Preprint Article Version 1 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Fuel Cell Drive for Urban Freight Transport in Comparison to Diesel and Battery Electric Drives – a Case Study of the Food Retailing Industry in Berlin

Version 1 : Received: 6 May 2021 / Approved: 10 May 2021 / Online: 10 May 2021 (10:58:43 CEST)

How to cite: Winkler, J.K.; Grahle, A.; Syré, A.M.; Martins-Turner, K.; Göhlich, D. Fuel Cell Drive for Urban Freight Transport in Comparison to Diesel and Battery Electric Drives – a Case Study of the Food Retailing Industry in Berlin . Preprints 2021, 2021050170 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202105.0170.v1). Winkler, J.K.; Grahle, A.; Syré, A.M.; Martins-Turner, K.; Göhlich, D. Fuel Cell Drive for Urban Freight Transport in Comparison to Diesel and Battery Electric Drives – a Case Study of the Food Retailing Industry in Berlin . Preprints 2021, 2021050170 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202105.0170.v1).

Abstract

The option of decarbonizing urban freight transport using Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) seems promising.However, there is currently a strong debate whether Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV) might be the bettersolution. The question arises as to how a fleet of FCEV influences the operating cost, the Greenhouse Gas(GHG) emissions and primary energy demand in comparison to BEVs and to Internal Combustion EngineVehicle (ICEV). To investigate this, we simulate the urban food retailing as a representative share of urbanfreight transport using a multi-agent transport simulation software. Synthetic routes as well as fleet size andcomposition are determined by solving a Vehicle Routing Problem (VRP). We compute the operating costsusing a total cost of ownership (Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)) analysis and the use phase emissions as wellas primary energy demand using the Well To Wheel (WTW) approach. While a change to BEV results in 17 -23% higher costs compared to ICEV, using FCEVs leads to 22 - 57% higher costs. Assuming today’s electricitymix, we show a GHG emission reduction of 25% compared to the ICEV base case when using BEV. Currenthydrogen production leads to a GHG reduction of 33% when using FCEV which however cannot be scaled tolarger fleets. Using current electricity in electrolysis will increase GHG emission by 60% compared to the basecase. Assuming 100% renewable electricity for charging and hydrogen production, the reduction from FCEVsrises to 73% and from BEV to 92%. The primary energy requirement for BEV is in all cases lower and forhigher compared to the base case. We conclude that while FCEV have a slightly higher GHG savings potentialwith current hydrogen, BEV are the favored technology for urban freight transport from an economic andecological point of view, considering the increasing shares of renewable energies in the grid mix.

Subject Areas

urban freight transport; multi agent; vehicle routing problem; decarbonization; fuel cell electricvehicles; well to wheel; total cost of ownership

Comments (0)

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 0
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.