project final report - europa - setis · project final report ... the project has developed...
TRANSCRIPT
PROJECT FINAL REPORT
Final Publishable Summary Report
FCH JU Grant Agreement number: 245133
Project acronym: NEXTHYLIGHTS
Project title: Supporting Action to prepare large-scale hydrogen vehicle demonstration in Europe
Funding Scheme: Support Action
Period covered: from 01 January 2010 to 31 December 2010
Name of the scientific representative of the project's co-ordinator1, Title and Organisation:
Hubert Landinger
Tel: + 49 89 60 81 10 37
Fax: + 49 89 6 09 97 31
E-mail: [email protected]
Project website2 address: www.nexthylights.eu
1 Usually the contact person of the coordinator as specified in Art. 8.1. of the grant agreement
2 The home page of the website should contain the generic European flag and the FCH JU logo which are available in
electronic format at the Europa website (logo of the European flag: http://europa.eu/abc/symbols/emblem/index_en.htm;
logo of the FCH JU, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/fch/index_en.cfm). The area of activity of the project
should also be mentioned.
PREPARATION FOR LARGE-SCALE
VEHICLE DEMONSTARTION IN EUROPE
NEXTHYLIGHTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project partners would like to thank the EC for establishing the
New Energy World JTI framework and for supporting this activity.
This project is co-financed by funds from theEuropean Commission under
FCH-JU-2008-1 Grant Agreement Number 245133.
The project partners would like to thank the EC for establishing the
New Energy World JTI framework and for supporting this activity.
This project is co-financed by funds from theEuropean Commission under
FCH-JU-2008-1 Grant Agreement Number 245133.
Executive Summary
5 / 49
CONTENTS
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................7
2 Work Plan for Hydrogen Passenger Cars.......................................................................8 2.1 Project ambition ......................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Programs and European regions commitment ........................................................... 8
2.3 Automotive industry’s commitment........................................................................... 9
2.4 Energy industry’s commitment ................................................................................ 13
2.5 Work plan AIP 2011 to AIP 2013............................................................................ 16
3 Work Plan and Roll-out Plan for Hydrogen Buses......................................................18 3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 18
3.2 Key conclusions on hydrogen buses ........................................................................ 18
4 Work Plan for “Other Vehicles”....................................................................................23 4.1 Objective .................................................................................................................. 23
4.2 Material handling (forklifts)..................................................................................... 24
4.2.1 State of the art .................................................................................................. 24
4.2.2 Economy........................................................................................................... 25
4.2.3 Energy and emission analysis .......................................................................... 25
4.2.4 Market potential ............................................................................................... 26
4.2.5 Technical maturity............................................................................................ 26
4.2.6 Recommendations ............................................................................................ 26
4.3 Municipal Sweepers ................................................................................................. 26
4.4 Boats and ships......................................................................................................... 27
5 Exploring Synergies of Hydrogen Infrastructure ........................................................28 5.1 Introduction, Motivation and Methodology............................................................. 28
5.1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 28
5.1.2 Motivation ........................................................................................................ 28
5.1.3 Methodology .................................................................................................... 28
5.2 Hydrogen infrastructure synergies seen from the passenger cars perspective ......... 29
5.2.1 Synergies with regard to the supply path ......................................................... 29
5.2.2 Synergies with regard to the hydrogen refuelling station ................................ 29
5.3 Hydrogen infrastructure synergies seen from the buses perspective ....................... 31
5.3.1 Synergies with the passenger car segment ....................................................... 31
5.3.2 Synergies with the special vehicle segment ..................................................... 33
5.4 Hydrogen infrastructure synergies seen from the ‘other vehicles’ perspective ....... 33
5.4.1 Hydrogen refuelling station demands for ‘other vehicles’............................... 33
5.4.2 Synergies material handling vehicles ............................................................... 34
5.4.3 Synergies boats / ships ..................................................................................... 34
5.4.4 Synergies sweepers .......................................................................................... 35
5.4.5 Synergies with other vehicle segments ............................................................ 35
6 Regional Demo Project Location Assessment...............................................................37
7 Social Acceptance of Hydrogen Demonstration Projects ............................................40 7.1 Social acceptance of hydrogen projects ................................................................... 40
7.2 Global acceptance: current status and outlook......................................................... 40
7.3 Local acceptance: current status and outlook........................................................... 41
Executive Summary
6 / 49
7.4 Market acceptance: current status and outlook ........................................................ 42
7.5 Recommendations for stimulating social acceptance............................................... 42
8 Environmental Impact Assessment of Hydrogen Vehicles..........................................43 8.1 Passenger vehicles.................................................................................................... 43
8.2 Niche Vehicles ......................................................................................................... 44
8.3 Buses ........................................................................................................................ 44
9 Regulatory Requirements for Hydrogen Demonstration Projects .............................46
10 Policy Support Options for Hydrogen Buses in Public Transport .............................48
Executive Summary
Introduction
7 / 49
1 INTRODUCTION
The project has developed consolidated plans for large-scale demonstration projects
across three parallel hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (FCEV) segments ‘passenger cars’,
‘buses’ and ‘other vehicles’. In the case of the bus segment a roll-out plan covering
the market introduction has also been developed. The vehicle segment specific work
plans cover the time span including the next large-scale demonstration projects.
Figure 1: NextHyLights project participants
Corresponding contact names and associated coordinates of the respective project
participants are available upon request from the coordinator.
Executive Summary
Work Plan for Hydrogen Passenger Cars
8 / 49
2 WORK PLAN FOR HYDROGEN PASSENGER CARS
2.1 Project ambition
FCH JU has funded the NextHyLights partners for their advice and support to be
prepared for the demonstration projects on hydrogen and fuel cells for transport
under the last three project calls within its MAIP.
For the fuel cell passenger car sector it was decided early in the project to shift the
focus away from the development of a full commercialization and deployment plan
as this had already been undertaken by the EU Coalition Study. Instead, it has been
decided jointly to add a close-up assessment of European regions most committed
to actively pursue applying for funds under FCH JU to carry out demonstration (=
Lighthouse) projects involving fuel cell passenger cars together with the related
hydrogen refuelling infrastructure.
2.2 Programs and European regions commitment
The analysis of international, national and regional / municipal programs to
strategically kick-off or support the commercialization of hydrogen fuel cell
passenger cars as clean transport technology showed that these are well spread
across the world. With distinctions in focus, all programs aim at the same
overarching targets, namely to massively reduce GHG emissions, help to diversify
energy supply structures away from fossil energy, and support or develop large,
medium and small industries in this new field of technology.
In the U.S., California and some other states such as New York, South Carolina or
Indiana all have developed individual programs accompanied by a strong federal
program. Demonstration programs have always been an important component in the
U.S. at all levels. In Asia, both Japan and South Korea have strong programs, well
aware of the need to soon commercialize fuel cell technology, mostly pushed by
automobile manufacturers. And in Europe a multitude of supra-national, national,
regional and municipal programs and initiatives show that governments seem to
have finally understood that Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEV), Plug-in Hybrid
Electric Vehicles (PHEV) and Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) are all part of a wider
move towards e-mobility. Also, for the time being, Germany has developed the most
ambitious program towards deployment of hydrogen and fuel cell technology with a
total budget of 1.4 B€, even surpassing the European program. With the Clean
Energy Partnership (CEP) project the demonstration activities are now stretching out
across Germany.
The regions’ commitment assessment then showed that further regions are following
Germany’s quest towards rapid deployment, yet with somewhat lower impact as the
major industrial driver, the large automobile industry, is either lacking completely in
some regions or, caused by a different product portfolio (a product portfolio
comprising smaller cars does under the current policy framework not necessitate a
shift away from the internal combustion engines and/or fossil fuels), is not as
Executive Summary
Work Plan for Hydrogen Passenger Cars
9 / 49
committed as some of the German manufacturers. It is assumed that the fast
following regions will need about 3-5 years to step up to the pace of the German
level of ambition, which had set off with the public-private Transport Energy Strategy
(TES) as early as 1998.
Individual face-to-face interviews revealed that currently the most committed fast-
follower regions all dock to the German hub, an efficient starting point when it comes
to a continuous rollout of the required hydrogen retail infrastructure to refuel the fuel
cell passenger cars widely with high utilization. These regions are
§ Scandinavia with Denmark, Norway and Sweden,
§ northern Italy with the regions South Tyrol, Lombardy, Piemonte, Trento and
Veneto with the plan to connect to the German hydrogen refuelling infrastructure
via
§ Austria (Innsbruck),
§ the UK with London, the British Midlands, North East England and Wales and
§ the Benelux states with the potential hubs Arnhem/Nijmegen and Brussels.
Specifically the Scandinavian regions provide economically relevant conditions with
very high vehicle taxes for conventional cars with hydrogen cars (and other clean
alternatives) being exempted.
As result from the personal interviews it was also found that those German regions
already profiting or expected to profit from the national German policy support within
the National Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Innovation Programme (NIP), are
standing strong as public-private programs. All of these regions, comprising Baden-
Wuerttemberg, the City of Hamburg, Hessen and North Rhine Westphalia, have
stated that in principle they are willing to also participate in AIP 2011 to AIP 2013, if
the funding conditions are not too bureaucratic and are open for co-funding.
Yet, it was a message common to all regions that much work still needs to be done
to provide appropriate, efficient, reliable and safe approval and certification
procedures (e.g. in Italy refuelling of more than 35 MPa is not allowed, neither may
private persons refuel their fuel cell cars).
2.3 Automotive industry’s commitment
The analysis of automotive industry’s commitment to hydrogen and fuel cells was
undertaken in a phase when the economic crises of 2009 and the fresh wake of the
rush towards e-mobility, with PHEV and BEV clearly standing out, have changed the
scope of development priorities for some car manufacturers. The more astonishing
is the level of recent technical advancement in fuel cell systems technology and the
continuously strong commitment in vehicle deployment.
Virtually all basic technological challenges have been solved (see Figure 2 and
Figure 3), comprising
§ cold start capability,
Executive Summary
Work Plan for Hydrogen Passenger Cars
10 / 49
§ reduction of Pt use,
§ hydrogen onboard storage allowing driving ranges of up to 500 km and
§ system integration in a way that the next generation fuel cell systems have
become compatible with conventional drivetrains for integration in ordinary cars.
Figure 2: FCEV (passenger cars) performance overview
Figure 3: FCEV (passenger cars) performance overview
Executive Summary
Work Plan for Hydrogen Passenger Cars
11 / 49
Understanding that the technical hurdles can be overcome in series production, the
automobile manufacturers most committed to fuel cell passenger cars (see Figure 4)
have now begun to refocus their strategy to
§ support energy industry to develop an area-wide hydrogen refuelling
infrastructure being the bottleneck to wide public acceptance and
§ massive vehicle cost reduction by series production (see Figure 5).
Figure 4: Automobile manufacturers worldwide developing FC
passenger cars
Page 13
www.NextHyLights.eu
Number of global OEMs with FCEV programs
Non-exhaustive list: Daimler, Toyota, GM, Honda, Mazda, Nissan, Volkswagen, Ford, Fiat,
Mitsubishi, Kia, Audi, Hyundai, Suzuki, Peugeot, SAIC
Source: LBST compilation from H2 Mobility database count
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Specifically Asian automobile companies have already announced they can produce
fuel cell passenger cars offering the full customer convenience of ordinary cars
under market conditions for prices similar to conventional cars.
Executive Summary
Work Plan for Hydrogen Passenger Cars
12 / 49
Figure 5: FC vehicle costs for early market entry (Source: EU Coalition
Study 2010, LBST assessment)
FCEV costs by component [EURO]
11.384 11.384
10.000 6.000
21.081
5.678
38.565
9.516
22.228
6.296
14.274
3.212
3.194
2.970
0
20.000
40.000
60.000
80.000
100.000
120.000
140.000
1 2
EU
RO
Glider
Hydrogen tank
Other FC spec. parts
FC - periphery
FC - structure
FC catalyst
FC - MEA(w/o catalyst)
FC assembly
2010
123,828
41,954
2015
Assumption: Batches per OEM:1,000 (2010) and 10,000 (2015)
This commitment is visible in the fuel cell vehicle rollout strategies which have very
recently been updated with vehicle numbers produced reaching up to 10,000 in total
for individual manufacturers around 2015, also in Europe (see Figure 6). Automobile
manufacturers have also contributed clear statements that in order to make fuel cell
passenger cars a success in Europe, the framework conditions until 2015 must
develop favourably already in the demonstration phase, i.e.
§ clear Europe-wide political and widely harmonised support (fuel cell passenger
cars becoming an important part of the e-mobility strategies),
§ simplified funding conditions and procedures for demonstration projects,
§ policy support of efficient fuel cells and CO2-free hydrogen and
§ preferential treatment of the new technologies by relevant policy frameworks (e.g.
EC Directives) and/or fiscal instruments.
Executive Summary
Work Plan for Hydrogen Passenger Cars
13 / 49
Figure 6: Worldwide OEM’s FCEV rollout plans (passenger cars)3
Page 7
www.NextHyLights.eu
OEM roll-out plans
2010 20202015
Daimler
Fiat
PSA
Nissan Renault
Volkswagen
Ford
GM
Toyota
Honda
Hyundai
Kia
SAIC
641st GEN: A-class
2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2017 2018 2019 2021
2002nd GEN: B-class
2009
10,0003rd GEN: B-class
10,000 p.a.4th GEN: B-class
100,000 p.a.5th GEN: e.g. C-class
20H2CNG Panda
> 20Panda
< 10FCVs
20 X-Trail FCV
15 No further commercialization plans before 2020(+ 20 Passat Lingju with Tongji Univ.)
30 FCVs
110 Equinox 10,000 FCVs 100,000 FCVs 250,000 FCVs
>100 FCHV-adv (SUV) FCV Sedan
200 FCX Clarity ≤1,000
100 >100 p.a. 2,000 10,000 p.a. 30,000 p.a. 100,000 p.a.
15Roewe 750
50Roewe 750
Riversimple1 10 60 5,000 p.a.
307 CC FiSyPAC
Source: GM, LBST compilation
2.4 Energy industry’s commitment
The commitment of energy industry is best documented by its participation in the
German H2 Mobility initiative. Eight of the most relevant stakeholders in this field
have joined this activity, namely Air Liquide, Air Products and Linde for the industrial
gases industry, OMV, Shell and Total for the oil industry, EnBW and Vattenfall for
the utility industry. The current plans of this activity foresee the installation of up to
300 hydrogen refuelling stations in Germany by 2015, with about 70 stations being
in operation in Europe today (see Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9).
3 The numbers shown represent a careful assumption, as the focus of NextHyLights was to
mostly address the demonstration project phase. As some of the OEMs interviewed were reluctant in disclosing their internal numbers, the numbers tend to show only the lower limit of probable deployment numbers.
Executive Summary
Work Plan for Hydrogen Passenger Cars
14 / 49
Figure 7: Worldwide HRS rollout strategies
Page 1
www.NextHyLights.eu
2010
1564
Japan
1,000
2025
2008 2010
223
7
China
196
Worldwide HRS Roll-Out Strategies
# HRS # Vehicles served 2011
8
30
11
>50
South Korea
>100
12
20
2012
>500
2013 2014
30
>1,000
>2,000
25
2010
1
East Coast
2009 2010 2011
5200
7370
West Coast / CA
710
12
19
2012
>800
2014
4,30046
2011 2012 >2012
24
11
202020102009
500 50,000
2mio
2015
100?
Figure 8: HRS in operation in Europe – geographic distribution
Page 45
www.NextHyLights.eu
HRS in operation in Europe
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2 3 1 1 26 12 3 5 4 2 2 6 1 5 1 1
AT BE CH CZ DE DK ES FR GB GR IS IT NL NO SE TR
unknown
non-public
public
Source: LBST compilation
Executive Summary
Work Plan for Hydrogen Passenger Cars
15 / 49
Figure 9: HRSs in operation in Europe – timely development
Page 46
www.NextHyLights.eu
HRS in operation in Europe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
unknown
non-public
public
Source: LBST compilation
In general the maturity of hydrogen refuelling station technology allows this
deployment roadmap even if some technical details such as compressor reliability or
hydrogen metering still require some efforts but do not present major hurdles. Today
hydrogen provision is based on a variety of input energies (see Figure 10).
Executive Summary
Work Plan for Hydrogen Passenger Cars
16 / 49
Figure 10: HRSs in operation in Europe – hydrogen supply
Page 47
www.NextHyLights.eu
HRS in operation in Europe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
no information
steam reforming
pipeline
LH2 delivery, steam reforming
LH2 delivery, electrolysis
LH2 delivery
electrolysis, steam reforming
electrolysis
CGH2 delivery, electrolysis
CGH2 delivery
Source: LBST compilation
In order to bring the costs of hydrogen refuelling stations down, industry calls for
standardization at both station and component level. With the definition of
specifications for four hydrogen refuelling station sizes this process is already well
underway. Further cost reductions can be achieved by larger order numbers
(economies of scale) and technological developments.
Energy industry urges to move away from demo project scale towards market
preparation (‘market preparation projects’) for a commercial launch in 3-5 years. The
aspect of focusing and concentration of activities was put in focus by the majority of
industry stakeholders as they can no longer afford to dilute their efforts.
2.5 Work plan AIP 2011 to AIP 2013
Based on the information and data collected from automotive and energy industry,
and furthermore based on the EU Coalition Study, a sensitivity study has been
carried out to scope the size and extent of the coming demonstration projects. This
revealed that the Program’s ambition should point towards deployment and early
market preparation, aiming at e.g. about 300-350 fuel cell passenger cars and about
6 further hydrogen refuelling stations to be deployed as part of the coming FCH JU
demonstration projects across Europe. Then a total budget of about M€ 130 will be
required to finance this activity.
Given the limited FCH JU funds available for vehicle demonstration in AIP 2011 to
AIP 2013 of about M€ 53 (out of which about M€ 32 for passenger cars) and given
Executive Summary
Work Plan for Hydrogen Passenger Cars
17 / 49
that automobile industry will roll out their new fuel cell vehicle generation only after
2013, it will be the task of FCH JU to identify ways to
§ activate other sources of (co-)funding (e.g. national resources) and
§ adapt budgets and timelines (e.g. allow stretched vehicle rollout across project
duration).
Executive Summary
Work Plan and Roll-out Plan for Hydrogen Buses
18 / 49
3 WORK PLAN AND ROLL-OUT PLAN FOR HYDROGEN BUSES
3.1 Introduction
Hydrogen buses have the potential to provide ultra-low carbon public transport, with
no harmful local emissions. The technology is, however, not fully commercially
mature and will require further support in the coming years if it is to gain commercial
traction within the sector.
This document summarises the three core deliverables of the Work Package 3 of
the NextHyLights project which are aimed at mapping out a pathway to achieving
commercialisation within the hydrogen bus sector:
§ The “Hydrogen Fuel Cell Bus Technology State of the Art Review” – which
explores the state of hydrogen buses today and the technical and economic
prospects into the future
§ The ‘Commercialisation Strategy for Hybrid Fuel Cell Buses during and beyond
the JTI’ (deliverable 3.3), aimed at understanding the pathway to achieving
commercial maturity within the sector
§ The ‘Technical Work Plan for Hybrid Fuel Cell Bus Demonstrations during the
JTI’ (deliverable 3.2), aimed at delivering a coherent set of recommendations to
the JTI’ Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking on the make-up of the next
calls for hydrogen buses from 2011-2013
3.2 Key conclusions on hydrogen buses
Hybrid fuel cell4 bus technology provides one of the two viable zero emission bus
options for the urban transit market (the other is an all-electric drivetrain, in e.g.
Trolley buses).
The analysis of performance data indicated that fuel cell bus performance is
improving significantly over time. The table below provides a snapshot of the key
metrics:
Figure 11: Performance data of fuel cell buses
4 Hybridised fuel cell buses combine hydrogen-fuelled fuel cells with energy storage devices such as batteries,
super-capacitors or a combination of both.
Executive Summary
Work Plan and Roll-out Plan for Hydrogen Buses
19 / 49
Hybrid FC buses
(12m platform, low floor) Current Values Next Generation
Fuel Economy*
8 – 15 kg/100km
(up to 30% improvement over an
equivalent diesel route at parity
of calorific content)
7 – 12 kg/100km
(from 20% to 40% improvement
over an equivalent diesel route at
parity of calorific content)
Range 250 – 450 km 250 – 450 km
Availability** 55% - 80% ≥≥≥≥ 90%
Refueling Time*** 7 – 10 minutes/bus ≤ 7minutes/bus?(It may depend on tank size)
Diesel buses
(12m platform, low floor)
35 – 50 litre/100km
(approx. 11 – 15kg-
H2/100km at parity of
calorific content)
>> 400km
≥≥≥≥ 90%
<< 5minutes/bus
* Fuel economy depends on drive cycles. It is worth noting that there is no standard drive cycle for buses and hence these figures are indicative of best of class urban drive conditions only.
** Availability is defined as the percentage of days of actual service compared to the number of day of scheduled service (over the year).
*** Best of class performance range
The technology is expected to provide a more flexible and cost effective solution (on
a total cost of ownership basis) compared to trolley buses on new routes in the
period between 2015 and 2020. Further cost reduction is expected to lead to parity
with diesel bus total ownership costs beyond 2025. At this point the economics will
be dictated by the relative price of diesel versus hydrogen fuel for bus operators.
The key challenge facing the technology is to create sufficient demand in the short
term while the buses are more expensive than alternatives, in order to justify the
technology developments required to achieve the 2025 goal.
Figure 12: Total cost of ownership for different bus drivetrains today and
into the future – assumes a 12m bus platform. Error bars
represent upper and lower bound projections on ownership
cost. Cost figures are expressed in 2010 money value. Figures
assume an untaxed diesel fuel price of €0.58/litre.
Executive Summary
Work Plan and Roll-out Plan for Hydrogen Buses
20 / 49
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Eu
ro /
Km
/ B
us
Total Cost Of Ownership (TCO):
hybrid fuel cell buses in comparison with diesel , diesel hybrid and trolley buses (2010 - 2030)
Taxes on fuel
CO2 price
Overhead contact wire network - maintenance
Extra maintenance facility costs
Bus Maintenance Fee
Propulsion-related Replacement cost
Untaxed fuel Cost
Overhead contact wire network - Financing
Bus Financing and Depreciation
Hybrid fuel cell buses : cost projections over time
(150kW FC system)
2010-2014 2015-2018 2018-2022 ~ 2025-2030
Diesel buses
Diesel hybrid buses
Trolley buses
Alternative bus technologies
as at 2015 - 2030 cost projections
Cost projections based on a set of assumptions – please
refer to the contents of this study
When this is translated into a hydrogen bus deployment strategy for bus operators, it
is possible to demonstrate a positive business case. This is only apparent when
considering a) industry’s more optimistic projections for bus cost and performance
and b) favourable local circumstances (particularly the relative price of hydrogen and
diesel fuel for bus operators).
This is a significant conclusion as it suggests it is possible to justify investment in the
technology from today (when it is more costly than diesel alternatives) as the
benefits of running hydrogen fuel cell buses from 2025 onwards can have a
sufficient value to cover initial high costs.
Investing today in hybrid fuel cell buses, however, does represent a risk for transit
agencies as the technology's market competitiveness is only expected around 2025.
Before then any interested city/region will need to base their investment decisions
on local conditions, such as the general desire to contribute to the development of
the technology, a particular desire to be seen as environmental cities or the potential
to stimulate local economic development.
In addition to investment of this type, buses’ rollout over the period 2010 – 2020 will
require support as in this phase the technology will be more costly to operate than
diesel alternatives (on a total cost of ownership basis). The level of support is
predicted to drastically reduce over time - from a capital intensive regime between
2010 and 2015 to a lower cost regime between 2015 and 2020/5. This less
expensive regime could be supported using on-going Opex based subsidies, such
as differential tax rates, or a small subsidy per km travelled, rather than relying on
Executive Summary
Work Plan and Roll-out Plan for Hydrogen Buses
21 / 49
cumbersome capital schemes. The need for subsidies is expected to be low by 2020
and disappear even for competition with diesel vehicles by 2025.
Optimal rollout strategies in the 2011 to 2020 period would favour a deployment of
large fleets of buses in a very small number of cities in order to take full advantage
from economy of scale benefits for both infrastructure and buses.
In practice, the actual capabilities of European cities/regions to fund large bus
projects may require a less optimised approach. According to discussions with
interested players, even leading European cities/regions will be ready to deploy only
twenty to thirty buses each by 2015/6 and up to a maximum of 100 by 2020.
In order to achieve industry’s volume requirements to achieve cost reduction targets,
up to 6 cities will need to actively engage in large fleets of hydrogen buses by 2015
and some 15/20 by 2020.
From this perspective, the FCH JU can play a key role in initiating the
commercialisation process by supporting a first wave of large bus rollouts in the next
calls. Beyond this early rollout support, the JU could also consider a facilitator role
aimed at encouraging member states to consider hydrogen bus deployment
programs from 2015, as these are likely to be best deployed on a member state
level.
It is possible to make recommendations to the JTI’s Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Joint
Undertaking (FCH JU) on the make-up of the next calls for hydrogen buses from
2011-2013.
The study established that outstanding bus operational availability is a precondition
to benefiting from the very high fuel economy and other environmental benefits
available from hydrogen buses. Availability equivalent to diesel buses is,
furthermore, also a necessary condition for the bus operators before they commit to
the technology in large fleets.
The main short-term target for the next generation of hybrid fuel cell buses is
therefore to prove an operational availability equivalent to that of diesel buses. If
acceptable bus availability is not achieved within the current wave of
demonstrations, the FCH JU should require it as a precondition to any future large
scale bus deployment support.
This is a result expected from the current wave of bus demonstrations taking place
in Amsterdam, Cologne, Hamburg, and the other European cities included in the
EC’s CHIC project.
Assuming that the technology demonstrates diesel level availability in the current
demonstration projects, the next target is cost reduction. To this end, the FCH JU
should consider two new calls for bus projects:
§ Call 1: Support large roll out of buses (60 – 120 buses in, say, two to six
cities/regions, dependent on fund availability)
Large bus deployment (50 buses or over) is the next logical step towards cost
reduction for fuel cell bus technology. In this call the FCH JU should stimulate
Executive Summary
Work Plan and Roll-out Plan for Hydrogen Buses
22 / 49
large proposals from cities/regions with experience in hydrogen bus projects
and/or from cities/regions and bus operators with large fleets.
§ Call 2: Support small bus deployments to encourage the entrance of novel hybrid
fuel cell bus concepts into the market by commissioning new bus prototypes
Only few European OEMs are currently active in the fuel cell bus sector. It is
recognised that a wider range of competitors would accelerate the cost reduction
process of the technology (through competition) and also promote new business
opportunities on regional level. In this call the FCH JU is therefore recommended
to support the entrance into the market by a broader range of hybrid fuel cell bus
options, by supporting prototype development.
Executive Summary
Work Plan for “Other Vehicles”
23 / 49
4 WORK PLAN FOR “OTHER VEHICLES”
4.1 Objective
In the first phase of the project a listing of current “other vehicle” applications with
main focus on Europe and basic information about US fleets were compiled. Some
of the applications could be directly supported on a high level of details due to the
participation of industrial partners in NextHyLights. Other applications are based on
voluntarily provided data arising from direct interviews conducted with stakeholders.
In this way comprehensive information to the different application areas of “other
vehicles” was collected and received data sheets were assessed in detail. The
results and assessments were presented in a project meeting and it was commonly
agreed among the project partners to investigate in further details the three vehicle
segments material handling vehicles (Deliverable 4.2), boats/ships and municipal
sweepers (Deliverable 4.3).
Figure 13: Process of WP4
Listing of possible demonstrators
Request for detailed information
Received data sheets
Presentation of data
Common decision of all NHL project members
Status Quo Report: Delivery 4.1
Work plan for selected vehicles
Material Handling Delivery 4.2 Sweeper
Delivery 4.3
Ship/Boat Delivery 4.3
The largest vehicle groups in the other vehicle segment are forklifts, material
handling applications, scooters and boat/ships (ref. Fig. 2). The motivation for the
development of fuel cell (FC) applications are in view of extended driving range
compared to pure battery vehicles (e.g. forklifts) and zero emission technology
versus internal combustion engines (ICE) especially at locations where strong
emissions restrictions exist (e.g. on lakes).
Potential customers are industries, municipal institutions and private enterprises.
Executive Summary
Work Plan for “Other Vehicles”
24 / 49
The most common hydrogen storage system is the 350 bar compressed gas tank.
Additionally 200 bar and 700 bar gas tanks are used. Only some of the applications
like e.g. scooters or municipal sweepers can benefit from public bus or car hydrogen
refuelling stations. Material handling vehicles or forklifts, boats and ships need on-
site refuelling stations preferably close to the location of daily operation.
Figure 14: Vehicles considered in "other vehicles" worldwide
Vehicles considered in "other vehicles" worldwide
Total:41
47%
2%
32%
2%
12%
5%
MH Total
Sweeper
Boat/Ship
Truck Ice Cleaner
2-Wheelers
Submarine
4.2 Material handling (forklifts)
4.2.1 State of the art
The number of fuel cell (FC) forklifts has been reached about 1000 vehicles in US
and less than 20 vehicles in Europe until end of 2010. Larger fleet numbers are
operated only in US whereupon European projects have small scale character.
In US and Canada fuel cell manufacturers highly promote fuel cell forklifts and
prospect near cost benefits substituting battery forklifts. The main arguments for
battery substitution can be summarized to faster refuelling time, no power loss in
vehicle performance, higher lifetime and better utilisation of commercial space.
Finally fuel cell and hydrogen infrastructure purchasers get on an unbureaucratic
way 30% direct tax credits.
Europe has a high commitment from infrastructure providers for fuel cell forklifts but
large material handling companies are less active than in US. Discussions with
forklifts operators lead to the conclusion that battery vehicles work quite well and the
customers are satisfied with the technology. Better energy management in the
vehicles and advanced battery changing solutions are available and obviously avoid
productivity disadvantages at battery forklifts. Thus, end user motivation is rather
limited regarding fuel cells even due to higher financial risks and additional project
efforts.
Executive Summary
Work Plan for “Other Vehicles”
25 / 49
4.2.2 Economy
The driving motivation for operators of large fuel cell forklift fleets is the beneficial
total cost of ownership (TCO) potential of fuel cells. A better TCO in comparison to
battery vehicles is expected for 2015. Today the fuel cell vehicle costs are twice as
much as conventional ones and thus cost reductions in all components including
hydrogen supply and maintenance are needed. Hence, fuel cell forklifts can
currently not compete against conventional technologies. Early fuel cell forklift
demonstration projects are depending on financial supports.
Case studies show that high fleet numbers, high operating grades and use of
synergies positively affect the TCO (time horizon until 2015). For 2015 and beyond
commercial cost targets for stacks, fuel cell systems, maintenance, provided
hydrogen and entire vehicles were defined.
The prospected further cost reduction confirmed by European companies could
make fuel cells in material handling applications an economic option in the next
years.
4.2.3 Energy and emission analysis
Fuel cell fork lifts meet clearly the common goals of less emissions and lower
energy consumption if internal combustion engine (ICE) forklifts are substituted.
The equivalent energy consumption of fuel cell forklifts is considerably higher than at
battery vehicles but significantly lower than at ICE vehicles.
Figure 15: WtW-CO2 emissions and vehicle energy consumption
WtW - CO2 Emisssions and Vehicle Energy Consumption per year for 3 ton Forklift 3 Shift use(3000h/a)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Die
sel-I
CE
LPG-IC
E
CNG
-ICE
Bat
tery
(EU-M
ix)
Bat
tery
(Ren
ew.)
H2-
FC(E
-Ren
ew.)
H2-
FC(S
urplu
s)
H2-
FC(S
MR)
H2-
FC(E-E
U-M
ix)
Ave
rage
Car-IC
E
To
ns
CO
2 [
to/a
]
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n V
eh
icle
[M
Wh
/a]
CO2 per year
Consumption Vehicle
Executive Summary
Work Plan for “Other Vehicles”
26 / 49
Assuming 7.5kWh energy consumption per hour of a 3ton class 1 battery forklift, a
fuel cell forklift consumes 55-100% more (target 2020 and today) and an ICE forklift
350% more energy.
Both, fuel cell and batteries are zero emission technologies. Thus the direct
substitution of battery vehicles does not automatically contribute to a sustainable
CO2 reduction. Exceptions are given for applications with surplus, by-product or
renewable hydrogen. The highest potential for CO2 reduction is given by
substitution of ICE forklifts - which are mainly in load areas greater 2.5 t.
4.2.4 Market potential
Boundary conditions limit the market. Depending on the price drop in the next years
the market will be limited to a few thousand vehicles a year but will be increased if
further price reductions can be reached - especially at the purchase price for the fuel
cell vehicle.
4.2.5 Technical maturity
Currently forklift demonstrations did not prove the set targets so far. Thus, technical
maturity regarding lifetime, reliability, fuel economy and productivity advantage is
neither accurate nor validated. Lifetime is one challenge and is targeted to reach
10.000h until 2015 and finally 15.000h. An important user requirement is the
reliability of forklifts which is targeted to >95% until 2015 and finally >99% (today’s
data not yet validated).
The current fuel cell forklift demonstrator is typically a class 1 forklift in the 2.5 t
range and substitutes a battery system. For easier installation the fuel cell power
pack is designed for same size and dimensions as the lead acid power pack. The
PEM fuel cell has a typical power range of 10kW and operates with hydrogen from a
35MPa tank.
4.2.6 Recommendations
Recommendations for fuel cell forklift demonstrators providing as a whole the best
arguments regarding economic aspects, market potential, energy and emission
saving requirements, end user expectations (i.e. motivation to apply FCs) and
supporting the European fuel cell industry were worked out and reported in
Deliverable 4.2.
4.3 Municipal Sweepers
The municipal sweeper is currently demonstrated in Switzerland and will be ready to
high fleet demo in the next years. Customers will be public institutions. The fuel cell
sweeper can fairly eliminate noise, exhaust and greenhouse gas emissions which is
important especially in the sensitive inner-urban area. The efficiency advantage of
the fuel cell prototype in comparison to standard Diesel vehicle already safes 30%
energy per operating hour. However, only one fuel cell sweeper prototype exists and
projections are not yet accurate.
Executive Summary
Work Plan for “Other Vehicles”
27 / 49
Compact sweepers are mainly sold in Europe due to the historical growth of the
cities and the smaller roads. On average about 6-10 vehicles per 100.000
inhabitants are operating in European cities.
Recommendation is to implement the sweeper in other demonstrations where
capacities from infrastructure are available. Sweeper demo projects can be
integrated in car or bus projects as well and could be serviced by the same
hydrogen refuelling station.
4.4 Boats and ships
Boats are currently very promising applications and can well benefit from synergies
to on road fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen infrastructures. However, the current
prices of fuel cell boats and ships can not yet compete with conventional
technologies.
The fuel cell versions are more expansive than ICE boats. But several synergies to
automotives are given. Boats require approximately the same power outputs as fuel
cell cars, have minor packaging requirements and could use 70MPa fuel technology.
This could make the boat market to a very early follower of the automotive industry
and could generate additional volumes. However, the boat branch itself is too small
for having significant impacts on the fuel cell prices.
Recommendation is to support current research activities and infrastructure,
especially if the hydrogen refuelling station could be used for boats and on road
vehicles.
Executive Summary
Exploring Synergies of Hydrogen Infrastructure
28 / 49
5 EXPLORING SYNERGIES OF HYDROGEN INFRASTRUCTURE
5.1 Introduction, Motivation and Methodology
5.1.1 Introduction
The topic of this task was to collect input from each vehicle segment specific
hydrogen infrastructure work plan and roll-out plan (buses only). From these plans
information on e.g. installed interfaces, available pressure levels, hydrogen purity,
public accessibility could be derived.
Please note that this report sheds light on the topic of synergies with regard to
hydrogen infrastructure from different angels, the different views of industry
stakeholders from the various vehicle segments. It was taken care to avoid mixing
these views in order to preserve the clear perspectives and to better understand the
various needs and points of view.
5.1.2 Motivation
Recent discussions in California have addressed possible economic synergies of
hydrogen car and bus refuelling stations. Other voices were questioning the effects
of these synergies. It was the goal of this task to shed more light on this issue.
5.1.3 Methodology
In this task possible synergies specifically with a view to the FCH JU large-scale
lighthouse projects have been discussed viewing the issue from different angels and
for all vehicle sectors:
§ Strategic: Which are the key messages demo projects transport for each sector
and do these match?
§ Technical: Hydrogen refuelling stations for bus demonstration projects can be
shared by projects for cars. There are no technical obstacles in delivering
hydrogen at different pressure levels at the same refuelling station. There can
however be logistics-related challenges (e.g. accessibility of bus depots for other
users; localisation of refuelling points, etc.). Additional questions to be answered
were: “Are car refuelling patterns compatible with other vehicle markets such as
material handling?”, “Do scooters use identical refuelling nozzles as cars do?”,
etc.
§ Economic: Assessment of potential economies of scale and risk sharing benefits
caused by common utilisation (across vehicle segment borders) of hydrogen
refuelling stations in large-scale demonstration projects.
Main issues with pros and cons have been collected by the work package leaders
and discussed with the industry partners.
The results are now made available to be used for the development of the next
demonstration project calls (AIPs).
5.2 Hydrogen infrastructure synergies seen from the passenger cars perspective
5.2.1 Synergies with regard to the supply path
a) Hydrogen production and distribution
During the demonstration and early deployment phase of FCEVs operators of the
equipment for hydrogen production (e.g. electrolysers for the supply of ‘green’
hydrogen) and distribution (e.g. truck trailers and first pipelines) will be challenged
through low utilization of capacities. If the roll-out of various vehicle segments e.g.
passenger cars and buses takes place in parallel the hydrogen supply routes can be
used for both sectors in parallel thus increasing the utilization rate of the equipment
resulting in improved economy.
Furthermore, existing HRS can supply nearby HRS for another vehicle segment via a
short hydrogen pipeline.
Examples:
From a large bus depot with high hydrogen throughput a nearby HRS for passenger
cars could be supplied at little additional effort capacity-wise.
An existing HRS for passenger cars (e.g. Stuttgart Airport) could supply material
handling vehicles or other ground support equipment with quite limited efforts.
b) Regulations, Codes & Standards (RCS)
The various vehicle segments can also benefit from ground-braking activities done by
stakeholders of another vehicle segment with regard to the approval of hydrogen
production and distribution equipment.
If a local authority is already experienced in this field approval procedures should be
simplified and faster and therefore more efficient.
c) Levelling of demand
Synergy effects may also occur if the respective hydrogen production unit (e.g.
electrolyser, SMR, etc.) can be operated at a higher level of continuity. This might be
achieved if the hydrogen production capacity of a supply unit matches the supply
needs of complementary refuelling profiles, e.g. for passenger cars and for buses.
Reason is that in general buses are refuelled at night time whereas the peak demand
for passenger car refuelling is during the day.
5.2.2 Synergies with regard to the hydrogen refuelling station
a) Supply of components
One of the most important synergies to be utilized between the vehicle segments with
regard to hydrogen refuelling will be the supply of hardware components. This effect is
of specific relevance for applications with limited market volume e.g. ships / boats as
they may benefit from lower component costs which would not be achievable with
refuelling equipment specifically dedicated for this application.
It has to be mentioned here that in general passenger car refuelling (70 MPa) will take
place at another pressure level as refuelling of buses and ‘other vehicles’ (35 MPa).
Executive Summary
30
Therefore synergy benefits for refuelling nozzles will not appear between the
passenger car segment and the other segments and the synergies for other
components such as refuelling hoses, hydrogen metering, hydrogen storage, hydrogen
compression, etc. might be limited. Nevertheless, synergy effects leading to economies
of scale will occur at low pressure levels for e.g. tubes and fittings, valves, filters, etc.
b) Regulations, Codes & Standards (RCS)
A similar effect as for hydrogen supply can be expected for the approval of HRSs (see
5.2.1b)). Local authorities which are already experienced with the approval of HRS for
another vehicle segment will be more efficient (faster and less bureaucratic) than
without any prior experience.
c) Back-up solutions
HRSs, even if they serve vehicles from different vehicle segments, may rely on
common back-up solutions such as tube trailers or mobile refuelers. This option can
already be applied during the demonstration phase given short distances between the
HRSs to be served.
It should be more economic to provide one, a little bit more complex back-up solution
(e.g. 35 MPa and 70 MPa supply pressure) which serves several HRSs than to provide
separate back-up solution for each single HRS.
d) Energy station concept
During the NextHyLights industry interviews some of the hydrogen infrastructure
stakeholders suggested to combine HRSs to energy stations where stationary fuel cells
simultaneously provide heat and power for the refuelling station. This opinion was not
shared by others pointing to the challenges by combining two premature technologies
without leading to any sensible synergy effects.
e) Vehicles using same HRS
Most of the stakeholders do see rare and very limited opportunities for the utilization of
the same HRS for vehicles from various segments as the requirements are typically
quite different. As a fall back position especially during the demonstration phase (e.g. if
the main HRS is delayed or as an additional refuelling point) it would be exceptionally
acceptable.
HRS requirements for the passenger car segment:
§ 70 MPa
§ located at main roads
§ easily accessible
§ 24/7 operation
§ easy to use existing general payment system
§ gauged measuring system installed
§ high visibility
§ ideally integrated in conventional refuelling station
Executive Summary
31
§ clean and appealing
HRS for the bus / other vehicle segment:
§ 35 MPa
§ located at the bus depot / company premises
§ accessible only for authorized users
§ operation according to specific schedule
§ no payment system required
§ potentially no or only cheap measuring system
§ no need to be visible
§ integration in conventional refuelling would create disadvantages (e.g. difficult
manoeuvring)
§ reliable, robust and cost efficient
The criteria list clearly indicates that it would mean a significant compromise to build
and operate an HRS to be utilized by passenger cars together with vehicles from the
other segments.
In the case of buses and other vehicles the location of the HRS is of highest relevance.
If the refuelling station is too far from the regular operation of the vehicles e.g. a FC
forklift it will not be accepted by the operator.
Resulting from the preceding discussion it is recommended that in general each vehicle
segment should be supplied by dedicated HRSs limiting the synergies to back-up
solutions, approval and component supply benefits as well as to synergies with regard
to the hydrogen supply paths whereby the customer requirements can be fulfilled at its
very best.
5.3 Hydrogen infrastructure synergies seen from the buses perspective
5.3.1 Synergies with the passenger car segment
Two main differences between hydrogen bus refuelling facilities and those for
passenger cars are:
§ Scale of hydrogen demand – a refuelling facility supporting 20 passenger cars
might expect to fuel only 10-30kg of hydrogen per day whilst it would require
between 400kg and 600kg of hydrogen each day for a same number of buses.
Looking at fleets of 250 buses or over, a full hydrogen bus depot could require over
5 tonnes of hydrogen each day – e.g. twice the capacity of the largest refuelling
station concept investigated by the H2 Mobility study for passenger cars. There is
the need, therefore, to develop design concepts for larger scale refuelling in order to
allow bus operators to plan for larger hydrogen bus fleets in the near future.
§ Refuelling pressure – all existing hydrogen buses use compressed gaseous
hydrogen at 35 MPa, as opposed to the 70 MPa standard for passenger cars in
Europe. The cost of refuelling stations is considerably lower at 35 MPa compared to
70 MPa and 35 MPa refuelling is therefore emerging as standard pressure for bus
refuelling.
Executive Summary
32
Apart from these differences, hydrogen refuelling for car and bus applications clearly
shares similar issues on technology readiness and economics. In particular it is
possible to identify at least three core aspects shared among the two vehicle
segments:
a) Standardisation and modularisation of hydrogen components across different suppliers
Standardisation of refuelling station designs will bring benefits in term of reduced
capital and maintenance costs. Such process will reduce bespoke components (which
are typically expensive and costly to replace in case of breakdowns), ease personnel
training and offer economy of scale benefits in case of large sales volume.
According to industry’s prospective, bulk reduction in refuelling station capital cost is
not expected from technology breakthrough but rather from technology optimisation
and standardisation (e.g. volume).
Most components of a hydrogen refuelling station are in fact well known in the
industrial gas market but often require specialised hand-built components due to the
lack of a large demand. In addition, the capital cost of key hydrogen technologies (such
as hydrogen compression technologies and on site electrolysers, for example) as well
as hydrogen storage systems (for both liquid and gaseous hydrogen) is expected to
substantially decrease over time thanks to combined sales volume effects in the
passenger car and bus segments.
b) Benefiting from common hydrogen supply routes
As for refuelling station components, substantial reduction in the hydrogen production
and distribution costs is expected mostly from sales volume effects.
Clusters of hydrogen refuelling stations for both passenger cars and buses can be
served by same supply routes, favouring investments in high-capacity hydrogen
production and distribution technologies (such as novel liquid hydrogen tanker
concepts, high pressure tube trailers or pipeline constructions; each of which will
improve the overall performance of the hydrogen logistics system).
In earlier phases, volume benefits can also be achieved by sharing buses’ refuelling
infrastructures with commercial car fleets (such as taxis, company car fleets, etc.).
c) Develop sound safety records
The development of sound safety records is key for ensuring quicker approval
procedures and, hence, reducing risk and overhead costs for investors. Although the
existing hydrogen refuelling stations have demonstrated an excellent safety
performance, hydrogen refuelling projects are often subjected to regulation and safety
standards far more stringent than any other transport fuel due to the lack of extensive
safety records.
An increasing number of refuelling stations in both the passenger car and bus
segments would develop quicker outstanding safety records than for each segment
separately. Sharing operational knowledge between the two segments would also
develop more straightforward codes and standardisation procedures to streamline the
permitting process for any hydrogen refuelling facility.
Executive Summary
33
In addition to the points discussed above, it is possible to identify another possible
synergy with the passenger car segment.
Some bus manufacturers have considered 70 MPa refuelling also for fuel cell buses in
order to improve range (most notably for shifting bus refuelling from once a day to
every two days) and also for developing more space-challenged on-board storage
solutions (for double decker buses and articulated buses, for example).
So far, these have not been required by the market, but as the passenger car sector
develops solutions around 70 MPa, a case may emerge for new designs based on 70
MPa technology. This, in the long term, would have a clear influence on buses
refuelling station design as well.
5.3.2 Synergies with the special vehicle segment
The synergies discussed above apply also with the special vehicle segment (scooters,
forklifts, etc.) although in a far reduced fashion essentially due to the characteristics of
the segment itself – e.g. infrastructure needs and approval processes for captive
commercial fleets (such as forklifts) are generally different from those for buses or
passenger cars, for example.
In earlier phases, however, some cost benefits can be secured by sharing buses’
refuelling infrastructure with other vehicle fleets (such as scooters, forklifts, ships, etc.)
in any occasion where this would result feasible. Few possible scenarios can be:
§ Bus depots located close to large warehouses so that the same refuelling
infrastructure can be used for refuelling buses and forklift fleets.
§ Bus depots located close to channels or other water-ways so that the same
refuelling infrastructure can be used for refuelling buses and ships.
5.4 Hydrogen infrastructure synergies seen from the ‘other vehicles’ perspective
5.4.1 Hydrogen refuelling station demands for ‘other vehicles’
Table 1: Hydrogen refuelling station demands for ‘other vehicles’
HRS network onsite HRS fleet HRS dedicated HRS
scooter material handling sweeper passenger boat
onsite transport tractor submarine
ice cleaner leisure boat / yacht
HRS network: vehicles are dependent on a close network of public hydrogen refuelling
stations.
Onsite HRS: vehicles are not allowed driving on public roads, thus they need an inner
company / local refuelling station. This does not mean that onsite HRS could not be
shared with public access.
Fleet HRS: vehicles return regularly to the same location (e.g. depot) where they can
be refuelled.
Executive Summary
34
Dedicated HRS: vehicles not necessarily return to the same refuelling station but have
specific requirements to the refuelling stations (e.g. location at the sea-side / lake-side).
5.4.2 Synergies material handling vehicles
The earliest adopters of hydrogen vehicles in relevant numbers will probably be the
industry sector where hydrogen is already available due to the need for production.
Thus at least parts of the infrastructure are available or hydrogen is available as by-
product / surplus. These industries are:
§ Petrochemical
§ Chemical and Pharmaceutical
§ Electronic/Semi conductor
§ Iron/ Non-iron Metal
§ Welding and Cutting
§ Glass
§ Fats and Oils
§ Ammonia
§ Power Plants (Cooling Processes)
5.4.3 Synergies boats / ships
Boats could have synergies to on-road vehicles. Almost all harbours are accessible by
car or bus. Thus the same port hydrogen refuelling stations could be used.
Plans for installations like this are available in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.
Figure 16: Hydrogen refuelling station plans for Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
Executive Summary
35
Boats and cars are approximately in the same performance range. So, it is
recommended to promote technical synergies of boats and cars. Then boats can
benefit of the price drop in the automotive industry without being in need of a separate
refuelling station (grid).
5.4.4 Synergies sweepers
Compact sweepers are needed in almost every European city. Current and coming
demonstrations comprising the establishment of hydrogen refuelling infrastructure for
cars or buses could be combined with a compact sweeper demo.
Also for cleaning of large company sites, if hydrogen for other onsite vehicles e.g.
forklifts is already available, the sweeper could be introduced quite cost effective
saving on a separate infrastructure budget.
5.4.5 Synergies with other vehicle segments
Figure 17: Synergies with other vehicle segments
E.g. at airports all types of vehicles are operated synchronously. Thus, these places
surely are and will be among the first adopters of hydrogen vehicles.
BUSES (SWEEPERS)
ONSITE TRANSPORT
CARS (VANS)
Region
City Company
Company Fleets Delivery Service
Large company
Airport
Country
Executive Summary
36
Further examples where synergies between vehicle segments can be achieved are
companies with internal vehicle fleets or buses or delivery services with forklifts and
vans in operation.
Executive Summary
Regional Demo Project Location Assessment
37
6 REGIONAL DEMO PROJECT LOCATION ASSESSMENT
In the regions meetings a number of issues of strategic relevance have been raised by
the regions’ representatives. The most relevant ones are listed here either as outcome
and insights or as requests by the regions or in other words have been identified as
“gaps”:
§ Those regions interviewed have given an astonishingly solid testimony of their
commitment in the commercialization of hydrogen and fuel cell technology. Even
though it proved to be difficult to identify detailed budgets or exact timing of the
regions involvement for most regions, it can be stated in general that those regions
interviewed will be amongst the front running and the fast following regions.
However, it also became obvious that these regions depend on both a continuous
and clearly visible industry strategy as well as a solid European political program on
hydrogen and fuel cells for transport (with FCH JU as the responsible organization)
with continuously strong communication well across Europe.
§ The focus of the public sector is mostly on FC city buses as this is seen as a public
task and a potential measure to improve quality of life in population centres.
Furthermore, also the support of industry to rollout hydrogen infrastructure is
partially seen as a task for the public sector (e.g. Baden-Wuerttemberg,
Copenhagen, Hessen and the northern Italian regions).
In contrast, the picture with regard to the commercialization of FC passenger cars is
quite inhomogeneous. Whilst there is limited commitment of the regions outside
Germany to support the commercialization of FC passenger cars where the regions
will only feel obliged to provide the right set of policy support, the commitment of the
German regions with high OEM presence (Baden-Wuerttemberg, Hessen) to
support the automotive industry in the deployment of FC passenger cars is very
strong.
Finally, most regions strictly understand the commercialisation of other non-road
vehicles operated by fuel cells as industry’s responsibility whereby the regions again
feel obliged to provide the right set of policy support measures.
§ The reason for the staged approach to commercialise hydrogen and fuel cells
across Europe has been clearly pointed out (e.g. by Austria) to be a consequence
from the international automobile manufacturers concentrating their activities to
mostly Germany. Even though Tier 1 to Tier 3 automobile suppliers are keen to
contribute with technology and services, they are often fully dependent on the large
OEMs. This causes a missing industry push of the public sector in many regions at
the same level of commitment as in Germany or some German regions.
§ The regions are in need of instruments to keep up with the pace Germany has set at
national level. This is to avoid a large gap between the commitment and market
readiness between the different fuel cell vehicle markets in Europe, and, what is
more, to take care of a simultaneous hydrogen infrastructure roll-out which allows
vehicle customers to drive their cars across all over Europe (e.g. northern Italian
regions). This set of instruments or “toolbox” should help other countries or regions
to efficiently plan and support the infrastructure and vehicle roll-out. It specifically
comprises vehicle and infrastructure commercialization plans.
Executive Summary
Regional Demo Project Location Assessment
38
§ Until now, the lack of vehicles and missing commitment from energy industry to build
the hydrogen infrastructure has dominated the regions’ lack of interest to participate
in further demonstration projects for passenger cars (e.g. North Rhine-Westphalia).
As some major vehicle manufacturers have announced larger FCEV numbers to
become available (passenger cars and buses) only recently, the interest of the
regions seems to be stimulated (e.g. northern Italian regions and Scandinavia).
However, the activities are still limited to some OEMs, major other OEMs
continuously announcing their lacking interest in hydrogen and fuel cells, specifically
in Europe. The regions therefore would like to encourage FCH JU to contribute to
stimulate those OEMs who have continuously denied the importance of hydrogen
and fuel cells to also join the strategy.
§ In general, the European regions outside of Germany have shown large interest to
participate in the coming FCH JU calls, all of them lacking large industrial players
and/or sufficient support at national or regional level to play in the first row. The
German regions have also shown interest, but specifically pointing out their request
for less bureaucracy, higher funding rates and simpler access to the funds.
§ Partnerships of regions could act efficiently at different levels, e.g. municipal level
(e.g. Hamburg and Copenhagen; focus on buses), regional level (e.g. northern
Italian regions together with Austria and southern Germany or Rotterdam area with
Arnhem / Nijmegen area and Cologne area). Some of the regions have specifically
pointed out their interest in partnerships. Hence it could be worthwhile to consider a
regions brokerage event, organised jointly by FCH JU and HyRaMP in preparation
of each coming call.
§ Several regions have observed that the European ambition to reduce passenger car
fleet emissions down to 95 gCO2/km by 2020 does not provide sufficient pull for all
automobile manufacturers to fully engage in electric vehicle technology. They have
pointed out that an adaptation towards lower targets would stimulate more industry
commitment concerning fuel cells and hydrogen becoming the preferred technology.
§ In many of the regions visited hydrogen and fuel cell technology suffers from the
current buzz of activity in battery electric vehicles. They are missing a fair, open,
neutral and transparent discussion regarding this issue, especially at European
level. The regions’ representatives interviewed request improved communication
that these technologies are not competing, but complementing each other. They
furthermore warn about establishing a separate ‘FCH JU’ on battery electric
vehicles. Instead, both technologies should be dealt with in one organisation as e.g.
in the German NOW.
§ Some regions have proposed to enlarge the German Clean Energy Partnership
demo project beyond the German borders potentially with financial resources from
the FCH JU. This would have the advantages of directly building on already existing
know how and organisation structures as well as naturally growing the hydrogen
refuelling infrastructure.
§ Some regions claimed that the access to the results of European demonstration
projects co-funded from EC resources needs to be improved. As these results have
been achieved with the support of European taxpayer’s money they should be
publicly available widely. Furthermore, this would contribute to a more efficient use
of resources and speed up technological learning.
Executive Summary
Regional Demo Project Location Assessment
39
The objective comparison via the Regions Evaluation Tool underlines the results from
the qualitative analysis and the impressions from the regions interviews. Even if due to
the lack of data the regions tool cannot be applied to compare the full set of pre-
selected regions, it becomes clear that the intuitive selection has been within the range
of the outcomes verified by the tool.
The tool should be taken up by the FCH JU to objectively assess the suitability of
hydrogen regions in Europe to host hydrogen demonstration projects for the upcoming
calls for proposals until 2013.
Executive Summary
Social Acceptance of Hydrogen Demonstration Projects
40
7 SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF HYDROGEN DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
7.1 Social acceptance of hydrogen projects
Social acceptance is a necessary condition for a successful introduction of hydrogen as
a fuel. In this report, social acceptance is defined as (i) a lack of (explicit) public
opposition to the introduction of hydrogen as fuel in the transport sector and (ii) the
willingness to use hydrogen when the opportunity arises.
The current status of social acceptance of hydrogen has been assessed using existing
studies. The assessment has been carried out using a framework that distinguishes
three types of acceptance (Figure 18: Three types of social acceptanceFigure 18).
Figure 18: Three types of social acceptance
A review of the existing surveys of social acceptance in hydrogen projects indicates
that current social acceptance is good. Respondents typically have a positive attitude
towards hydrogen and show high levels of support. Associations with hydrogen are
neutral in majority, while positive and negative associations claim about equal
proportions.
Yet, the current, favourable situation might change when hydrogen applications will be
implemented on a larger scale. This study has reviewed the existing material,
compared them with the development of social acceptance for other technologies, and
provides recommendations to stimulate social acceptance for in the large-scale
demonstration phase and beyond.
7.2 Global acceptance: current status and outlook
Apart from the positive indicators of current social acceptance, many studies report a
low level of knowledge on hydrogen, implying that the public does not yet have an
informed view. Outreach activities have generally only informed the public in the vicinity
of demonstration projects, leaving the larger public uninformed.
The lack of knowledge in the general public implies that its opinion may easily change.
Hydrogen is currently an uncontroversial technology, which implies that the general
public has so far not had the need to seek information on hydrogen.
Executive Summary
Social Acceptance of Hydrogen Demonstration Projects
41
As experiences with other new energy technologies show, a technology may turn
controversial when experts disagree on aspects (e.g. appropriateness, risk) of the
technology. Comments from the critical parts of the expert community may be picked
up by the media and fuel an increased need for information on the part of the public as
the technology enters the commercialisation phase (and becomes more visible).
This may turn hydrogen into a controversial technology, with plummeting acceptance
ratings as a consequence. Although hydrogen has properties that fit political objectives
(e.g. energy independence) and enjoys the backing of the marketing skills of the car
industry, its uncontroversial image is not a given.
It is therefore recommended that measures are taken to monitor and mediate these
developments in the large-scale demonstration and commercialisation phases of
hydrogen technology. A survey among experts can help to identify potentially
controversial aspects. Joint study groups may then be formed to create a forum for the
various opinions and perform research on these aspects that produce factual
information. Finally, a survey that identifies longstanding values and beliefs in the
general public may increase understanding on how issues that experts consider
controversial may be perceived by the general public.
7.3 Local acceptance: current status and outlook
Concrete applications of hydrogen have met with good local acceptance. So far, only
one project has reported local resistance.
Local acceptance results from the interaction of a project with its context, moderated by
project management. Hydrogen projects are vulnerable to opposition in siting of
infrastructure, a mismatch between (local) expectations and the scale of
implementation, and a (bad) reputation of the operator/initiator. Although hydrogen
projects have so far been perceived as safe, safety is still a topic of major concern.
It is not foreseen that hydrogen will encounter additional issues with local acceptance
in the commercialization phase. Yet, a larger scale of implementation may lead to an
increase in the number of cases that encounter local opposition.
The first step in achieving local acceptance is to select a favourable site. An
assessment framework for site selection has been developed in the project HyLights. It
is recommended that the social acceptance section in this tool is expanded in
NextHyLights.
In addition to site selection, good project management can help to improve the fit
between a project and its context. Key to good project management is early
involvement of stakeholders. Engaging stakeholders helps to understand the local
context, and engaging stakeholders early in the process keeps the possibility open to
adapt the project plan to stakeholders’ concerns. As lack of communication and
engagement has shown to build distrust, engagement of stakeholders helps to build
trust among local stakeholders. Trust – in turn – is important to communicate the risks
that are associated with hydrogen projects in an effective way.
ESTEEM is a tool to engage stakeholders in new energy projects, including hydrogen.
It is recommended that ESTEEM (or a comparable tool) is used for the practical
organisation of the stakeholder engagement process.
Executive Summary
Social Acceptance of Hydrogen Demonstration Projects
42
7.4 Market acceptance: current status and outlook
Market acceptance is different for different types of vehicles, due to different market
structures. Yet, costs are a major barrier in every segment. As hydrogen moves into
the commercialisation phase, this barrier is expected to diminish due to technological
progress and economies of scale.
7.5 Recommendations for stimulating social acceptance
The following actions are recommended to improve social acceptance of hydrogen
technology.
Stimulate global acceptance, by:
§ Implementing a periodic survey to monitor expert and policy-maker opinions on the
application of hydrogen. The purpose of this survey is to spot and respond to
controversial issues.
§ Implementing a monitor of public attitude towards hydrogen and its applications. The
monitor should include a section on public values towards possible controversial
aspects of the use of hydrogen as a fuel.
§ Based on the results of the monitor, create a communication plan to inform and
educate the general public on hydrogen as a fuel. Communication efforts should
complement planned demonstration projects and develop as the scale of
implementation develops. It is likely that the public need for information increases
with the scale of implementation, possibly with a focus on controversial topics.
Stimulate local acceptance, by:
§ Selecting sites with favourable conditions for local acceptance. To this end, it is
recommended to extend the social acceptance section in the regions eligibility
assessment tool. Moreover, the eligibility score of potential sites in the tool should
be included in the selection procedure for the proposals for future hydrogen
demonstration projects.
§ Requiring hydrogen demonstration project plans to include a section on stimulating
local acceptance. This section should detail how local stakeholders will be engaged.
The design of the engagement process should be such that the objectives outlined
can be met.
Investigate market acceptance, by:
§ Conducting a study to establish a business case for various applications of
hydrogen.
Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Assessment of Hydrogen Vehicles
43
8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF HYDROGEN VEHICLES
This report presents the environmental impact assessment for the deployment of
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCEVs) subdivided in the segments passenger vehicles,
special vehicles and buses. Separate chapters present the results for the carbon
dioxide emission reduction potential related to the deployment of FCEVs for all vehicle
segments. In addition, the potential for air quality improvements for the bus segment is
presented. The results in this report are based on information available from recent
international fuel cell demonstration projects and from bilateral dialogues with the
members of the NextHyLights consortium.
Carbon dioxide emission calculations are performed for demonstration to large
deployment stages of hydrogen vehicles. Under the assumption of low market
penetration up to 2020, the expected CO2 emission reductions are of marginal impact,
depending on the vehicle segment. Although carbon dioxide emissions will slowly start
decreasing within the next decade, the choice of infrastructure setup for hydrogen
production, delivery and distribution via refuelling stations could either reduce
emissions moderately compared to those of ICE vehicles, or could importantly reduce
emissions compared to business as usual on the long-term until 2050.
8.1 Passenger vehicles
A large deployment of FCEV passenger vehicles, suitable with hydrogen production
and distribution by SMR and through compressed hydrogen pipelines respectively, may
contribute to carbon emissions reduction. Higher carbon abatement can be achieved if
CCS is implemented or if methane originates from zero emission sources, such as
biomass. Hydrogen produced by electrolysis powered by electricity from the grid will
not contribute to emissions reductions unless dedicated renewable energy sources
(RES) are utilized. Technical improvements of conventional vehicles could lead to 44%
of emissions reduction. In addition to the latter, the rapid deployment of HFC
passenger vehicles supplied in hydrogen by low carbon well-to-tank routes, might
contribute to further 292% reduction by 2050 compared to business-as-usual (BaU)
(see figure A). Making hydrogen refuelling stations (HRS) suitable to deliver hydrogen
produced from zero emissions methane will become a challenge when HFC vehicles
start to commercially deploy.
Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Assessment of Hydrogen Vehicles
44
Figure 19: Carbon dioxide emissions in the passenger vehicles segment
until 2050
8.2 Niche Vehicles
Hydrogen forklifts represent a high potential for emissions reductions. Although values
for the European forklift’s stock are not available, based on sales figures of the forklift
market it is possible to estimate the carbon emissions reduction. When hydrogen is
produced by any of the SMR pathways or electrolysis with renewable energy sources,
carbon emission reductions are possible. Hydrogen production via electrolysis powered
by grid mix electricity does not represent a tangible pathway to achieve emission
reductions.
8.3 Buses
Current demonstration projects for buses mainly produce hydrogen via the SMR
process. In the long-term carbon dioxide emissions will decrease even if hydrogen is
still produced by conventional SMR. Hydrogen production via electrolysis supplied with
high carbon power sources is one of the less attractive routes to achieve carbon
dioxide emission reductions. The market arrival of diesel hybrid vehicles might strongly
contribute to emission reductions beyond 2015, however, this is beyond the scope of
this report. In the mean time, deployment of HRS for HFC buses appears an attractive
option to obtain more expertise and knowledge on hydrogen technologies. The use of
HRS to refuel both passenger vehicles and buses seems to be an important way to
reduce emissions while getting passenger vehicle users familiarized with the
technology.
Germany, France, Italy and the UK combined have the biggest share of the passenger
vehicle and bus markets in Europe (~72%). Upcoming large-scale demonstration
activities for FCVs are highly anticipated to take place in these countries (to a lesser
extent in Italy and France), hence higher carbon emission reductions might be
expected in these countries earlier than the rest of Europe in the mid-term. In the long
term, technology transfer and commercialization plans of HFCVs to spread this
Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Assessment of Hydrogen Vehicles
45
technology will depend on OEMs strategies and infrastructure availability. Initiatives
such as H2 Mobility, looking into a near-future hydrogen infrastructure rollout in
Germany, together with the existing and forthcoming FCH JU lighthouse projects in
Scandinavia and elsewhere in the EU will represent the backbone for a gradual spread
out of infrastructure to adjacent countries.
Compared to other emission sources, such as industry and power plants, road
transport is a major source of health relevant air pollution. Since HFC vehicles do not
emit air pollutants via tailpipe their introduction will improve air quality and health.
Air quality assessments show that substituting diesel by HFC-buses has the largest
benefits on air quality and health in city centres, because of: (1) the dense population
and consequently large number of people exposed; and (2) the municipal building
structure, with “street canyons”, limiting dilution of exhaust gases, and associated
relative high impact on the atmospheric concentration of pollutants.
Even the advanced conventional bus fleets will in 2025 emit amounts of pollutants with
non-negligible impact on local air quality and related health impacts. Consequently, the
deployment of hydrogen buses will improve air quality, and related health benefits. For
the city of Amsterdam, the maximum emission reduction potential was estimated at
about 90 tons for NOx and about 0.55 ton for PM10 (see figure B). Indicatively, these
reductions would correspond to a decrease of about 10% of all transport related air
pollution in the city centre of Amsterdam. For London, the maximum achievable
reductions were estimated at about 2,000 tons for NOx and about 12.5 tons for PM10.
Figure 20: Prevented emissions of NOx and PM10 in 2025 as a function of
the assumed fleet share of HFC buses in Amsterdam
Executive Summary
Regulatory Requirements for Hydrogen Demonstration Projects
46
9 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR HYDROGEN DEMONSTRATION
PROJECTS
Hydrogen demonstration projects need to meet certain regulatory requirements. These
regulatory requirements relate both to vehicles and infrastructure (refuelling stations).
Of these two, regulatory requirements for vehicles form the lesser barrier.
Regulation 79/2009 has incorporated hydrogen vehicles in the EU-wide whole vehicle
type-approval framework, streamlining the type-approval of hydrogen vehicles.
Approval procedures for hydrogen infrastructure ensure acceptable safety levels and
minimise impact on the environment. They also claim resources in the project and
impact lead times. Approval procedures are not (yet) harmonised across Europe.
Consequently, the FCH JU and project partners in hydrogen demonstration projects
have an interest in selecting countries that have a favourable, i.e. relatively brief and
simple approval procedure.
The analysis done for this report revealed that Germany and the Netherlands have the
most favourable approval procedures, closely followed by Norway and Austria.
Compared to the procedures in these countries, the procedures in Italy and France
could benefit from more clarity (in terms of specific requirements for hydrogen stations)
and – especially in the case of France – simplification (in terms of steps in the
procedure and the number of authorities involved).
Lead time in Germany is relatively short, the procedure is straightforward and specific
guidelines for hydrogen are available.
The situation in the Netherlands is similar to that in Germany. Lead times are
comparable and the Netherlands also has hydrogen-specific national guidelines
(although not legally formalised). The procedure is straightforward and handled by a
single authority.
Norway has a short lead time (albeit with quite a large uncertainty) and a very
straightforward procedure. The information requirements in the procedure are based on
national regulations and guidelines, which are not hydrogen-specific. Hydrogen-specific
regulations and guidelines would make the requirements for a station clearer.
The situation in Austria is also relatively favourable. Main strength of the Austrian
procedure is simplicity. Although the lead times in Austria are currently quite long,
significant reductions are expected when more experience with hydrogen will be
developed. Austria does not yet have hydrogen-specific guidelines in place.
The lead time of the approval procedure in Italy is comparable to that of the previous
three countries. Substantial reduction is expected when experience is gained with
hydrogen. However, the procedure also proved to be complex. New, hydrogen-specific
regulations have recently been adopted that possibly improve the Italian approval
procedure. Future projects and experiences will tell whether the new regulation is
indeed an improvement.
The approval procedure in France is based on regulation for industrial plants with
hydrogen-related activities. Expected lead times are relatively long and it is unclear
whether more experience with hydrogen refuelling stations will reduce lead times. The
procedure is complex and involves many authorities, as well as the public.
Executive Summary
Regulatory Requirements for Hydrogen Demonstration Projects
47
As argued in the project HyApproval, a European Regulation may simplify the current
situation for hydrogen refuelling station approval procedures in Europe. As long as that
situation is a desire rather than reality, partners intending to deploy a hydrogen
demonstration project will have to monitor and follow nationally defined approval
procedures.
In the past decade, the various actors have gained experience with how to interpret
national guidelines, leading to more knowledge and reduced lead times. It can be
expected that this process will continue and that the approval for a hydrogen refuelling
station will eventually be no more complex than the procedure for a regular station.
Executive Summary
Policy Support Options for Hydrogen Buses in Public Transport
48
10 POLICY SUPPORT OPTIONS FOR HYDROGEN BUSES IN PUBLIC
TRANSPORT
This study aims to inform about policies that can be deployed to accelerate the roll-out
of hydrogen buses. Hydrogen buses offer environmental benefits in terms of global
warming, air quality and noise reduction. The study is targeted at the time window up to
2025, with cumulative bus numbers in European cities increasing to about 2000. In this
phase, in which hydrogen buses will still be more expensive than conventional buses,
policy support is crucial to reach the stage of mass production and the associated
lower external costs to society.
The policy support measures presented are expected to be relevant for the Fuel Cell
Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH JU), as well as for governments on the local,
national and EU level.
The study points out that support for hydrogen buses requires the direct contribution of
public funds to alleviate investment cost – in contrast to the passenger car segment
where a part of the additional cost can be also absorbed by car drivers. Consequently,
local and national policymakers should be prepared for public financial support for
hydrogen buses in the early market phase, that continues till about 2025. For the
industry a switch to hydrogen would require a clear perspective of large future demand
for hydrogen buses.
The policy support options presented here focus on the middle two phases of the roll-
out plan for hydrogen buses, as defined in Workpackage 3 of the NextHyLights project:
§ Demonstration phase (2010-2013) to prove the technical and operational feasibility
of hydrogen buses.
⇒ One-off order phase (2010-2015), with cost reductions via economies of scale,
based on a joint tender of a few leading cities.
⇒ Continues expansion phase (2015-2020/2025), with a growing number of cities
deploying hydrogen buses up to a cumulative fleet of about 2 thousand around
2025.
§ Competitive phase (after 2020/2025) when hydrogen buses are expected to be cost
competitive with conventional buses.
⇒ Up to 2015: one-off order
In the early roll-out phase till 2015 a number of cities is expected to pool demand in a
joint tender for a one-off order of a few hundreds of buses. This approach of pooling
demand enables larger production volumes and associated economies of scale,
resulting in lower bus cost. Measures could still take place on EU level as this is still
considered support of the innovation phase of hydrogen technology. In this phase
policy support measures can be divided in three forms, that ideally should be deployed
all:
(1) Coordination of the pooling of demand and resources in various cities.
(2) Reduction of investment risks. Governments can share in the risk of purchasing
hydrogen buses, e.g. in the form of loan guarantees, allowing bus operators to acquire
low interest loans and thus reduction of costs.
Executive Summary
Policy Support Options for Hydrogen Buses in Public Transport
49
(3) Investment subsidies to cover (part of) the capital expenditure will be crucial.
Subsidies could involve coordinated resources at the local, national and EU level.
⇒ 2015-2025: continuous expansion
In the subsequent phase of continuous fleet expansion, till a few thousand hydrogen
buses around 2025, direct public financial support will remain essential to cover the
(narrowing) cost gap with conventional vehicles. EU support will be unavailable as
production volumes increase and market introduction support is outside the scope of
EU R&D policy. That means that policy support needs to be initiated at the member
state level.
This vision was confirmed by an analysis of the relationships between bus operators
and their stakeholders, as well as by questionnaires send out to 5 European cities
deploying hydrogen buses (Bolzano, Hamburg, Oslo, Amsterdam, Barcelona). The
current (conventional) bus system in all cities cannot be completely funded by the ticket
fares, with the local government making up the difference. Consequently additional
public support - on top of the current subsidies - is the only way to bridge the financial
gap between the hydrogen bus and the conventional alternative. Part of the financial
support could be shifted from the local to the national level, where the relative impact
will be smaller, for example by tax exemptions for vehicle purchasing and fuel.
Policymakers may consider to finance the support of hydrogen buses by using
revenues from the taxation of other vehicle segments (e.g. through a congestion
charge).
Furthermore governments could support hydrogen buses by providing a consistent
long term market perspective for ultralow emission technologies, reflected in low
taxations in line with their lower external costs to society. However, it takes time for
legislation to pass through political instances. Therefore, member states should be
already aware of the situation. Measures to implement the required support schemes
should start already now.