GHEVs and no hydrogen vehicles. A second line provides an estimate of total annual fuel costs if GHEVs ultimately capture 100 percent of the market share and hydrogen-fueled vehicles are never introduced. The other lines assume that hydrogen-fueled vehicles capture the market shares over time (at the rates shown in Figure 6-1) and that all of the hydrogen is produced using the particular technology denoted; GHEVs are being phased in and then out of the market using the estimates in Figure 6-1.

Figures 6-20 and 6-21 show the large impact of the penetration of GHEVs into the marketplace. These figures suggest that by 2050, the movement from conventional vehicles to GHEVs alone could reduce the fuel cost by about $75 billion per year, without the introduction of hydrogen-fueled vehicles.

Figures 6-20 and 6-21 show that most of the current technologies would lead to total costs that are higher than the amount drivers would face if GHEVs ultimately dominated the fleet. However, central station coal-based or natural-gas-based hydrogen production could keep total costs almost identical to the costs with GHEVs. Hydrogen based on distributed natural gas would be somewhat more costly. But Figure 6-21 shows that if the system were to be based on distributed electrolysis, biomass, or distributed photovoltaics, the total cost would be substantially greater than would be possible with even hybrid vehicles or conventional vehicles. For example, in 2050 the cost of using these technologies would exceed the cost of using gasoline in GHEVs by more than $400 billion annually.

Figures 6-22 and 6-23 show the great importance of possible future technologies on the total cost of the system. They show that if the possible future technologies are successfully developed and have costs consistent with the committee’s estimates, all but the biomass and the grid-electric or photovoltaic-based electrolysis technologies could be operated at costs less than those that would characterize a system of gasoline-fueled conventional vehicles. The central station coal-based and natural-gas-based technologies would be lower in cost than that of operating a system of gasoline-fueled hybrid electric vehicles. But the technologies based on distributed electrolysis operating either entirely on grid-supplied electricity or partially on photovoltaic-supplied

FIGURE 6-20 Estimated total annual fuel costs for automobiles: current hydrogen production technologies (fossil fuels), 2000–2050. Each line for the various hydrogen production technologies assumes that hydrogen-fueled vehicles capture the market shares over time (at the rates shown in Figure 6-1) and that all of the hydrogen is produced using the particular technology denoted (e.g., CS NG-C, CS Coal-C, and so on); gasoline hybrid electric vehicles (GHEVs) are being phased in and then out of the market using the estimates in Figure 6-1. Two other cost curves are provided, one displaying an estimation of the annual fuel cost with only conventional vehicles (no hydrogen or GHEVs). A second line provides an estimate of total annual fuel costs if GHEVs ultimately capture 100 percent of the market share and hydrogen-fueled vehicles are never introduced (GHEVs, no hydrogen). See Table 5-2 in Chapter 5 and discussion in text. NOTE: The cost curve for central station natural gas (CS NG-C) is obscured by the cost curve for GHEVs (GHEVs, no hydrogen), and the cost curve for central station coal with sequestration (CS Coal-C Seq) is partly obscured by the cost curve for coal without sequestration (CS Coal-C).



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement