Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses - Deloitte
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
April 2021 Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses Hydrogen Articles Collection • “Where do we stand so far?”: Key learnings from fuel cell buses testing programs in the EU and US • “The mid-term prospects”: Mid-term (2030) competitiveness prospects of FCEBs and infrastructure against conventional technologies (ICE) • “The way ahead”: Preferred business-models to deploy FCEBs at scale
Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses
Introduction
The EU has set ambitious Greenhouse
Gas (GHG) emission reduction targets,
enabling non-motorized individuals to
gain affordable access to medium and
FCEBs offer
aiming at carbon neutrality by 2050, with
an ambitious milestone of -55% by 2030
long-distance mobility while emitting ~40%
less GHG than if using a personal vehicle4.
compelling
compared to 1990 levels1. However, with 100-130 gCO2/(pax.km) 4, the
traditional diesel-powered bus solution
advantages
With the road transportation sector
responsible for 21.8% of EU CO2eq that proved effective thus far is showing
limitations in a low-emissions world. While
over alternative
emissions2, part of the European Union’s
answer to the emission reduction challenge there is no well-to-wheels zero emission
solution, public transportation players are
technologies:
is an irreversible shift to decarbonated
mobility, with the clear objective to stay testing alternative powertrain technologies
through specific pilot projects, in order
service levels
competitive while responding to the
increasing mobility needs3. to understand their techno-economic
implications and devise the optimal way
comparable to ICE
Buses are the cornerstone of every
country public transportation system,
forward. buses, fast refueling
times, good driving
Figure 1.
comfort and low
EU Emissions reduction ambition by 2020 emissions.
The EU set the first CO2 reduction targets for heavy-duty vehicles by 2030, to curb
road transport emissions
Heavy-duty vehicles are key contributors to CO2 emissions, for which the EU targets a ~54 million tons
CO2 reduction by 2030
(CO2 emissions - million tons CO2)
EU CO2 reduction target for heavy-duty vehicles
(million tons CO2)
Total transports
• Heavy-duty ~3 1001 100% 160 -54
vehicles ~160 5%
(Trucks, lorries, buses)
• Other transports ~620 20%
(Cars, rail, maritime, air)
106
2025 targets: 2030 targets:
Others
• Only for large trucks • For all heavy-duty
• Fuel combustion
(>16t; i.e., 65%-70% of total vehicles
(excl. transport)
heavy-duty vehicles • CO2 emissions : -30%2
• Industrial processes ~2 340 75%
emissions)
• Agriculture • 2% of zero or low
• CO2 emissions : -15%2 emission new
• Waste management
trucks
2020 2020 2025 2030
Notes: 1. CO2: 80% of GHG; Heavy-duty vehicles: 5% of total EU emissions; 2. Vs. EU average in the reference period
(1 July 2019–30 June 2020). Sources: European Environment Agency; Monitor Deloitte Analysis
2
Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses
Hydrogen is a major pillar of this strategy For example, through its Bus2025 Hydrogen buses have not been accounted
as an energy vector linking low or zero- strategic program, the Paris region’s main for in this strategy, as the technology
emissions electricity generation to vehicles. transportation operator RATP (~350 bus was not mature enough at the time the
In the case of heavy-duty vehicles, the EU routes) set a goal of reducing its carbon roadmap was being established. However,
has laid out a Hydrogen Roadmap plan that footprint by 20256 with the gradual RATP recently started FCEB pilot tests, as
includes the deployment of 45,000 fuel replacement of its diesel-fueled buses, as FCEBs offer compelling advantages over
cell trucks and buses (FCEB) on European evidenced from the following measures/ alternative technologies such as:
roads by 20305, positioning hydrogen initiatives: • An availability/level of service equivalent
as a linchpin in the decarbonization of • Electric buses are being deployed to diesel-fueled buses with a fast-
public transportation, a segment in which at scale with many bus routes being refueling time.
batteries alone are suboptimal because of progressively converted to electric. • Good level of performance in terms
their low energy density and slow charging RATP has committed to reach an 80% of acceleration and speed, FCEBs
performance. Scrutiny of the associated electric bus fleet by 20256. The French performing similarly to diesel buses, while
refueling infrastructure should also be power generation mix (93% of the also offering a smooth driving experience
made, as it is an equally critical component electricity generated in 2020 was from and high degree of comfort, thanks to low
of the equation, directly impacting both a decarbonized source7) makes this noise and vibration levels.
operations (fuel availability, refueling time, solution suitable for the RATP carbon
distribution network footprint, etc.) and • Low level of emissions (CO2, but also NOx,
reduction goal.
economic performance of the solution SOx and fine particulates, which is critical
• Biogas buses have a longer range than in an urban environment), if hydrogen is
(delivered cost of fuel).
electric buses, making them more being produced by electrolysers powered
Even though it offers many advantages,
suitable for long routes (>200 km6). RATP either with renewable or with nuclear
hydrogen as an energy vector for buses
has committed to reach a 20% biogas bus power.
is still at its early stage compared to other
fleet by 2025.
technologies. FCEBs are now starting to FCEBs therefore offer the operational
make their way into the roadmap of public • Hybrid buses, with GHG emissions advantages of both electric and
transportation companies across the that are 15% lower than those of diesel conventional diesel buses. Further
globe, as they started assessing technical buses8, are positioned as a transitory technological advances and on-the-
performance as well as operating models technology that precedes the switch to ground testing of business and operating
for bus fleets and the associated refueling electric and biogas and are therefore not models will likely cement its position as a
infrastructure. considered part of the “end game”. technology of choice for buses.
3
Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses
Figure 2.
RATP bus fleet by fuel technology
Includes standard bus, articulated bus, midibus and minibus
4.839 + -
• High reliability and flexibility • Fossil fuel resource with GHG & particle emissions
• Lower cost of acquisition (~250k€)
• Mature infrastructure for maintenance and refueling
• Major particle emissions reduction vs traditional • Fossil fuel resource with GHG emissions
diesel (50-74% reduction) • On-board storage safety concerns
• Modest acquisition cost (+15% vs diesel bus)
• Mature market, numerous experiences identified
Diesel 3.318
• 15% emission savings vs diesel • Emissions depend on electric motor usage (route,
• Reasonably mature technology, considered as congestion, etc.)
reliable as diesel engine • Still using fossil fuel resource
• Up to +50% acquisition cost vs traditional buses
• Zero tailpipe and noise emission • Emissions dependent on the origin of electricity
• High potential for zero emission (if electricity is used
green) • Relatively immature technology therefore high
acquisition costs (x2 vs diesel bus)
CNG 246 • Limited flexibility due to recharging time
• Zero tailpipe emission • Emissions dependent on the hydrogen production
Hybrid 1.104 • High flexibility (range similar to diesel buses and method
quick recharging) • High purchasing cost (x3-5 vs diesel bus)
• Immature infrastructure (lack of hydrogen refueling
Electric 169 stations)
Fuel Cell 2
2021
Vehicles in
operation
Source: RATP, Clean fleets
To better understand the conditions programs from both a technical and an Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)?
leading to the widespread use of FCEBs in economic perspective? What are the key
• The way ahead: Considering where we
public transportation strategies, three main certainties and unknowns so far?
stand so far and the mid-term prospects
challenges need to be addressed: • The mid-term prospects: According to for FCEB competitiveness, what are the
• Where do we stand so far: How mature current technical improvement trends key challenges and considerations for
and competitive are current hydrogen- for fuel cell and hydrogen production developing a hydrogen-based business
powered bus fleets and their associated technologies, can we expect FCEBs to model for bus operators?
charging infrastructure? What learnings become a competitive alternative to other
can be gathered from the various test types of bus technologies - in terms of
4
Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses
Where do we stand so far?
The development of Fuel cell buses
programs is crucial for countries to support
real operating conditions is a must-have for
all stakeholders in the hydrogen ecosystem
Recent testing
their objectives of lower-emission public
transportation. To ramp up deployment
(e.g., local governments, bus operators,
bus manufacturers, technology providers,
programs have
at scale of fuel cell buses and their
associated charging infrastructure, a clear
hydrogen infrastructure providers). The
last decade has seen multiple projects
confirmed FCEB
understanding of the technology under undertaken in Europe and in the US. fleets technical
attractiveness.
Nonetheless
technical
improvements
and cost reduction
efforts are still
required to make
FCEBs competitive.
5
Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses
Figure 3.
US & EU Fuel Cell bus projects
Europe has already funded and launched several FC buses projects across various EU countries
Fuel cell buses programs in Europe
Project Cities # buses Timeline
Bolzano, London, Milan, Oslo,
CHIC ~29 2010-2016
Cologne, Hamburg
High Antwerp, Aberdeen, Groningen,
~14 2012-2019
VLOCITY San Remo,
HyFLEET: 10 cities (e.g., London, Madrid, 2006-
~47
CUTE Barcelona, Reykjavik, Berlin) 2009
Aalborg, London, Pau, Rome,
3Emotion South Rotterdam, South Holland, ~26 2015-2022
Versailles
Other Karlsruhe, Stuttgart, Frankfurt,
~13 2013-2017
projects Arnhem, North Brabant
Aberdeen, Birmingham, Bozen,
JIVE 1 Cologne, London, Rhein, Riga, 2017-2022
Sagelse, Wuppertal
~300
Auxerre, Brighton, Dundee,
Jive 2 2018-2023
Emmen, Pau, Toulouse, Velenj
CHIC1 High VLOCITY HYFLEET 3Emotion JIVE2 1 JIVE 2 Other projects Countries with FCB in operation Programs already done Programs still in progress
1. Clean Hydrogen In European Cities; 2. Joint Initiative for hydrogen Vehicles across Europe
Source: FCH (last update 09/2017)
Fuel cell buses projects
US launched fuel cell buses programs mainly concentrated in few states (CA, OH, MI and IL)
Fuel cell buses programs in the US
Project Cities # buses Timeline
AC Transit SF, Oakland ~34 2010-2017
SunLine Thousand Palms ~15 2011-2018
UCI Irvine ~1 2015
Orange Country Santa ana ~1 2017-2018
SARTA Canton ~12 2017-2018
Flint Mass
Flint ~1 2016
Transportation
Champaign-Urbana Champaign-
~2 2020
Mass Transit Urbana
AC Transit SunLine UCI Orange County SARTA Flint Mass Transportation Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit
Countries with FCB in operation Programs already done Programs still in progress
Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) last update in 2018
These recent and ongoing medium- to validate their technical consistency. make FCEB competitive. Updates to the
scale test programs have confirmed Nonetheless operational and technological regulatory framework are also needed to
FCEB fleets as a promising alternative to improvements combined with cost ensure an unhindered deployment at scale.
other powertrain options and allowed reduction efforts are still required to
6
Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses
FCEB – Technological Status
Fuel Cell Electric Buses offer a very zero-emissions mode of transportation cells alone, as the batteries can provide
promising option for low-emission public than Battery Electric Buses, which suffer the peak power required for acceleration
transportation. FCEBs have a level of from long charging times and the additional and store brake energy from deceleration,
service equivalent to that of diesel-fueled weight of batteries. thereby extending vehicle range10. Waste
buses, with similar operating range (up Even though FCEB design and technology heat generated by the fuel stack can also
to 400 kms), service duration (up to 22 are still evolving, its structural components be used to heat up the cabin and/or the
hours a day), and fast refueling time (~10 are well defined. Hybridized powertrains, batteries for increased energy efficiency
minutes), while boasting zero tailpipe in which fuel cells continuously charge (especially in colder environments).
emissions and reduced noise9. If fueled electric batteries, have demonstrated
with green hydrogen, FCEBs offer a better superior performance compared to fuel
Figure 4.
Typical FCEB hybrid powertrain elements
High pressure
hydrogen Fuel cell stack Electric motor
storage tank
Balance-of-
Batteries
Plant
Hydrogen is stored at high pressure (350 operations and maintenance requirements the surface of porous solids such as metal
bar) in gaseous form in cylindrical tanks, are subject to standards specific to on-road alloys or complex hydrides13.
usually located on the roof of the FCEB11. vehicles as laid out in SAE J2579. FCEB power is generated from hydrogen
Typical storage capacity range for an Future technological developments focus using heavy-duty PEM fuel cells supported
individual bus is 35-50 kg12. Buses have on increasing energy density for the same by all the auxiliary equipment, such as
lower storage pressure than in Passenger storage footprint, either by lowering the coolant and air sub-systems or data
Cars (700 bars) as they have enough space temperature (and therefore requiring acquisition systems for performance
to accommodate large storage equipment. advanced insulating material), or through monitoring and diagnostics.
Hydrogen tanks’ design, construction, the reversible adsorption of hydrogen onto
7Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses
FCEB – Key learnings from test programs
The extended use of FCEB fleets (more than
10 million km traveled for more than 80
expectations. In addition to improved
technological design to reduce failure
Significant
buses14) and their charging infrastructure rates, an adequate after-sales service improvements in FCEBs
has provided extremely useful insights and spare parts strategy is critical to
from a technical and economic point of ensure efficient and timely maintenance. acquisition costs will be
view. FCEB vehicles deployed in the test Availability targets for ongoing programs
programs have generally been able to are >90%. driven by economies of
meet the demand of bus operators12 ,
validating their utility in real operating
Although fuel cells, on average, meet
pre-defined objectives, the observed
scale and technology
conditions. lifetime showed significant improvements, thanks
• Best-achieved CAPEX for FCEBs variability12 (from less than 3,000 hours
amounted to 650 k€ to more than 23,000, with an average to the development
Even though this is a significant of 6,820 hours across all buses of the
reduction since the beginning of the CHIC test program). The wide range of pan-European
is the consequence of inconsistent
last decade (>1.5M€/bus), CAPEX spend
for FCEB remains understandably approaches to performance monitoring standards and joint
high compared to a diesel bus15 due and operational practices across
test programs, thereby increasing
procurement initiatives.
to the small scale of operations and
the currently insufficient technological maintenance costs as the lack of
maturity. Significant improvements in predictability does not allow for effective
acquisition costs are necessary for FCEBs preventive measures. Additional efforts
to become competitive, which will be with strict monitoring and control of
driven by economies of scale and design/ parameters to understand the true
technology improvements, most likely operating fuel cell lifetime is key for future
fostered by the development of Pan- programs.
European standards or regulations, and • Fuel consumption reached 8-9 kg/
joint procurement of FCEBs at national or 100 km
European levels. Fuel consumption decreased from 15
• Best FCEB availability rate across test kg/100km to 8 kg/100 km12, although
programs is ~90%, with maintenance room for improvement still exists. The
costs likely to be in the 0.3-0.4€/km improved design of fuel cell systems,
range electricity storage and hydrogen storage
Recorded maintenance costs for FCEBs as core components of fully hybridized
in test programs are significantly higher powertrain can not only lead to >50%
than for diesel buses (0.1-0.15 €/km15) improvement in fuel efficiency compared
but it can be expected to reduce with to previous-generation models used
technology improvements and reduction before 2010, but also greatly increase the
in cost of spare parts. fuel cell stack lifetime and overall vehicle
duty cycle. Improvements include smaller
Observed bus failures and associated and more optimized fuel cell systems
downtime still primarily originate from with higher density, higher performance
conventional vehicle components issues. optimization through the operating
FCEB-specific downtime events across software, energy storage system acting
test programs were related to fuel as a buffer for peak loads and capturing
cell systems and hybrid propulsion12 . energy from braking, and a reduction in
While FC stacks do generally perform H2 tanks capacity requirements for the
to expectations, FC systems could same range capability. Earlier programs
malfunction due to auxiliary components show a high hydrogen consumption (~13-
failure (e.g. converters, cooling pumps, 15 kg/100km) while newer vehicles have
etc.), which, in combination with long reached ~10 kg/100km. Other ongoing
maintenance times caused by long spare programs aim at reaching targets of 8-9
parts replenishment times, reduces kg/100km.
overall fleet availability to levels below
8Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses
Figure 5.
Summary of major KPIs across major FCEB pilot programs
Stark Area Orange
HyFLEET: Sunline
CHIC V.LO-City Regional County 3Emotion JIVE 1 JIVE 2
CUTE Transit
Transit (Ohio) (California)
Region
Duration of the 2017- 2018-
2006-2009 2010-2016 2012-2019 2014-2019 2018-2019 2017-2018 2015-2022
project 2022 2023
Bus average
>92% 69% 85% 73% 68% 70% 90% >90%
availability
Not 2012: 1.3 m€
FC Bus Cost 1.3 m€ 1.8 m€ 1.7 m€ 1.1 m€ 850k€ 650k€ 625k€
communicated 2015: 650k€
Maintenance Not Between 0.40 Not
0.29 €/km 0.17 €/km 0.24 €/km N/A N/A N/A
Cost communicated & 1.73 €/km communicated
Between 7.9
FC consumption Not
21.9 & 16 11.3 12.5 9.7Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses
Hydrogen Refueling Stations (HRS) – Technological Status
• Hydrogen Refueling Stations (HRS)
are the backbone of FCEB fleets as the
necessary infrastructure is available.
Low pressure delivery and/or storage of Hydrogen Refueling
competitiveness of the solution relies
greatly on their ability to service all fuel
hydrogen is possible though it requires
using compressors to reach the required Stations (HRS) are
requirements quickly and cost-effectively.
All HRS include storage capacity and
delivery pressure of 350 bars. If the HRS
is also designed to service passenger the backbone of
dispensing facilities able to deliver at
the FCEB standard storage pressure of
cars, delivery pressure increases to 700
bars, and pre-cooling of hydrogen is FCEB fleets as the
350 bars12. Several technical aspects
must be contemplated when deploying
required (SAE J2601).
Hydrogen Storage
competitiveness of
refueling infrastructure, at hydrogen
production (on-site or remote), storage
• Pressure: Hydrogen is stored as the solution relies
compressed gas in pressurized vessels,
(pressure, flammability, hydrogen purity)
or dispensing stages.
whose design and dimensioning depends greatly on their
on the storage pressure. Higher pressure
Hydrogen Supply options translates to a lower footprint of the ability to service all
equipment needed as the gas volumes
• On-site option: HRS can be supplied
locally with on-site hydrogen production reduces accordingly, but at the expense fuel requirements
of more onerous material to be selected
capacity. Keeping the project green
requires hydrogen to be produced and stricter safety precautions to be quickly and cost-
taken (see Standards developed by ANSI/
through electrolysis using low emission
power either through a decarbonized AGA, NGV2-1998 and NGV2-2000, used effectively.
grid or on-site renewable energy sources for CNG storage). Current practices for
such as solar panels. Producing hydrogen HRS dedicated to FCEB fleets include
locally requires compression facilities for the use of cascade storage systems, in
storage and dispensing. which most hydrogen is stored at lower
pressure (e.g., 200 bars) with a small
• Remote option: HRS can also be
amount of hydrogen stored at a pressure
supplied from external sources, with
hydrogen transported to the HRS under higher than the delivery pressure (350
liquid or gaseous compressed form bars for FCEB).
moved by trucks, or via a pipeline if the
Figure 6.
Typical Hydrogen Refueling Stations operating models
Supply Storage Dispensing
On-site H2 Production Gaseous supply
Electricity
Electrolyzer Compressors
Pre-cooler
(if high pressure)
Natural Gas Steam Methane Gas Storage tanks
Biogas Reforming Unit (low or high pressure)
External H2 sourcing Liquid supply Region
Dispenser
Gaseous H2
Pipeline Liquid Storage tanks
Gaseous H2 Tube-trailer Evaporator/Heat
Truck exchanger
Liquid H2 Insulated tank Cryogenic Hydrogen Gaseous H2 path
trailer Truck Compressors
Liquid H2 path
10Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses
Table 1: Hydrogen storage standards by pressure
Category Features Max pressure
Type I All-metal cylinders (steel or aluminum), low-cost and commonly used in CNG vehicles 200 bars
Type II Load-bearing steel or aluminum liner hoop wrapped with continuous glass-fiber composite filament 300 bars
Type III Non-load-bearing metal liner axial and hoop wrapped with continuous full composite filament 300-700 bars
Non-load-bearing non-metal liner wrapped with continuous filament (all composite with carbon or carbon/
Type IV 700 bars
glass fiber)
• Flammability: High pressure storage Contamination by even small quantities Hydrogen Dispensing
and flammability of hydrogen require of impurities like water, oil, nitrogen or • Hydrogen is dispensed through a nozzle
specific HSSE considerations when sulfur can cause significant degradation connecting the HRS delivery system
designing the site layout to account for of the fuel cell, leading to operational to the vehicle. Standardization efforts,
potential ATEX zones. Minimum standards issues and the need for component as laid out by international standard
for such storage in urban environments replacement. Therefore, quality control ISO 17268:2012 and SAE J2600, ensure
are described in ISO/WDTR 19880-1, planning with contaminants detection compatibility with vehicles from different
which includes constraints for minimum and prevention are crucial to minimize manufacturers, which is crucial for the
distance to other units in the facility, occurrences. Regular sampling is the future deployment at scale of public
to industrial facilities and to public most appropriate method, as in-line refueling stations. The dispensing process
buildings and areas (schools, hospitals, detection technology is not yet cost- for heavy-duty vehicles is also subject to
etc.). Additional legislation is relevant to effective enough to be deployed at the standardization (SAE J2601-2), providing
hydrogen storage: the SEVESO directive nozzle12. A major challenge remains as guidance on the safe conditions under
and the ATEX directive 2014/34/EU. With only a few laboratories are equipped to which FCEBs can achieve high SOC in
standards evolving based on learnings perform the testing required by the ISO terms of rate, pressure and temperature,
from experience and safety events, 14687 standard. Other FCEV projects in enabling fast-refueling rates of up to 7.2
regulation and permits for HRS locations Europe (HyCoRa, H2moveScandinavia) kg/min
will likely be important criteria to be have had to rely on a US based laboratory
• Additionally, accurate flow metering for
accounted for when deploying refueling to perform hydrogen fuel quality
proper accounting of volumes dispensed
infrastructure. measurement due to the capability not
is currently lacking, due to the absence of
• Hydrogen Purity: Regardless of its being available commercially in Europe.
methodologies for calibrating hydrogen
source, hydrogen needs to maintain As a result, capable laboratories are
flow meters at the operating pressures
a 99.97% purity to be effectively currently being implemented (HYDRAITE
and temperatures12. This issue can be
useable by current fuel cells, as laid project), but this demonstrates a major
addressed by measuring the FCEB bus
out by the hydrogen fuel quality and gap in the value chain that needs to be
weight.
standard specifications ISO 14687:2019. filled.
Table 2: Maximum allowable hydrogen contaminants for fuel cells
Allowable limit
Contaminant
(ppm)
Helium 300
Nitrogen 300
Methane 100
Water 5
Oxygen 5
Total Hydrocarbons (excl. CH4) 2
Carbon Dioxide 2
Carbon Monoxide 0.2
Total Sulfur (incl. H2S) 0.004
11Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses
Hydrogen Refueling Stations (HRS) – Key learnings from test programs
Insights on HRS optimum design and use
can be drawn from their extended usage
in the short term to be economically
viable. While HRS
in the considered test programs, as they
include all supply types: on-site electrolysis,
• HRS facilities, either supplied on- availability has been
site or remotely, are currently very
external sourcing, or a combination of both.
expensive due to low utilization and fully validated (i.e.
• HRS availability is assumed to be the small scale of deployment.
close to 100%12 OPEX figures of 12-28€/kg as reported in close to 100%),
Even though it requires additional spend, the CHIC project12 did not meet targets
hydrogen compressor redundancy is of 5-10€/kg due to the low utilization of these facilities are
key to achieving high levels of availability, the units for on-site generation. Higher
as compressor issues can cause up to FCEB availability, lower power prices and still expensive to
50% of the HRS downtime. However, maintenance optimization will likely drive
redundancy can only be achieved with OPEX lower. operate because of
additional capital spend, and hence Remotely-supplied HRS construction cost
the right balance between CAPEX and is currently in the 5,300-7,100€/(kg.day) low utilization rates
utilization rate needs to be found. range. CAPEX for HRS with small-scale
Infrastructure utilization rates can on-site electrolysis goes up to 13,000- and the small scale
be increased through the delivery of 19,000€/(kg/day capacity)12
hydrogen to fuel cell passenger cars. But Instances of hydrogen contamination of deployment.
it requires some upgrade in facilities to occurred with water (high humidity),
include a 700-bar refueling capacity as nitrogen and oil. All instances impacted Hydrogen
opposed to the 350 bars required for operations significantly, causing major
buses. At these higher delivery pressures, downtime for the FCEBs, in addition to contamination is
pre-cooling is necessary, and the on-site remediation expenses. In one case, oil
equipment requires a higher-pressure contamination occurred in the whole also a key challenge.
rating (e.g. Type IV pressure vessels)16. system, causing 4 buses to be out of
In the absence of green hydrogen supply service for 6 months to a year. HRS
in large and affordable quantities through Component failure is likely to blame in this
a larger production infrastructure, small- case, and the event went undetected due
scale electrolyzers can be a decent to the lack of a monitoring device in the
option to supply required hydrogen, HRS12.
but will probably require subsidies
12Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses
Figure 7.
HRS KPIs (CHIC program)
Cologne Hamburg Whistler Aargau Bolzano London Milan Oslo
Country
External
On-site External (Liquid On-site
On-site (compressed On-site On-site
HRS Supply Type External electrolyzer + delivery & electrolyzer +
electrolyzer hydrigen electrolyzer electrolyzer
External storage) External
truck)
Offsite
Offsite Offsite
H2 or Power Offsite Alkali Offsite Renewables
Renewables Renewables Offsite SMR Grid Renewables
Supply Source electrolysis Renewables (hydropower,
(hydropower) (hydropower)
wind & solar)
Station Not
96% 98% 99% 99% 98% 98% 95%
availability communicated
H2 Refueling
capacity (kgH2/ 120 700 1000 300 350 320 200 250
day)
H2 Production
capacity (kgH2/ N/A 260 N/A 130 390 N/A 215 260
day)
High SOCFueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses
The mid-term prospects
In addition to the sustainability
benefits that FCEB fleets bring to public
driven by high transport and refueling
station costs: By 2030, TCO of
transportation, economic attractiveness
is paramount for the solution to become
– SMR-based hydrogen production is
a well-known and widely deployed
FCEBs is expected
widely adopted. It is therefore crucial to
understand the drivers behind economic
process, incurring a standard Levelized
Cost of Hydrogen (“LCOH”) of ca. 1.7 €/
to reach levels
competitiveness and their evolution,
through the analysis of current and
kgH2, with limited cost improvement nearing 1€/km
potential. However, the SMR route will
future TCO of FCEBs in comparison with
ICE vehicles, based on assumed average
likely not be favored as the process (excl. driver’s costs),
requires natural gas and emits carbon
operating conditions.
In 2021, the TCO of FCEBs (excluding labor)
if CCUS is not in place. Furthermore, at par with ICE
vehicles and driven
not all SMR facilities are able to produce
is estimated to be almost double that of
hydrogen with purity levels suitable for
conventional diesel buses. This result is
driven by key gaps in the following cost
areas:
FC mobility.
– Hydrogen transport costs are expensive
by CAPEX (down to
• CAPEX includes high costs of fuel cell
due to the limited dedicated pipeline
networks and the need for trailers
~ 325k€) and OPEX
systems production, raising the total
purchase price of FCEBs: (tube, container or liquid) to ship
hydrogen.
(H2 supply at ~ 2€/
– FCEBs are currently at ca. 650k€ for
a single deck bus, which is more than – Distribution costs currently accounts kg) reduction.
double the price of a diesel bus for a significant share of delivered
– Hydrogen components account for 20% costs, driven by the expected small
of the CAPEX costs, as storage tanks, scale and low utilization of hydrogen
fuel cell stacks and batteries are yet to refueling stations in the short-term.
reach technological maturity. Improvements in technology and
– Significant mark-up currently exists on operating practices along with higher
all components for FCEB due to the low utilization through larger FCEB fleets will
number of buses manufactured. Prices significantly drive refueling cost down.
for FCEBs have already declined by – In the absence of widespread
76% between first deployments in the large-scale electrolysis capacity to
1990s and 2015. It is expected that this supply hydrogen, on-site small-scale
mark-up will gradually reduce along with electrolysis (~1MW) is the currently
deployment at scale. preferred solution to supply the HRS,
leading to high production costs.
• OPEX includes currently high fuel costs,
Table 3: Assumptions for FCEB standard operating conditions
FCEB Type Single deck Hybrid FC/Battery powered, ~12m length
FCEB Life Expectancy 14 years
FCEB Availability 90%
FCEB Daily distance traveled 200 km
14Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses
Figure 8.
2021 CAPEX & OPEX; FCEB vs. ICEB
CAPEX: 2021 FCEB vs ICEB OPEX per km: 2021 FCEB vs ICEB
k€ €/km (discounted, full vehicle lifetime)
-62% -48%
• 45 l/100km
ICEB fuel
650 1.57 efficiency
• Chassis & Body common elements to both FCEB • 9 kgH2/100km FCEB fuel efficiency • 1.35€/liter fuel
& ICEB • 7.1 €/kgH2 fuel cost*, assuming H2 generated by cost, including
Chassis, Body & • Drive train for FECB similar to that of battery on-site small scale electrolyzer functioning at distribution
Drive train 234 electric vehicle 48 high load factor* 48 costs based on
• Refueling infrastructure cost estimated at 2019-2020
~4.6€/kgH2 average in
Fuel 1.05 France
• Additional mark-up due to non-mass production
Components of vehicle 0.82
mark-up 195 • Mark-up reduction when deployed at scale
249
Gross profits 91 • Assumed 14% of vehicle price Insurance 0.18 • Assumed as constant % of CAPEX 0.61
234
• Includes Hydrogen storage tanks, fuel cell stack • Favorable end of the range observed in test
Hydrogen
130 (with associated BoP), and electric battery Maintenance 0.35 programs
Components 0.06
13 0.15
FCEB ICEB FCEB ICEB
Source: Deloitte China & Ballard Hydrogen and fuel cell solutions for transportation, “Hydrogen Refueling Analysis of Fuel Cell Heavy-Duty Vehicles Fleet”, US Department of Energy
Figure 9.
TCO: FCEB vs ICEB 2021
€/km
-55%
2.51
OPEX 1.57
1.13
0.82
CAPEX
0.94
0.32
FCEB ICEB
15Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses
By 2030, TCO of FCEBs is expected to manufacturing. to 5 tons of hydrogen/day is expected
be at par with that of ICEBs, with levels • At-scale manufacturing of FCEBs would to lower hydrogen costs vs. current
nearing 1€/km (excluding driver’s costs). serve to remove the currently observed small size electrolysis facilities (e.g.,
The reduction of FCEBs TCO is driven by mark-up prices. 1MW network-connected electrolyzers
both CAPEX and OPEX decline. While the delivering ~ 400kg/day). Coupled with
importance of CAPEX weighs most heavily • Overall price of FC buses is therefore technological improvements and a
in the case of smaller passenger vehicles, expected to be lower, reaching a price of production at industrial scale, such
both CAPEX and OPEX are almost equally ~€325k for a standard FC bus by the year electrolysers could deliver hydrogen at
important drivers of TCO reduction for 20301. >2€/kg cost (ex-electrolyzer), at par with
heavy-duty trucks and fuel cell buses. OPEX cost reduction drivers include conventional SMR+CCS technology.
a decline in price and distribution of – Disruptive processes such as E-TAC
CAPEX cost reduction will be driven by
the decline of all components related to hydrogen: (Electrochemical, Thermally Activated
hydrogen: • Hydrogen cost is the most important Chemical), developed by the Israeli
OPEX driver. Fuel spend is predicted to company H2PRO – in which Bill Gates
• The fuel cell system price will be driven
significantly decline in the next 10 years, recently invested 18.5M€ - could help
by the industrialization and scale of
due to a combination of more efficient achieve costs even below 1€/kg.
manufacturing fuel cell stacks and electric
batteries leading to a reduction of costs vehicles and hydrogen supplied from • HRS Distribution costs will also contribute
for the 2 items by about 65% in the next centralized sources that benefit from to lowering OPEX costs, as utilization
10 years. economies of scale. and scale are expected to increase
– Indeed, the emergence of mid-sized with widespread adoption or large
• Similarly, carbon fiber hydrogen storage mobility hubs, with electrolyzers of FCEB fleets, high level of Pan-European
tanks’ costs are expected to decline, 10 to 40MW coupled with low-cost standardization, and joint-procurement
driven by the standardization and scale of renewables, being able to deliver up initiatives.
Figure 10:
TCO & CAPEX evolution for FCEB
TCO: FCEB evolution CAPEX: FCEB evolution
€/km k€
-60% -50%
2.51 650
OPEX
Fue
1.05 48Chassis, Body & 234
Drive train
Insurance 0.18
1.00 324
Maintenance
0.35 Components
0.27 195
mark-up
0.09
0.18
Gross profits 91 234
CAPEX 0.94
0.47 Hydrogen
130 0
Components 40
51
2021 2030 2021 2030
16Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses
The way ahead
In this document we have provided an
overview of the existing Fuel Cell bus
• By 2030, FCEBs are expected to reach
a similar TCO as ICEBs, driven by a
Given the
programs and available technology options,
highlighting both current certainties and
reduction in both CAPEX and OPEX currently high
As a next step, larger deployments of Fuel
major existing challenges Cell buses are required to achieve scale costs and limited
• FCEBs have generally been able to meet and further reduce costs. Scaling up also
the demand of bus operators, validating means reviewing which business model is infrastructure
their performance in real operating best suited for a wide implementation of
conditions FCEBs. available for FCEBs,
alternative business
• Operational and technological Currently, regional public authorities either
improvements combined with cost launch competitive tenders in deregulated
models should be
reduction efforts are required to make markets (e.g., London) or engage in
FCEB and HRS competitive, not only negotiations with state-owned companies.
adopted to deploy
by implementing improvements in The winning or chosen bus operator would
technology and operating practices then operate the specific route using
hydrogen buses at
based on learnings from pilot programs, buses from its owned fleet. Passengers will
but also by creating scale through Pan- pay fares to the regional public transport
scale.
European standardization, regulation and authority to make use of the bus operator’s
joint procurement programs. services.
17Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses
Figure 11.
Illustrative traditional bus operations business model
Pay service fees Buys bus
Regional public
transport Bus operator Bus OEM
authority
Pay fares
Use service
Owner of bus
Passengers
Given the currently high costs and limited hydrogen supply infrastructure. buses from bus OEMs which are part of a
infrastructure available for Fuel Cell Recent small-scale demonstration European coalition to promote Fuel Cell
buses, alternative business models should projects experimented with alternative transportation. Public transport authorities
be adopted to deploy hydrogen buses business models that leveraged a larger received funding from the government and
at scale. Indeed, it is not just a specific coalition of players across the value chain EU to pay for the buses. The authorities
financing model that is required to cope working together to deploy FBECs and then signed a service agreement with bus
with uncompetitive costs, but also the all the necessary infrastructure. As part operators to operate the buses, while
implementation of projects with a scope of the Hyfleet:CUTE project, the public ensuring a hydrogen supply infrastructure
that goes beyond the mere purchase of transport authorities bought Fuel Cell through a contract with a major hydrogen
new vehicles to include the setup of a full provider.
Figure 12.
Illustrative alternative business model
Government Hydrogen
provider Provide hydrogen
Funding
infrastructure and supply
Contract for hydrogen
supply and infrastructure
Buy buses Pay service fee
Regional public
Bus OEM Provide buses Bus operator
transport authority
Pay fares
Use services
Owner of bus
Passengers
This alternative business model shows demand (operational FC buses on public through close alignment with coalition
the strength of a coalition-based business transport routes). partners and allow for the possibility of
model in addressing the challenges related reducing costs through joint procurement
• Ensure balance between value creation
to commercialization of Fuel Cell buses. initiatives.
and value capture: The EU and the
While this is not the only possible solution,
respective governments have a high • Stimulate a steeper learning curve by
working with a coalition offers many
interest in positive environmental and sharing experiences and challenges.
benefits for future large-scale deployment
social impacts of FC bus deployments • Facilitate close involvement of public
projects/programs:
and are therefore also willing to provide authorities and government to create
• Guarantee the full alignment of supply CAPEX funding to enable the setup of visibility and input for future policy
(hydrogen production, distribution and supporting infrastructure. development.
refueling station infrastructure) and • Enable scalability of the pilot programs
18Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses Glossary BEV: Battery Electric Vehicle CAPEX: Capital Expenditure CHIC: Clean Hydrogen in European Cities CNG: Compressed Natural Gas FC: Fuel Cell FCEB: Fuel Cell Electric Bus FCEV: Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle GHG: Greenhouse Gas HRS: Hydrogen Refueling Station ICEB: Internal Combustion Engine Bus LCOH: Levelized Cost of Hydrogen OEM: Original Equipment Manufacturer OPEX: Operating Expenditure TCO: Total Cost of Ownership 19
Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses References 1. European Green Deal, European Commission 2. Greenhouse gas emissions from transport in Europe, European Environment Agency 3. A European Strategy for low-emission mobility, European Commission 4. Information sur la quantité de gaz à effet de serre émise à l'occasion d'une prestation de transport, SNCF 5. European Environment Agency 6. Plan Bus2025, RATP 7. Eco2mix, RTE France 8. Engagés contre le changement climatique, RATP 9. European Bus Projects - CHIC, High V.Lo City, HyTransit & 3Emotion Emerging results, FCH and Element Energy 10. The Fuel Cell Electric Powered Bus: A Hybrid Solution, Ballard 11. Van Hool website 12. CHIC project final report 13. Hydrogen Composite Tank Program, Quantum Technologies 14. CHIC project, HyFleet:CUTE, V.Lo-City, SunLine, Orange County program 15. Policy note, Clean bus for your city, CIVITAS 16. New Bus ReFuelling for European Hydrogen Bus Depots, FCH JU 20
Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses
Future of Mobility Contacts
Olivier Perrin Guillaume Crunelle
Partner Partner
Energy, Resources & Industrials Automotive Leader
Monitor Deloitte Deloitte
France France
operrin@deloitte.fr gcrunelle@deloitte.fr
Alexandre Kuzmanovic Jean-Michel Pinto
Director Director
Energy, Resources & Industrials Energy, Resources & Industrials
Monitor Deloitte Monitor Deloitte
France France
akuzmanovic@deloitte.fr jepinto@deloitte.fr
Pascal Lim Josephine Selchow
Senior Consultant Senior Consultant
Energy, Resources & Industrials Energy, Resources & Industrials
Monitor Deloitte Monitor Deloitte
France France
plim@deloitte.fr joselchow@deloitte.fr
Kamil Mokrane
Senior Consultant
Energy, Resources & Industrials
Monitor Deloitte
France
HMokrane@deloitte.fr
21Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (“DTTL”), its global network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL (also referred to as “Deloitte Global”) and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. DTTL does not provide services to clients. Please see www. deloitte.com/about to learn more. In France, Deloitte SAS is the member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, and professional services are rendered by its subsidiaries and affiliates. Deloitte is a leading global provider of audit & assurance, consulting, financial advisory, risk advisory and tax & legal services. With 312,000 professionals in 150 countries, Deloitte has gained the trust of its clients through its service quality for over 150 years, setting it apart from its competitors. Deloitte serves four out of five Fortune Global 500® companies. Deloitte France brings together diverse expertise to meet the challenges of clients of all sizes from all industries. Backed by the skills of its 6,900 employees and partners and a multidisciplinary offering, Deloitte France is a leading player. Committed to making an impact that matters on our society, Deloitte has set up an ambitious sustainable development and civic commitment action plan. Deloitte 6, place de la Pyramide – 92908 Paris-La Défense Cedex © 2021 Deloitte Monitor. A Deloitte network entity
You can also read
