. K. Tiwari, M. R. Nouni, J. K. Pandey, and
S. Goel. 2015. Hydrogen: A sustainable fuel for future of the transport
sector. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 51:623–33.
doi:10.1016/J.RSER.2015.06.040.
Sopena, C., P. M. Diéguez, D. Sáinz, J. C. Urroz, E. Guelbenzu, and
L. M. Gandía. 2010. Conversion of a commercial spark ignition engine
to run on hydrogen: Performance comparison using hydrogen and
gasoline. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 35:1420–29.
doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2009.11.090.
Sorgulu, F., and I. Dincer. 2018. Cost evaluation of two potential nuclear
power plants for hydrogen production. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy 43:10522–29. doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2017.10.165.
Srinivasan, S. 2006. Fuel cells: From fundamentals to applications. In
Fuel cells, 3–25. Boston, MA: Springer Science & Business Media.
doi:10.1007/0-387-35402-6_1.
Sun, B., D. Zhang, and F. Liu. 2013. Cycle variations in a hydrogen
internal combustion engine. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy 38:3778–83. doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2012.12.126.
Szwaja, S., and K. Grab-Rogalinski. 2009. Hydrogen combustion in
a compression ignition diesel engine. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy 34:4413–21. doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2009.03.020.
Tanç, B., H. T. Arat, E. Baltacıoğlu, and K. Aydın. 2018. Overview of the
next quarter century vision of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles.
International Journal Hydrogen Energy. doi:10.1016/J.
IJHYDENE.2018.10.112.
Tartakovsky, L., and M. Sheintuch. 2018. Fuel reforming in internal
combustion engines. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science
67:88–114. doi:10.1016/J.PECS.2018.02.003.
Theus, G. 2010. Generation IV nuclear reactors. Advanced Materials and
Processes 168:26–29.
Tie, S. F., and C. W. Tan. 2013. A review of energy sources and energy
management system in electric vehicles. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 20:82–102. doi:10.1016/J.RSER.2012.11.077.
Tsujimura, T., and Y. Suzuki. 2017. The utilization of hydrogen in
hydrogen/diesel dual fuel engine. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy 42:14019–29. doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2017.01.152.
ULEMCo to Demonstrate First Zero Emission Combustion Engine
Truck [WWW Document]. n.d. Accessed December 1, 2018. http://
ulemco.com/?p=2638.
US Department of Energy. 2017a. Fuel cell technologies office, multi-year
research, development, and demonstration plan. Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
US Department of Energy. 2017b. Target explanation document:
onboard hydrogen storage for light-duty fuel cell vehicles [WWW
document]. Accessed November 2, 2018. www.uscar.org.
Vasiliev, V. V., and E. V. Morozov. 2001. Mechanics and analysis of
composite materials. The Netherlands: Elsevier.
Verhelst, S. 2014. Recent progress in the use of hydrogen as a fuel for
internal combustion engines. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy 39:1071–85. doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2013.10.102.
Verhelst, S., and R. Sierens. 2001. Hydrogen engine-specific properties.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 26:987–90. doi:10.1016/
S0360-3199(01)00026-X.
Verhelst, S., and T. Wallner. 2009. Hydrogen-fueled internal combustion
engines. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 35:490–527.
doi:10.1016/J.PECS.2009.08.001.
Veziroğlu, T. N., and S. Şahi˙n. 2008. 21st Century’s energy: Hydrogen
energy system. Energy Conversion and Management 49:1820–31.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2007.08.015.
Wallner, T., 2004. Development of combustion concepts for a hydrogen
powered internal combustion engine. Diss. Ph. D. thesis, Graz
University of Technology.
Wang, L., Z. Yang, Y. Huang, D. Liu, J. Duan, S. Guo, and Z. Qin. 2017.
The effect of hydrogen injection parameters on the quality of hydro-
gen–Air mixture formation for a PFI hydrogen internal combustion
engine. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 42:23832–45.
doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2017.04.086.
White, C. M., R. R. Steeper, and A. E. Lutz. 2006. The hydrogen-fueled
internal combustion engine: A technical review. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy 31:1292–305. doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2005.12.001.
Wilberforce, T., Z. El-Hassan, F. N. Khatib, A. Al Makky, A. Baroutaji,
J. G. Carton, and A. G. Olabi. 2017. Developments of electric cars and
fuel cell hydrogen electric cars. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy 42:25695–734. doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2017.07.054.
Xiao, X., L. Chen, X. Wang, S. Li, C. Chen, and Q. Wang. 2008.
Reversible hydrogen storage properties and favorable co-doping
mechanism of the metallic Ti and Zr co-doped sodium aluminum
hydride. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 33:64–73.
doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2007.09.015.

Xu, W.-C., K. Takahashi, Y. Matsuo, Y. Hattori, M. Kumagai,
S. Ishiyama, K. Kaneko, and S. Iijima. 2007. Investigation of hydrogen
storage capacity of various carbon materials. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy 32:2504–12. doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2006.11.012.
Yan, F., L. Xu, and Y. Wang. 2018. Application of hydrogen enriched
natural gas in spark ignition IC engines: From fundamental fuel proper-
ties to engine performances and emissions. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 82:1457–88. doi:10.1016/J.RSER.2017.05.227.
Yang, C., and J. Ogden. 2007. Determining the lowest-cost hydrogen
delivery mode. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32:268–86.
doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2006.05.009.
Yang, C., M. Nicholas, and J. Ogden. 2006. Comparison of idealized and
real-world city station citing models for hydrogen distribution. Davis,
CA: Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California.
Yang, Z., F. Zhang, L. Wang, K. Wang, and D. Zhang. 2018. Effects of
injection mode on the mixture formation and combustion perfor-
mance of the hydrogen internal combustion engine. Energy
147:715–28. doi:10.1016/J.ENERGY.2018.01.068.
Ye, L., K. Jiao, Q. Du, and Y. Yin. 2015. Exergy analysis of
high-temperature proton exchange membrane fuel cell systems.
International Journal of Green Energy 12:917–29. doi:10.1080/
15435075.2014.892004.
Yoo, E., M. Kim, and H. H. Song. 2018. Well-to-wheel analysis of
hydrogen fuel-cell electric vehicle in Korea. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy 43:19267–78. doi:10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2018.08.088.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 37
Yu, X., H. Wu, Y. Du, Y. Tang, L. Liu, and R. Niu. 2016. Research on
cycle-by-cycle variations of an SI engine with hydrogen direct injec-
tion under lean burn conditions. Applied Thermal Engineering
109:569–81. doi:10.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2016.08.077.
Zakaria, I., W. A. N. W. Mohamed, W. H. Azmi, A. M. I. Mamat,
R. Mamat, and W. R. W. Daud. 2018. Thermo-electrical performance
of PEM fuel cell using Al2O3 nanofluids. International Journal of Heat
and Mass Transfer 119:460–71. doi:10.1016/J.
IJHEATMASSTRANSFER.2017.11.137.
Zeng, K., and D. Zhang. 2010. Recent progress in alkaline water electro-
lysis for hydrogen production and applications. Progress in Energy and
Combustion Science 36:307–26. doi:10.1016/J.PECS.2009.11.002.
Zhang, J., T. S. Fisher, P. V. Ramachandran, J. P. Gore, and I. Mudawar.
2005. A review of heat transfer issues in hydrogen storage
technologies. Journal of Heat Transfer 127:1391. doi:10.1115/
1.2098875.
Zhang, Y., L. Wu, X. Hu, and H. Liang, 2008. Model and control for
supercapacitor-based energy storage system for metro vehicles,
inElectrical machines: And systems, 2008. ICEMS 2008.
International Conference on. Wuhan, China: IEEE.
Zhou, L. 2005. Progress and problems in hydrogen storage methods.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 9:395–408. doi:10.1016/J.
RSER.2004.05.005.
Züttel, A. 2004. Hydrogen storage methods. Naturwissenschaften
91:157–72. doi:10.1007/s00114-004-0516-x.