







































Habib & Butler /Future Technology                                                                                          August 2022| Volume 01 | Issue 02 | Pages 
25-33 

25 

 

 

 

Review 

Environmental and economic comparison of 

hydrogen fuel cell and battery electric vehicles 
A K M Rubaiyat Reza Habib1*, Karyssa Butler2 

1Department of Electrical Engineering, Arkansas Tech University, 1811 N Boulder Ave, Russellville, AR, 72801, USA 
2Department of Mechanical Engineering, Arkansas Tech University, 1811 N Boulder Ave, Russellville, AR, 72801, USA 

A R T I C L E   I N F O 
 

Article history: 
Received 10 May 2022  
Received in revised form 
20 June 2022 
Accepted 24 June 2022 
 
Keywords: 
Battery electric vehicles, Environmental, 
economic 
 
 
*Corresponding author 
Email address:  
rubaiyat.reza@gmail.com 
 
DOI: 10.55670/fpll.futech.1.2.3 

A B S T R A C T 
 

The study of alternative energy sources has accelerated over the years. Further 
investigation of alternative energy sources is important for reasons that are 
unknown and unthought about by people around the world. Many sources of 
energy that are not renewable energy sources are harmful to the environment 
and are causing a high rise in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. If society would 
learn more about the increase of carbon emissions and their effects on the 
environment, then there could be a drop in these emissions. Transportation has 
been one of the largest sectors of GHG emissions and has not seen a large 
enough decrease to be substantial enough to better the environment. The 
transportation sector of the GHG emissions could be easily fixed with the use of 
hydrogen fuel cells or battery electric vehicles. The idea of fuel cell and battery 
electric cars has been around for decades but has only recently become popular. 
The increase in these vehicles will cause a decrease in greenhouse gasses 
produced by transportation. This paper compares hydrogen fuel cell and 
battery electric vehicles economically and environmentally. 
 

 

 
1. Introduction  

On a global basis, there are approximately one billion 
vehicles on the road today. According to recent projections, 
this number could climb to 1.5 billion automobiles by 2020. 
The continuous economic expansion and industrial 
development of China and India are primarily responsible 
for this considerable growth. Even though the car ownership 
rate in these two countries is still fairly low, both markets 
have recently become quite important for the global 
automotive sector. China is already the single largest market 
for numerous automobile manufacturers [1]. The current 
transportation system, which relies primarily on fossil fuels, 
is unsustainable [2]; more than 95% of the fuel utilized for 
propulsion is derived from fossil fuels [1]. On-road carbon 
dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx), and particulate matter 
(PM) are disproportionately represented by conventional 
HDVs [3]. In the United States, medium and heavy-duty 
vehicles account for roughly 23% of greenhouse gas (GHG) 
emissions [4]. Heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDVs) are also 
responsible for 40–60 percent of NOx and PM emissions. 
Climate change, pollution, and the resulting health effects 
are just a few of the key concerns associated with the 
increase in combustion emissions. Because of the 
widespread use of HDVs, greenhouse gas emissions from the 
freight transportation industry are a substantial contributor 
to climate change, pollution, and poor health effects [3]. 

Greenhouse gas emissions are not the only reason that 
renewable energy sources are needed in the transportation 
vector. Oil depletion is going to play a big role in removing 
internal combustion engines from the roads. Even the most 
modern conventional powertrain alternatives will not be 
able to prevent an increase in overall crude oil demand by 
the transportation sector, which will eventually contribute 
to an increase in world CO2 emissions. Because of a 50 
percent rise in demand for oil, CO2 output is unacceptably 
high in terms of cost, environmental impact, and energy 
security. Every automotive technology strategy must 
incorporate the substitution of fossil fuels as energy carriers 
[1]. Transportation end-use sector emissions come from a 
variety of sources, including automobiles, trucks, 
commercial airplanes, and railroads, among others [4]. 
Figure 1 portrays the overall percentage of GHG emissions 
of each automobile. As a result, the development and 
adoption of more sustainable alternatives are being 
promoted [2]. Alternatives to diesel engines include battery 
electric HDVs and hydrogen fuel cell HDVs. Each HDV 
powertrain, whether it's a diesel engine HDV, a battery-
electric HDV, or a hydrogen fuel cell HDV, has its own set of 
benefits and drawbacks [3]. 

 

 

 

Future Technology 

Open Access Journal 

https://doi.org/10.55670/fpll.futech.1.2.3 

 

 

 

 

August 2022| Volume 01 | Issue 02 | Pages 25-33 

Journal homepage: https://fupubco.com/futech 

 

ISSN 2832-0379 

https://fupubco.com/fuen
https://doi.org/10.55670/fpll.futech.1.2.3
https://fupubco.com/futech
https://fupubco.com/


Habib & Butler /Future Technology                                                                                          August 2022| Volume 01 | Issue 02 | Pages 25-33 

26 

 

 
 
 

2. Impact on the environment 

The impact on the environment is a large hurdle to 
cross when dealing with any type of transport vehicle. If cars 
were to keep using internal combustion engines, then the 
carbon emissions would continue to increase based on the 
increase in population and the demand for transportation. 
This would mean that by 2100 the temperature increases of 
the world based on global warming could be close to 3oC [5]. 
This means that in the parts of the world that already get up 
to 54oC (130oF) it could rise to temperatures that are not 
safe for the human body to withstand for more than a few 
hours. If no amendments were set into place to improve 
climate change, many of the beautiful parts of the world such 
as the rainforests and other woody areas, would not be able 
to thrive, which would then cause multiple species of plants 
and animals to become extinct. In 1970 the Clean Air Act was 
passed by the congress of the United States. This caused a 
limit to the pollution and greenhouse gas emissions for 
many different companies. This act is not the best way to 
decrease greenhouse gasses and global warming, but it is a 
way to lower what could have been if nothing were to 
change [6].  

3. How the vehicles are powered 

i. Battery Electric Vehicles: The way the BEV runs are a 
simple circuit. The electricity stored by the battery runs 
straight to the motor. From this, the well-to-wheel efficiency 
is very high. The electricity goes straight from the grid to the 
battery to the motor [7]. There is no transportation 
necessary for this well-to-wheel efficiency. The issue with 
this model is that it does not directly show where the 
electricity is starting from. If the electricity is produced at a 
plant that burns coal, then the process is not fully free from 
producing greenhouse gasses [8]. As of 2021, electricity 
production from renewable energy sources has been rising, 
but the bulk of electricity is still created by coal and natural 
gas. Both sources still create a large amount of carbon 
emissions, even though natural gas creates half as much as 
burning coal does [9]. This means that the BEV does not 
totally reduce the carbon footprint as some consumers may 
think. Carbon emissions could easily be lowered if electricity 
production switched to renewable energy sources such as 
solar panels or wind turbines.  
 

 
 
 
 
Both options are increasing in efficiency and production, so 
the switch to renewable energy is predicted to happen 
within the next ten to twenty years [5].  
ii. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles: Hydrogen fuel cell 
vehicles (HFCV) are powered purely by hydrogen gas. The 
hydrogen powers the electric motor by separating the 
electrons inside the fuel cell stack. Inside the fuel cell stack 
is an anode that forces the electrons to separate from the 
hydrogen molecule. These electrons then follow a different 
path than the protons that can slip through the anode. While 
the protons pass through the anode and move through an 
electrolyte to the other side of the cell where there is a 
cathode, the electrons pass through an external circuit, 
creating electricity. The proton then passes through the 
cathode and combines with the oxygen in the air and the 
electrons [10]. This process explains why the only output of 
the hydrogen fuel cell is water (H2O) and heat. It is notable 
that water vapor is still a greenhouse gas and is the most 
abundant greenhouse gas [7]. However, water vapor is 
essentially a harmless greenhouse gas since it does not stay 
in the atmosphere if other greenhouse gasses such as carbon 
dioxide. Additionally, carbon dioxide holds heat in the 
atmosphere much longer than water vapor. This is not only 
because it stays in the atmosphere longer, but because it 
potently absorbs and radiates this heat [11].  

4. Cost 

Kromer and Heywood at MIT have analyzed the likely 
costs of various alternative vehicles in mass production [12]. 
They conclude that an advanced battery EV with a 320 km 
(200 miles) range would cost approximately $10,200 more 
than a conventional car, whereas an HFCV with a 560 km 
(350 miles) range is projected to cost only $3,600 more in 
mass production. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) 
with only 16 km (10 miles) all-electric range would cost less 
than the HFCV, but plug-in hybrids with 100 km (60 miles) 
range are projected to cost over $6,000 more than 
conventional gasoline cars. If we extrapolate the Kromer and 
Heywood data for BEVs to 480 km (300 miles) range, then 
the BEV would cost approximately $19,500 more than a 
conventional car in mass production [7]. For example, Pedro 
and Putsche [13] estimate that using wind energy, hydrogen 
production costs alone will amount to US$ 20.76 per tank to 

Figure 1. The overall percentage of GHG emissions of each automobile [2] 



Habib & Butler /Future Technology                                                                                          August 2022| Volume 01 | Issue 02 | Pages 25-33 

27 

 

drive our FCV 300 miles compared to US$ 4.28 “per tank” (or 
per charge) for the BEV. The cost per tank is based on the 
Padro and Putsche estimate of US$ 6.49 per kg to produce 
the 3.2 kg of hydrogen necessary to power the FCV for 300 
miles and US$ 0.055 cents per kWh to provide the 77.9 kWh 
required to power the BEV for 300 miles [13]. Maintaining 
the same performance assumptions, we next compare the 
projected relative weight, volume, and unit costs of each 
vehicle's propulsion system. The results are reported in 
Tables 1 and Table 2. 

Table 1. Estimated weight, on-board space, and mass-
production cost requirements of the FCV propulsion system 

[14] 

 
 
Table 2. Estimated weight, on-board space, and mass-

production cost requirements of a BEV propulsion systems 
[14] 

 
When interpreting the tables, it is important to note 

that the limiting factor in HFCV performance is the amount 
of power that can be delivered, which affects vehicle 
acceleration and hill-climbing. For BEVs, the limiting factor 
is the amount of energy that can be delivered, which affects 
the total vehicle range. This means that the scaling factors 
for weight, volume, and cost for the HFCV are based on how 
many Watts (of power) that can be delivered per unit of 
weight, volume, or cost. For the BEV it is the amount of Watt-
hours (of energy) that can be delivered per unit of weight, 
volume, or cost. The cost of vehicle fuel (electricity or 
hydrogen) per km driven will depend on the fuel price per 
unit of energy and the vehicle fuel economy. The residential 
price of electricity is projected by the DOE’s Energy 
Information Administration in their 2009 Annual Energy 
Outlook to be approximately 10.8 cents/kWh during the 
2012–2015 period, which corresponds to $31.64/MBTU 
[15]. The NRC estimates that hydrogen will cost 
approximately $3.30/kg by the time of hydrogen fueling 
system breakeven or $29.05/MBTU. Costs of fuel per unit of 
energy will be comparable once the hydrogen infrastructure 
is in place. Initially, without government subsidies, 

hydrogen costs would be much greater before there are 
enough HFCV on the road to provide energy companies with 
a reasonable return on investment. In addition, many BEV 
owners may receive lower off-peak electricity rates if they 
charge their batteries at night. As shown in Table 3, the cost 
per mile for a BEV owner with the off-peak rate of 6 
cents/kWh will be approximately half the cost of hydrogen 
fuel per km for an HFCV owner. This lower fuel cost when 
off-peak rates are available would help to offset the higher 
initial price of the BEV. But the buyer of a 320-km (200-mile) 
BEV would still pay $1042 more for that vehicle including 
off-peak electricity at 6 cents/kWh to run it for 15 years than 
the purchaser of a 560-km (350-mile) range HFCV would 
pay including 15 years of hydrogen fuel. A buyer of a 480-
km (300-mile) BEV would spend $11,315 more over 15 
years. 

Table 3. Estimated fuel cost (cents per kilometer) for 
battery EV drivers and fuel cell EV drivers [15] 

 
5. Fueling Infrastructure Cost 

The 2008 National Research Council report estimated 
that a hydrogen fueling station based on reforming natural 
gas would cost approximately $2.2 million when produced 
in quantities of 500 or more [1]. This station would support 
approximately 2300 HFCV, so the average infrastructure 
cost per HFCV would be $955. The initial stations will cost 
more, on the order of $4 million each, which represents a 
cost of $1700 per vehicle when HFCVs were first introduced 
[7]. To disseminate the use of fuel-cell vehicles as well as to 
minimize the costs, it is necessary to determine if hydrogen 
production, storage, and distribution methods were playing 
a crucial role [16]. In 2050, production and distribution in 
liquid form will reduce the price of hydrogen when 
compared to today's preferred hydrogen gasification 
technology [17]. Adding a residential Level 1 (120 V, 20 A) 
charging outlet is estimated to cost $878 by Idaho National 
Laboratory [12], but this capacity would require charging 
times of 43 h for 320 km range and 78 h for 480 km range. A 
higher capacity Level 2 outlet (240 V, 40 A) would cost about 
$2150 for a home residence and $1850 for a commercial 
outlet. This would reduce charging times to 11 h for 320 km 
range, and 19 h for 480 km range. A residential charging 
outlet could, in principle, be used to charge two or more BEV, 
since only one BEV in a family would likely be required to 
travel the long distances in a particular period of a day or 
two. A Level 2 outlet would most likely be unable to service 
more than one or two BEV in a business day. The expected 
capital costs for long-range BEV charging outlets, therefore, 
varies between $880 and $2100 per BEV. While the capital 
costs per vehicle are comparable once fueling systems are 

Component Weight 
(kg) 

Volume 
(l) 

Cost 
(US $) 

Reference 

Fuel Cell 617 1182 23,033 ADL (2001) 

3.2 kg 
storage tank 

51 215 2,288 Padro and Putsch 
(1999) 

Drivetrain 53 68 3.286 AC Propulsion Inc. 
(2001), Solectria 

Corp (2001) 

Total 721 1465 29147   

Component Weight 
(kg) 

Volume 
(l) 

Cost (US 
$) 

Reference 

Li-ion 
battery 

451 401 16,125 Cuenca and Gains 
(2000) 

Drivetrain 53 68 3.286 Cuenca and Gains 
(1999) 

Total 504 469 19,951   

Range 

(km) 

Electricity Hydrogen 

($3.30/kg) 6 cents/kWh (off-
peak) 

10.8 cents /kWh 
(Residential) 

161 1.37 2.47 3.33 

241 1.41 2.54 3.35 

322 1.53 2.75 3.36 

402 1.67 3.00 3.38 

483 1.85 3.34 3.40 



Habib & Butler /Future Technology                                                                                          August 2022| Volume 01 | Issue 02 | Pages 25-33 

28 

 

deployed, more drivers could have access to electricity 
initially than access to hydrogen fueling stations. An 
individual BEV owner who can pay $2100 for a Level 2 home 
charging outlet fixture will be able to utilize his or her car 
within half the vehicle range from home even if no other 
driver has a BEV in the area. A driver contemplating the 
purchase of an HFCV, however, would generally require at 
least one hydrogen fueling station within five or 10 
kilometers of home. Most potential HFCV owners could not 
afford own hydrogen fueling stations [18]. We assume that 
some combination of government and private investment 
would supply the capital to build the initial batch of 
hydrogen fueling stations, starting in clusters around a 
group of major metropolitan cities. Governments would be 
motivated to jump-start the hydrogen fueling systems to 
reap the huge societal benefits that will follow from the 
introduction of large numbers of zero-emission fuel cell EVs. 
Private investors will eventually be motivated to build new 
hydrogen fueling stations since the return on investment 
will be very lucrative once there are many HFCVs on the road 
[7]. 

 
6. Refueling Times 

As different types of alternative energy-powered 
vehicles are created, it is well known that battery electric 
vehicles are the ones to beat. BEV’s have started to become 
favored over internal combustion engines by those who are 
trying to reduce their carbon footprint. The BEV runs purely 
on a battery charged by a station that many owners can have 
the option to buy for their home. The option to have this 
charging station at home is the optimal solution due to the 
longer than desired charging times [19]. Depending on the 
charging station, the BEV can take between thirty minutes 
up to multiple hours to fully recharge the battery. On the 
other hand, internal combustion engines (ICE), take only 
three to five minutes to refill. This issue does not tend to stop 
people from purchasing the BEV since it is an option to buy 
a charging station for their home. This means that the 
vehicle could charge overnight if the need arises. Like the 
ICE, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles only take three to five 
minutes to refill. This quick recharge could potentially knock 
the BEV from its pedestal as the best alternative for 
renewable energy-powered vehicles [20]. As shown in 
Figure 2, China has the most fueling stations for battery 
electric vehicles in both the fast and slow charging methods. 
These statistics are from the 2021 statistics census. Figure 3 
indicates that Japan has the largest amount of hydrogen 
fueling stations. Overall BEVs have a much larger amount of 
fueling stations. The cost of the infrastructure is the 
dominating issue for hydrogen fuel. This is talked about in 
the cost section. Once the fueling stations can catch up to the 
number of stations the BEVs have, there will not be an issue 
with refueling hydrogen fuel cells [21]. Many arguments 
have been made towards hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCV) 
just based on how there is no infrastructure, but at a time 
there was no infrastructure for BEVs. HFCVs can easily have 
a large increase in fueling stations once the infrastructure 
can be paid for [19]. 

7. Types of Battery  

a. Lead-acid battery: The lead-acid battery is the most 

mature kind of battery. It is made up of stacked cells 

immersed in a dilute solution of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) as an 

electrolyte. The positive electrode of each cell is composed 

of lead dioxide (PbO2), while the negative electrode is 

sponge lead (Pb). During discharge, both electrodes are 

converted into lead sulfate (PbSO4). During the charge cycle, 

both electrodes return to their initial state [22]. There are 

two major kinds of lead-acid batteries: flooded batteries and 

valve-regulated batteries. The lifetime of the system is 

approximately 5–15 years, with an energy efficiency of 75–

80%. 

 

Figure 2. Amount of electric recharging stations by country 
in 2021 [21] 

 
Figure 3. Amount of hydrogen fueling stations by country 

in 2021 [21] 
 

b. Nickel-cadmiumium battery (Ni-Cd): Development of 

this kind of alkaline rechargeable battery has been carried 

out since 1950. This has helped to make them a well-

established system in the marketplace. The main 

components of Ni-Cd batteries are nickel species and 

cadmium species as the positive and negative electrodes’ 

active materials, respectively, and aqueous alkali solution as 

the electrolyte [23]. During the discharge cycle, Ni(OH)2 is 

the active material of the positive electrode, and Cd(OH)2 is 

the active material of the negative electrode. During the 

charge cycle, NiO(OH) is the active material of the positive 

electrode, and metallic Cd is the active material of the 

negative electrode. The alkaline solution KOH acts as the 

electrolyte. The Ni-Cd battery has suitable characteristics 

with respect to its long cycle life (more than 3500 cycles), 

combined with low maintenance requirements [18]. 

Nevertheless, its cycle life is highly dependent on the depth 

of discharge (DD). It can reach more than 50,000 cycles at 

10% of DD [24]. 

c. Sodium–sulfur battery (NaS): Besides being a 

relatively recent system, NaS batteries are one of the most 



Habib & Butler /Future Technology                                                                                          August 2022| Volume 01 | Issue 02 | Pages 25-33 

29 

 

promising options for high-power energy storage 

applications [24]. The anode of this kind of battery is made 

of sodium (Na), while the cathode is made of sulfur (S). 

Ceramic Beta– Al2O3 acts as both the electrolyte and the 

separator simultaneously [25]. During the discharge cycle, 

the metallic anodic material (sodium) is oxidized and 

releases NaS ions, while the cathodic material is reduced and 

releases S2 sulfur anions. The electrolyte enables the 

transfer of sodium ions to the cathode, where they combine 

with sulfur anions and produce sodium polysulphide Na2Sx. 

During the charge cycle, the opposite reaction occurs [26]. 

An important feature of this type of battery is its high-

temperature operation, around 350oC. One of the largest 

manufacturers of NaS batteries is the Japanese company 

NGK insulators [27]. The energy density and the energy 

efficiency of this kind of battery are very high, 151 kW h/m3 

and 85%, respectively [28]. Additional important features of 

NaS batteries are no self-discharge, low maintenance, and 

their 99% recyclability [24]. 

d. Lithium-ion battery (Li-ion): Lithium-ion batteries are 

widely used in small applications, such as mobile phones and 

portable electronic devices; therefore, the annual 

production gross is around 2 billion cells. In addition, this 

kind of battery attracts much interest in the field of material 

technology and others to obtain high-power devices for 

applications like electric vehicles and stationary energy 

storage [24]. The operation of Li-ion batteries is based on the 

electrochemical reactions between positive lithium ions 

(Li+) with analytic and catalytic active materials. The cells of 

Li-ion batteries are made of analytic and catalytic plates 

filled with liquid electrolyte material. The electrode areas 

are delimited by a porous separator of polyethylene or 

polypropylene, which allows the transit of lithium ions. 

During the charge cycle, Li+ flows from the positive 

electrode, made of LiCoO2, to the graphite sheets of the 

negative electrode. The discharge cycle consists of the 

reverse process. Since the performance and the range size of 

the batteries are strongly related to the active materials of 

the electrodes and the electrolyte, there is a tremendous 

amount of research in the field of material technology 

nowadays [29]. Important features of Li-ion batteries are 

time constants (understood here as the time to reach 90% of 

the rated power of the battery) around 200 ms, with a 

relatively high round trip efficiency of 78% within 3500 

cycles have been reported [30]. Moreover, nickel, 

manganese, and cobalt are used in most lithium-ion 

batteries in electric vehicles [8].  

e. Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) battery: Lithium Iron 

Phosphate battery (lithium ferro phosphate or lithium iron 

phosphate) is a type of lithium-ion battery using lithium iron 

phosphate (LiFePO4) as the cathode material and a graphitic 

carbon electrode with a metallic backing as the anode [31]. 

The energy density of an LFP battery is comparatively lower. 

Because of its lower cost, high safety, low toxicity, long cycle 

life, and other factors, it is a good potential replacement for 

lead-acid batteries in applications such as automotive and 

solar applications, utility-scale stationary applications, and 

backup power [32]. LFP batteries are cobalt-free [33]. One 

important advantage over other lithium-ion chemistries is 

thermal and chemical stability, which improves battery 

safety. LiFePO4 is highly resilient during oxygen loss, which 

typically results in an exothermic reaction in other lithium 

cells [34]. As a result, LiFePO4 cells are harder to ignite in the 

event of mishandling. EV giants, Tesla, and Ford are going to 

employ LFP batteries in at least some of their vehicles, which 

are popular in China [8]. 

f. Solid State battery: Solid-state batteries use solid 

electrodes and a solid electrolyte and lack a liquid 

electrolyte, making them lighter, storing more energy, and 

charging more quickly; moreover, they are less prone to 

catch fire, requiring less cooling equipment [8]. Solid-state 

batteries can provide potential solutions for many problems 

of liquid Li-ion batteries, such as flammability, limited 

voltage, unstable solid-electrolyte interphase formation, 

poor cycling performance, and strength [35]. This battery 

provides higher energy densities and avoids the use of 

dangerous or toxic materials found in commercial batteries 

[38]. Other EV giants Volkswagen and BMW have both 

invested in and are implementing this technology [10]. 

8. The Colors of Hydrogen 

Because there are many different methods to produce 
hydrogen, a schematic to separate hydrogen and how it 
impacts the environment has been constructed. 
a. Gray Hydrogen (Steam Methane Reformation [SMR]): 
The first color of hydrogen is the largest percentile of the 
colors. This method uses steam methane reformation to 
produce hydrogen. Gray hydrogen is the leading hydrogen 
production method that, if used in the automotive industry, 
would produce a large amount of greenhouse gas emissions 
including CO2.  This means that while the production method 
may be efficient, it is not the best method for producing 
hydrogen since it would contribute a similar amount of 
greenhouse gasses that internal combustion engines create 
while driving on the roads now. SMR produces hydrogen 
with two chemical reactions which are [37]: 

 
Steam-Methane Reform 
CH4+H2O → CO+3H2                                     (1) 
 
Water-Gas Reaction 
CO+H2O→CO2+H2                             (2) 
 
Steam methane reformation has other problems with 

the production rather than simply being harmful to the 
environment. It does not create pure hydrogen, which is 
needed for hydrogen fuel cells. Gray hydrogen also consists 
of coal gasification due to the high amount of CO2 that is 
produced in this method of hydrogen production [35]. Coal 
gasification is used in larger countries such as China and 
India. Production from coal gasification is an issue because 
there is no way to isolate the carbon that is being developed 
from the reaction. Coal is being carbonized so the carbon 
emission for this method is one of the highest out of all the 
different options. This method of steam methane 
reformation and coal gasification does not separate out the 
CO2 and store it like it would in the next section of blue 
hydrogen [37]. 
b. Blue Hydrogen: Blue hydrogen uses the same method 
of steam methane reformation, but with the option of carbon 
capture and storage. Issues with this method have been 
noted by the laws of capturing carbon. To be named as blue 
hydrogen the steam methane process does not need to fully 
capture all the carbon dioxide that is separated. 
Implementing the carbon capture is sufficient to name the 
hydrogen as better for the environment, but still produces a 



Habib & Butler /Future Technology                                                                                          August 2022| Volume 01 | Issue 02 | Pages 25-33 

30 

 

large amount of CO2 over time [20]. This process of carbon 
capture also produces a large amount of methane emissions. 
Noted by Ajanovic et al. [38], blue hydrogen still produces 
half the emissions as gray hydrogen since there is a greater 
methane leak after carbon capture is implemented. 
Environmental acts are not only focused on the emissions of 
carbon dioxide but other greenhouse gasses as well.  In 
general gray and blue hydrogen is not the best implication of 
hydrogen production since fuel cells require pure hydrogen 
to not disturb the catalysts that are used inside of them. To 
make the pure hydrogen, carbon capture and storage is 
necessary. Carbon capture bases its system on natural gas 
and oxygen to separate the carbon dioxide. This ends in pure 
hydrogen, but in the end, creates a large amount of CO2 
emissions. Again, these emissions are in fact a similar 
amount that is made from the internal combustion engines 
that are on the roads today. If this method of hydrogen 
production was used, then it would be better off to have 
battery electric vehicles since there would then be less CO2 
emissions from batteries. 
c. Green and Yellow Hydrogen: Applications of green 
hydrogen include hydrogen that is produced from water by 
electrolysis. Electrolysis consists of a machine called an 
electrolyzer which uses water to separate the atoms (H2O) 
and form hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O) atoms. If the source 
that powers the electrolysis is a renewable resource such as 
solar or wind energy, then this method of production will 
create zero greenhouse gas emissions. This creates the 
thought of yellow hydrogen which produces no CO2 during 
the process [20]. If the electrolyzer is powered by other 
forms of electricity production, such as burning fossil fuels, 
then greenhouse gasses will be produced. When greenhouse 
gasses are produced from fossil fuels, the color of hydrogen 
is green [38]. According to Brenda Johnston et al. [9], 
electrolysis is not the most efficient operation for large-scale 
hydrogen production. This is because it uses a large amount 
of electricity. Issues could be explored and established by 
constantly using a renewable energy source to fuel 
production. If the renewable energy sources are connected 
to a battery that can collect that electricity, then this issue 
could be resolved. In the end, it is possible to produce 
hydrogen without creating greenhouse gasses if the right 
method is used. Opposing the thoughts of Johnston et al., 
when using the most environment-friendly option of 
electrolysis, the hydrogen is in the purest form of 99.99% 
hydrogen. No other hydrogen-producing method can obtain 
pure hydrogen, so this method could be labeled the most 
efficient and environmentally safe option for producing 
hydrogen.  

 
9. Well to Wheel Efficiencies Using Natural Gas  

a. Well to Pump: The efficiencies will be compared using 

the natural gas model. Using this model will ensure that the 

amount of carbon emissions is the same for both types of 

vehicles. Implementing this model for both vehicles will 

enhance the comparability of the efficiencies. When using 

the natural gas model, it is notable that hydrogen is more 

efficient. As shown in Figure 4, steam methane reformation 

has an efficiency of 75%, while for battery electric vehicles, 

the efficiencies are around 40% if using a generator [21]. 

Studies have shown that it would take half a million more 

BTUs to use natural gas to generate electricity than it would 

produce hydrogen. So, in total, it would take around 35% 

less energy to create hydrogen than energy for battery 

electric vehicles. If the range of the vehicles were to rise by 

just 50 miles, then hydrogen production would be even more 

efficient than electricity production using this method of 

natural gas. In this scenario, hydrogen production would 

take up to 55% less energy than electricity production [6].  

b. Pump to Wheel: On the other side of the well-to-wheel 

efficiency, batteries seem to be on the leading end of things. 

As shown in Figure 5, batteries have around a 90% efficiency 

in delivering the power to the motor. This is because the 

electricity is going straight from the battery to the motor. 

Hydrogen has only a 52% efficiency from the pump to the 

wheel based on how indirectly the electricity is made 

throughout the hydrogen fuel cell. The fuel cell has more 

components which leads to less of a power input than the 

direct power of the battery [20]. When looking at this 

schematic, it is important to not just look at one side of the 

efficiency but the efficiencies. From well-to-wheel hydrogen 

fuel cells take up less total energy consumption. Based on the 

longest ranges of vehicles that can be produced, the longer 

the range the more efficient fuel cells are than battery-

electric [39]. This was said in the well-to-pump section but 

is important in this section of well-to-wheels since batteries 

drain quicker than hydrogen is used inside of the fuel cell. 

 
10. Well to Wheel Efficiencies Using Renewable Energy  

Renewable energy sources have a significant role in 
reducing carbon emissions. With renewable energy sources, 
there is no need to use oil or natural gas in the production of 
either hydrogen or electricity. When renewable energy is 
used for hydrogen, it will power the electrolyzer to turn 
water into hydrogen, creating green hydrogen talked about 
in previous sections. If renewable energy is used for 
electricity production, then the electricity can go straight to 
the grid so it could refuel the batteries inside of the vehicles 
almost directly [21]. 
a. Well to Pump: Renewable energy sources have higher 
efficiency for both hydrogen and electricity production. As 
shown in Figure 5, electricity production has a well-to-pump 
efficiency of 92%. This means that nearly all the electricity 
produced can go straight to the pump for the electric 
vehicles. For hydrogen, there is only a 75% efficiency. This 
efficiency loss is due to the electrolyzer. When the electricity 
is used to power the electrolyzer to produce the hydrogen 
for the pump, the loss of 15% efficiency happens [20]. It is 
notable that the electrolyzer efficiency loss is like the loss 
when using steam methane reformation (SMR). This could 
lead the public to believe that electrolysis is not any better 
than SMR, but based on carbon emissions, electrolysis is the 
most eco-friendly option. Similarly, in the natural gas 
production method, if the range of the vehicles were 
increased, then the efficiencies would change. For the 
battery electric vehicle, the efficiency would decrease; and 
for the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, the efficiency would 
increase [39]. 
b. Pump to Wheel: The pump-to-wheel section for 
renewable energy sources is the same as the one for natural 
gas production methods. Similarities are found because 
from the pump to the wheel, the electricity and hydrogen 
run through the vehicles the same way. From this, we can 
see the same as before where the electricity to the battery 
vehicle’s wheels has a higher efficiency than hydrogen to 
fuel cell vehicles wheels [39]. 

 

 



Habib & Butler /Future Technology                                                                                          August 2022| Volume 01 | Issue 02 | Pages 25-33 

31 

 

11. Conclusion 

Knowing that the oil industry will eventually end or 
become one of the most expensive fueling options, it would be 
best to switch to an alternative. Both BEV and HFCV have their 
drawbacks, but overall, HFCV is the leading option. When 
dealing with the cost of the materials, hydrogen, in the end, 
will be the cheaper alternative fuel source by half the amount 
per tank. While there are not many fueling stations for 
hydrogen, after development, the benefits of the fueling 
stations would overpower the multiple fueling stations for 
BEVs by around $2000 per at-home charging station. Along 
with the fueling cost, refueling times for HFCV have the 
advantage. Refueling times for HFCVs are like those of 
gasoline that is used today, around three to five minutes. The 
fastest BEV charging stations are up to thirty minutes, but 
they cost up to $2000 more than the charging stations that 
take hours to recharge the vehicles. 

Environmentally, BEVs and HFCVs are similar in ways, but the 
HFCVs can be the most environmentally friendly option. 
There are many ways to isolate hydrogen. When electrolysis 
is used, there are no carbon emissions. This method will need 
electricity to operate, but if renewable energy sources are 
used, then this option is fully carbon-free. Because alternative 
energy sources such as solar panels and wind turbines do not 
emit CO2, the BEV and HFCV are equally environmentally 
friendly. However, when batteries are made, the materials 
used are unfavorable to those that are used inside a hydrogen 
fuel cell. Since electricity can be produced with these 
environmentally friendly options, this is when the efficiencies 
come into action. While the electrolyzer slightly decreases 
efficiency, the distribution of hydrogen is more efficient than 
the distribution of electricity due to travel. Overall, it is 
notable that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are more economical 
and environmentally friendly. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. Efficiency chart comparing BEV to HFCV when using natural gas as the initial source [6] 

Figure 5. Efficiency chart comparing BEV to HFCV when using renewable energy as the initial source [39] 



Habib & Butler /Future Technology                                                                                          August 2022| Volume 01 | Issue 02 | Pages 25-33 

32 

 

Ethical issue 
The authors are aware of and comply with best practices 

in publication ethics, specifically with regard to authorship 
(avoidance of guest authorship), dual submission, 
manipulation of figures, competing interests, and compliance 
with policies on research ethics. Authors adhere to 
publication requirements that the submitted work is original 
and has not been published elsewhere. 

Data availability statement 
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets 

were generated or analyzed during the current study. 

Conflict of interest 
The authors declare no potential conflict of interest. 

Authors’ contribution 
All authors of this study have a complete contribution to 

manuscript writing. 

References 

[1]  Eberle, U., Müller, B., & von Helmolt, R. (2012). Fuel 

cell electric vehicles and hydrogen infrastructure: 

Status 2012. Energy & Environmental Science, 5(10), 

8780. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2ee22596d 

[2]  Brey, J. J., Carazo, A. F., & Brey, R. (2018). Exploring the 

marketability of fuel cell electric vehicles in terms of 

infrastructure and hydrogen costs in Spain. Renewable 

and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82, 2893–2899. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.042 

[3]  A Review of Heavy-Duty Vehicle Powertrain 

Technologies: Diesel Engine Vehicles, Battery Electric 

Vehicles, and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles 

[4]  Environmental Protection Agency. Fast Facts on 

Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Green 

Vehicle Guide. Available online: 

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-

transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions (accessed 

on 3 March 2022). 

[5]  Wang, Yongqiang & Moura, Scott & Advani, Suresh & 

Prasad, Ajay. (2019). Power management system for a 

fuel cell/battery hybrid vehicle incorporating fuel cell 

and battery degradation. International Journal of 

Hydrogen Energy. 44. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.02.003. 

[6]  Van Mierlo, J., &amp; Maggetto, G. (2007). Fuel cell or 

battery: Electric cars are the future. Fuel Cells, 7(2), 

165–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/fuce.200600052. 

[7]  C.E. Thomas, Fuel cell and battery electric vehicles 

compared, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 

Volume 34, Issue 15, 2009, Pages 6005-6020, ISSN 

0360-3199, 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.06.003. 

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S

0360319909008696). 

[8]  Habib, AKM Rubaiyat Reza, and Karyssa Butler. 

Alternatives to lithium-ion batteries in electric 

vehicles. Future Technology 1.1 (2022): 33-34. DOI: 

10.55670/fpll.futech.1.1.5. 

[9]  Brenda Johnston, Michael C. Mayo, Anshuman Khare, 

Hydrogen: the energy source for the 21st century, 

Technovation, Volume 25, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 569-

585, ISSN 0166-4972, 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2003.11.005. 

[10]  Roberto Álvarez Fernández, Fernando Beltrán 

Cilleruelo, Iñaki Villar Martínez, A new approach to 

battery powered electric vehicles: A hydrogen fuel-

cell-based range extender system, International 

Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 41, Issue 8, 2016, 

Pages 4808-4819, ISSN 0360-3199, 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.01.035.  

[11]  Manoharan Y, Hosseini SE, Butler B, Alzhahrani H, 

Senior BTF, Ashuri T, Krohn J. Hydrogen Fuel Cell 

Vehicles; Current Status and Future Prospect. Applied 

Sciences. 2019; 9(11):2296. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/app9112296  

[12]  Kromer M, Heywood J. Electric powertrains: 

opportunities and challenges in the U.S. light-duty 

vehicle fleet. Sloan Automotive Laboratory, 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Publication No. 

LFEE 2007-03 RP, May 2007. 

[13]  C. Padro, V. Putsche, Survey of Economics of Hydrogen 

Technologies, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Study NREL/TP-570-27079, 1999. 

[14]  Eaves, S., & Eaves, J. (2004). A cost comparison of fuel-

cell and battery electric vehicles. Journal of Power 

Sources, 130(1-2), 208–212. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2003.12.016. 

[15]  Annual Energy Outlook. US Department of Energy, 

Energy Information Administration Report # DOE/EIA 

0383 (2009). Available at: 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html>. 

[16]  Fleur La, Christine Angela, Muna Alice Baca, Groth 

Katrina M. Application of quantitative risk assessment 

for performance-based permitting of hydrogen fueling 

stations. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42(11):7529e35. 

[17]  Itaoka K, Saito A, Sasaki K. Public perception on 

hydrogen infrastructure in Japan: influence of rollout 

of commercial fuel cell vehicles. Int J Hydrogen Energy 

2017;42(11):7290e6. 

[18]  McDowall J. Integrating energy storage with wind 

power in weak electricity grids. Journal of Power 

Sources 2006; 162:959–64. 

[19]  Tanç, Bahattin & Arat, Hüseyin & Baltacioğlu, Ertuğrul 

& Aydin, Kadir. (2018). Overview of the next quarter 

century vision of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles. 

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 44. 

10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.10.112. 

[20]  Hameş, Yakup & Kaya, Kemal & Baltacıoğlu, Ertuğrul & 

Türksoy, Arzu. (2018). Analysis of the control 

strategies for fuel saving in the hydrogen fuel cell 

vehicles. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 43. 

10810-10821. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.12.150. 

[21]  L. Athanasopoulou, H. Bikas, P. Stavropoulos, 

Comparative Well-to-Wheel Emissions Assessment of 

Internal Combustion Engine and Battery Electric 

Vehicles, Procedia CIRP, Volume 78, 2018, Pages 25-

30, ISSN 2212-8271, 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.08.169. 

[22]  Greenblatt JB, Succar S, Denkenberger DC, Williams 

RH, Socolow RH. Baseload wind energy: modeling the 

competition between gas turbines and 

compressed air energy storage for supplemental 

generation. Energy Policy 2007; 35:1474–92.  

https://doi.org/10.3390/app9112296


Habib & Butler /Future Technology                                                                                          August 2022| Volume 01 | Issue 02 | Pages 25-33 

33 

 

[23]  Moriokaa Y, Narukawab S, Itou T. State-of-the-art of 

alkaline rechargeable batteries. Journal of Power 

Sources 2001; 100:107–16. 

[24]  Abdorreza Rabiee, Hossein Khorramdel, Jamshid 

Aghaei, RETRACTED: A review of energy storage 

systems in microgrids with wind turbines, Renewable 

and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 18, 2013, 

Pages 316-326, ISSN 1364-0321, 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.09.039. 

[25]  Wen Z, Cao J, Gu Z, Xu X, Zhang F, Lin Z. Research on 

sodium sulfur battery for energy storage. Solid State 

Ionics 2008; 179:1697–701. 

[26]  Bito A Overview of the sodium–sulfur battery for the 

IEEE stationary battery committee. In: IEEE power 

engineering society general meeting. 2005. 

[27]  NGK Insulators Ltd. website, 

/http://www.ngk.co.jp/english/S (accessed 18.04.22). 

[28] Jalal Kazempour S, Parsa Moghaddam M, Haghifam MR, 

Yousefi GR. Electric energy storage systems in a 

market-based economy: comparison of emerging and 

traditional technologies. Renewable Energy 2009; 

34:2630–9. 

[29]  Wakihara M. Recent developments in lithium-ion 

batteries. Materials Science and Engineering 2001; 

33:109–34. 

[30]  Adachi K, Tajima H, Hashimoto T. Development of 16 

kW h power storage system applying Li-ion batteries. 

Journal of Power Sources 2003;11(119–21):897–901. 

[31]  Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 13). Lithium Iron 

Phosphate Battery. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 18, 

2022, from 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphat

e_battery 

[32]  Lithium iron phosphate LiFePO4 Battery. evlithium 

limited. (n.d.). Retrieved April 18, 2022, from 

https://www.evlithium.com/LiFePO4-Battery/ 

[33]  Li, Wangda; Lee, Steven; Manthiram, Arumugam 

(2020). "High-Nickel NMA: A Cobalt-Free Alternative 

to NMC and NCA Cathodes for Lithium-Ion Batteries". 

Advanced Materials. 32 (33). 

[34]  Building safer Li-Ion Batteries. High-Performance 

Custom Battery Packs & Battery Chargers. (n.d.). 

Retrieved April 18, 2022, from 

https://www.custompower.com/articles.php?id=27 

[35]  Ping, Weiwei; Yang, Chunpeng; Bao, Yinhua; Wang, 

Chengwei; Xie, Hua; Hitz, Emily; Cheng, Jian; Li, Teng; 

Hu, Liangbing (September 2019). "A silicon anode for 

garnet-based all-solid-state batteries: Interfaces and 

nanomechanics". Energy Storage Materials. 21: 246–

252. doi: 10.1016/j.ensm.2019.06.024. 

[36]  Zhou, Weidong & Li, Yutao & Xin, Sen & Goodenough, 

John. (2017). Rechargeable Sodium All-Solid-State 

Battery. ACS Central Science. 3. 

10.1021/acscentsci.6b00321. 

[37]  Thomas Bacquart, Karine Arrhenius, Stefan Persijn, 

Andrés Rojo, Fabien Auprêtre, Bruno Gozlan, Niamh 

Moore, Abigail Morris, Andreas Fischer, Arul Murugan, 

Sam Bartlett, Guillaume Doucet, François Laridant, Eric 

Gernot, Teresa E. Fernández, Concepción Gómez, 

Martine Carré, Guy De Reals, Frederique Haloua, 

Hydrogen fuel quality from two main production 

processes: Steam methane reforming and proton 

exchange membrane water electrolysis, Journal of 

Power Sources, Volume 444, 2019, 227170, ISSN 

0378-7753, 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2019.227170. 

[38] A. Ajanovic, M. Sayer, R. Haas, The economics and the 

environmental benignity of different colors of 

hydrogen, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 

2022, ISSN 0360-3199, 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.02.094. 

[39] Offer, Gregory & Howey, David & Contestabile, 

Marcello & Clague, R. & Brandon, N.P. (2010). 

Comparative analysis of battery electric, hydrogen fuel 

cell and hybrid vehicles in a future sustainable road 

transport system. Energy Policy. 38. 24-29. 

10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.040. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2019.227170
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.02.094
Seyed Hosseini
Stamp


