Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy
Development and comparative analysis between battery electric vehicles
(BEV) and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV)
Hussein Togun a,*, Ali Basem b, Tuqa Abdulrazzaq c , Nirmalendu Biswas d,* , Azher M. Abed e ,
Jameel M. dhabab f, Anirban Chattopadhyay g , Khalifa Slimi h , Dipankar Paul d ,
Praveen Barmavatu i , Amani Chrouda j
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, 10071, Iraq
Air Conditioning Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Warith Al-Anbiyaa University, Karbala 56001, Iraq
Department of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
d
Department of Power Engineering, Jadavpur University, Salt Lake, Kolkata 700106, India
e
College of Engineering and Technologies, Al-Mustaqbal University, Babylon 51001, Iraq
f
Alnukhba University College, Baghdad, Iraq
g
Department of Mathematics, Government General Degree College, Ranibandh, Bankura, West Bengal 722 135, India
h
Energetic and Thermal Studies Systems Laboratory, National Engineering College, University of Monastir, Ibn El-Jazzar Street, 5019, Monastir, Tunisia
i
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universidad Tecnológica Metropolitana, Av. José Pedro Alessandri 1242, Santiago, Chile
j
Department of Chemistry, College of Science at Zulfi, Majmaah University, Zulfi 11932, Saudi Arabia
b
c
H I G H L I G H T S
• This review examines progress, efficiency, environmental impact, and challenges of both vehicle types.
• BEVs convert 70-90% of stored electricity into motion, offering higher energy efficiency than FCEVs
• Both BEVs and FCEVs produce zero tailpipe emissions, cutting air pollution and greenhouse gases.
• FCEVs suit long-distance, heavy transport with faster refueling and extended rang.
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Battery electric vehicles
Fuel cell
Hydrogen production
Energy efficiency
The global push for cleaner transportation has led to significant developments in sustainable vehicle technolo­
gies, specifically Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs). This review presents a
thorough examination of the progress, energy efficiency, environmental impacts, and the challenges associated
with both vehicle types. BEVs, powered by lithium-ion batteries, have experienced remarkable advancements
due to improvements in energy density, reduced costs, and the expansion of charging networks. In contrast,
FCEVs, which generate electricity using hydrogen fuel cells, provide the advantage of rapid refueling and
extended driving range but are constrained by the high costs of hydrogen production and limited refueling
infrastructure. The review compares the energy efficiency of both technologies, noting that BEVs convert 70–90
% of stored electricity into motion, while FCEVs face higher energy losses due to the hydrogen production and
conversion process. The paper also addresses the full lifecycle environmental impact of both technologies.
Although both BEVs and FCEVs produce zero tailpipe emissions, their overall sustainability depends largely on
how their energy—whether electricity or hydrogen—is sourced. BEVs are supported by the increasing shift to­
ward electrification, with falling battery prices and more extensive infrastructure making them the leading
option in sustainable transportation. Meanwhile, FCEVs, though better suited for long-range and heavy-duty use,
continue to struggle with high production costs and a lack of necessary infrastructure. While BEVs currently
dominate due to their higher energy efficiency, lower costs, and growing infrastructure, FCEVs remain a
promising solution for specific applications that require fast refueling and long-range capabilities. Future
* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: htokan_2004@yahoo.com (H. Togun), Ali.basem@uowa.edu.iq (A. Basem), tuka-2023@coeng.uobaghdad.edu.iq (T. Abdulrazzaq), biswas.
nirmalendu@gmail.com (N. Biswas), azhermuhson@mustaqbal-college.edu.iq (A.M. Abed), j.mousa@alnukhba.edu.iq (J.M. dhabab), khalifa.slimi@enim.umonastir.tn (K. Slimi), pbarmavatu@utem.cl (P. Barmavatu), amain.c@mu.edu.sa (A. Chrouda).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2025.125726
Received 14 October 2024; Received in revised form 9 February 2025; Accepted 10 March 2025
Available online 18 March 2025
0306-2619/© 2025 Elsevier Ltd. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
H. Togun et al.
innovations in hydrogen production and fuel cell technology, along with infrastructure expansion, could
establish FCEVs as a vital complement to BEVs in the transition to zero-emission transport.
1. Introduction
moving parts and less maintenance. In contrast, FCEVs are more
expensive to produce due to the high cost of hydrogen fuel cells and the
scarcity of refueling stations. The overall cost of hydrogen production
and infrastructure is still a challenge [9].
Both BEVs and FCEVs offer significant advantages over traditional
internal combustion engine vehicles in terms of emissions reduction.
BEVs are leading the race due to their higher energy efficiency, lower
production costs, and better-established infrastructure. FCEVs, while
promising for long-range applications and fast refueling, still face
challenges in terms of infrastructure and energy efficiency [10]. The
future of the two technologies may depend on advancements in
hydrogen production and refueling networks for FCEVs, while continued
battery innovation and renewable energy integration will support the
growth of BEVs. The following table (Table 1) provides a comparison of
the state-of-the-art BEV with FCEV [11].
The rapid evolution of transportation technologies has driven sig­
nificant interest in Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) and Fuel Cell Electric
Vehicles (FCEVs) as sustainable alternatives to the well-known and
mature internal combustion engine vehicles. Studying both technologies
is crucial for developing cleaner, more efficient transportation systems
to address environmental, economic, and societal challenges. One of the
primary motivations for studying BEVs and FCEVs is the urgent need to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change. Both
vehicle types are zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) at the point of use, of­
fering alternatives to conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles, which
contribute significantly to air pollution and climate change.
BEVs emit zero tailpipe emissions, helping reduce carbon dioxide
(CO2) and harmful pollutants like nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate
matter (PM). FCEVs also produce zero emissions at the tailpipe, as their
only byproduct is water vapor. When hydrogen is sourced from
renewable energy, the entire energy cycle can be carbon neutral. BEVs
and FCEVs reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels by using elec­
tricity or hydrogen produced domestically. Transitioning to these ve­
hicles can contribute to energy diversification, making countries less
vulnerable to fluctuations in global oil markets and improving overall
energy security.
BEVs rely on electricity, which can be generated from a variety of
sources, including renewable energy. However, FCEVs primarily use
hydrogen, which can be produced locally through electrolysis or other
processes using renewable energy, further enhancing energy indepen­
dence. The study of BEVs and FCEVs drives innovation across multiple
fields, including battery technology, fuel cell development, materials
science, and renewable energy integration. Advancements in these areas
The ultimate need for cleaner transportation systems have driven the
development of different low-carbon vehicles. The most popular are the
electric vehicles with two-major types: the vehicles functioning with an
ordinary battery (BEVs) and those instrumented with a fuel cell con­
verting chemical energy into electric energy so called (FCEVs). Although
these both kinds of electric vehicles (i. e. BEVs and FCEVs) aim to reduce
dependence to fossil fuels and therefore decreasing greenhouse gas
emissions, they used different energy sources and based on different
technologies.
The development of BEVs dated back to the 1830s with inventors like
Robert Anderson. However, they saw limited application due to ineffi­
cient batteries. With the advent of gasoline-powered vehicles, BEVs lost
their market dominance due to their limited range and slow recharging
times. The oil crises in the 1970s renewed interest in BEVs. In the early
2000s, breakthroughs in lithium-ion battery technology revolutionized
BEVs, leading to modern vehicles like the Tesla Roadster (2008) [1–3].
Advancements in energy density, charging infrastructure, and cost
reduction have made BEVs more competitive. Companies like Tesla,
Nissan, and General Motors lead the market today, with significant in­
vestments in fast-charging networks. BEVs are known to be energyefficient. Typically, 70–90 % of the electricity stored in the battery is
converted into kinetic energy.
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs), on the other hand, use usually
hydrogen (or other fuel depending on the used type of fuel cell) as a fuel
source [4,5]. Hydrogen reacts with oxygen in the air inside the fuel cell
to generate electricity, which then powers the electric motor. FCEV
technology was first demonstrated in the 1960s. NASA used fuel cells to
power spacecraft. In the 1990s, car manufacturers such as Toyota and
Honda began exploring FCEVs for civilian use [6]. FCEVs faced chal­
lenges, such as the need for hydrogen refueling infrastructure and cost
issues related to fuel cell stacks, which rely on expensive platinum-based
catalysts.
Toyota’s Mirai and Hyundai’s NEXO are examples of recent advances
in FCEV technology. Governments, especially in Japan and South Korea,
have promoted hydrogen as a clean alternative to battery electric ve­
hicles [7]. It has been demonstrated that FCEVs are less energy-efficient
due to the process of generating, compressing, and storing hydrogen.
Only about 30–40 % of the energy is used for motion after accounting for
losses. The infrastructure for BEVs is more widespread, with charging
stations becoming more common globally. However, fast-charging
technology still lags gasoline refueling in terms of speed. FCEVs
depend on hydrogen refueling stations, which are far less common.
While hydrogen refueling is quick, the scarcity of stations limits their
adoption [8].
BEVs produce zero emissions during operation. However, the envi­
ronmental footprint of BEVs depends on how the electricity is generated.
BEVs charged from renewable sources like wind or solar power are more
environmentally friendly than those charged from coal or gas-powered
plants. Like BEVs, FCEVs emit zero pollutants during operation (only
water vapor). However, hydrogen production can be carbon-intensive if
produced from natural gas rather than via green hydrogen methods like
electrolysis from renewable energy sources. It has been demonstrated
that BEVs have currently shorter ranges with respect to FCEVs. How­
ever, models like Tesla Model S offer ranges upwards of 400 miles.
Charging times can take several hours depending on the infrastructure.
However, FCEVs generally offer longer ranges (300–400 miles), and
refueling takes about the same time as conventional gasoline vehicles
(3–5 min). BEVs have benefited from falling battery prices, making them
more affordable. In addition, the cost of ownership is lower due to fewer
Table 1
Comparison of the state-of-the-art BEVs with FECEVs.
Parameters
BEVs
Tesla model 3–2023
FCEVs (Toyota Mirai XLE
¡ 2023
Power conversion
Grid-Battery-Motor
(Grid Dependant
Refueling – PC SctackMotor
1900
3 min
Curb Weight
Recharging/Refueling
time
Range
Energy capacity
Cost
GHG emission
Performance (0–60
mph)
Efficiency
2
Normal charging (22 kW) –
5h
Supercharging (150 kW) –
25 min
270/350 miles
80 kWh
$42 k/$53,2 k
62 g CO2 MJ-1
5,1 s
4375 km/kWh
>400 miles
120 kWh (5,6 kg of H2)
$50 k
41 g CO2 MJ-1
8,5 s
3,33 km/kWh
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
can lead to improved energy storage, better vehicle performance, and
more efficient production and distribution of energy. Battery in­
novations in BEVs, such as solid-state batteries, hold promise for greater
energy density, faster charging times, and longer lifespans.
Hydrogen fuel cells for FCEVs are being improved to increase effi­
ciency, reduce costs, and expand commercial applications beyond au­
tomobiles (e.g., in heavy-duty trucks, buses, and trains). Governments
worldwide are implementing stricter emission regulations and decar­
bonization policies to combat climate change. By studying BEVs and
FCEVs, researchers and policymakers can design transportation systems
that meet these regulatory goals, including zero-emission mandates,
such as the European Union’s target to phase out internal combustion
engine (ICE) vehicles by 2035 or California’s ZEV program. BEVs and
FCEVs are essential technologies for meeting these targets and contrib­
uting to sustainable urban transportation planning [12,13].
The transition to BEVs and FCEVs creates new economic opportu­
nities in industries such as automotive manufacturing, renewable en­
ergy, charging infrastructure, and hydrogen production. Understanding
these technologies helps evaluate their potential to stimulate job crea­
tion and economic growth in emerging sectors. Battery manufacturing
and hydrogen production could generate millions of jobs in various re­
gions, especially in areas transitioning away from fossil fuel dependence.
One key objective of studying BEVs and FCEVs is to compare their
environmental impacts across their lifecycle, from production to end-oflife recycling. This includes assessing the environmental benefits of both
technologies in terms of emissions reduction, resource use, and sus­
tainability. Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is used to study the cradle-to-grave
environmental impacts of both BEVs and FCEVs, including battery or
hydrogen production, vehicle use, and disposal or recycling [14]. Re­
searchers aim to determine which technology offers the greatest benefits
in specific regions or use cases, considering factors like energy source
and availability of infrastructure. Technical and economic feasibility of
BEVs and FCEVs studies are conducted to assess their market potential
and the challenges they face in achieving widespread adoption. BEVs are
evaluated based on advancements in battery technology, driving range,
charging times, and grid integration. However, FCEVs are assessed in
terms of hydrogen production, fuel cell efficiency, infrastructure
development, and cost reduction for fuel cells and storage systems.
Comparative studies often focus on which technology is more viable
for specific applications, such as personal vehicles versus long-haul
trucking. Understanding the energy efficiency and infrastructure re­
quirements of BEVs and FCEVs is critical for integrating them into
existing transportation networks. BEVs depend on an expansive
charging infrastructure, and researchers study how best to expand and
integrate this infrastructure, including charging speed improvements,
vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technologies, and renewable energy integration.
FCEVs require a hydrogen production and distribution network, which
remains limited. Researchers study how to build cost-effective hydrogen
refueling stations and supply chains [15].
Another objective is to identify the most suitable use cases for BEVs,
and FCEVs based on their strengths and limitations. BEVs are well-suited
for urban and short-range transportation due to their energy efficiency
and lower operational costs. While FCEVs, with their longer range and
faster refueling times, are often considered as more suitable for longhaul transport, heavy-duty vehicles, and areas where extended driving
range and quick refueling are essential.
Moreover, research into BEVs and FCEVs helps shape public policies
and incentive programs that support the transition to cleaner trans­
portation. It also seeks to understand consumer behavior and identify
barriers to their adoptions. Studies focus on developing policies that
promote the adoption of these vehicles, such as tax credits, rebates, or
infrastructure investments (e.g., public charging stations for BEVs or
hydrogen refueling stations for FCEVs). Research into consumer atti­
tudes helps identify strategies to overcome concerns such as range
anxiety (for BEVs) or refueling infrastructure (for FCEVs).
In conclusion, studying BEVs and FCEVs is crucial for understanding
their potential to transform the transportation sector. By addressing
environmental, economic, and technological challenges, research in
these areas aims to support the global transition toward sustainable,
zero-emission vehicles. Comparative studies help determine the most
appropriate applications for each technology and guide policymakers
and industry stakeholders in making informed decisions about future
investments. Therefore, the objectives of this current review paper are to
provide a comprehensive review on the recent advancements in BEVs
and FDEVs technologies, their current use and the main challenging
issues that speed down their spread at large-scale use worldwide.
BEVs and FCEVs represent two- key technologies in the transition
toward sustainable, zero-emission transportation. Both vehicle types
offer significant environmental benefits by reducing dependence on
fossil fuels and minimizing greenhouse gas emissions. However, they
operate using fundamentally different technologies and face distinct
challenges in terms of infrastructure, energy efficiency, and market
adoption [16]. BEVs are powered by electric energy stored in
rechargeable batteries. The heart of a BEV, typically lithium-ion batte­
ries, which store energy used to power the electric motor. They produce
no tailpipe emissions, making them environmentally friendly, especially
when powered by renewable energy.
They use electric motors to drive the vehicle and rely on electricity
from the grid to recharge their batteries via a plug-in charger or
specialized charging stations. BEVs are regarded as one of the most
energy-efficient vehicle types because they convert electrical energy
directly into mechanical energy without combustion or emissions. BEVs
have an energy conversion efficiency of around 80–90 %, significantly
higher than internal combustion engines (ICEs). BEVs generally have
lower fueling and maintenance costs compared to conventional vehicles,
as electricity is cheaper than gasoline, and electric motors require fewer
repairs than ICEs.
BEVs are facing some challenges as they typically have shorter
driving ranges than gasoline-powered vehicles, although advances in
battery technology are increasing range capacities. Current BEVs range
from 100 to over 400 miles on a single charge, depending on the model.
A widespread and accessible charging infrastructure is critical for the
adoption of BEVs. Charging time varies by charger type, with fast
chargers offering rapid refueling in under 30 min, while home chargers
can take several hours. Over time, battery capacity can degrade,
reducing range. Additionally, battery recycling remains a challenge due
to the environmental impact of materials like lithium, cobalt, and nickel.
The BEV market has been expanding rapidly, driven by consumer
demand, government regulations, and automaker investments. Leading
BEV manufacturers include Tesla, Nissan, Volkswagen, and General
Motors. The growth of renewable energy sources, coupled with battery
technology advancements, is expected to further bolster BEV adoption in
the coming years [17,18]. Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) generate
electricity through a fuel cell, which combines hydrogen with oxygen
from the air to create electricity, heat, and water. Unlike BEVs, which
store electricity in batteries, FCEVs store hydrogen in high-pressure
tanks, and the fuel cell converts the hydrogen into electricity on de­
mand to power the electric motor. The core of an FCEV, it generates
electricity by combining hydrogen and oxygen through an electro­
chemical process. This is done thanks to a Proton Exchange Membrane
Fuel Cell (PEMFC) usually used to generate electricity by burning
hydrogen into air. For this kind of vehicles, hydrogen gas is usually
stored at high pressure to supply the fuel cell. Like BEVs, FCEVs use an
electric motor to drive the vehicle [19]. Dealing with FCEVs, hydrogen
refueling takes only 3–5 min, like refueling a gasoline vehicle, offering a
faster alternative to BEV charging. Moreover, FCEVs can offer driving
ranges comparable to conventional gasoline vehicles (300–400 miles per
tank), making them suitable for long-distance travel. Like BEVs, FCEVs
produce no harmful emissions, emitting only water vapor as a byproduct
[20].
The following table (Table 2) summarizes, for different models and
types of electric vehicles available in the market, prices, autonomy and
3
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
technologies, depending on regional infrastructure and energy
availability.
In this paper, we aim to provide a comprehensive review on the
development and comparative analysis between battery electric vehicles
(BEVs) and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). The major objective of this
review article are summarized as
Table 2
Existing models on European market [21].
Model
Type
Price
(€)
Autonomy
(km)
Charging Time (h)
BMW I3
Citroen C-Zero
Hyundai Ioniq
Kia Soul EV
Nissan Leaf
Peugeot Ion
Renault Zoe
Tesla S
Volkswagen EGoff
Average
Model
BEV
BEV
BEV
BEV
BEV
BEV
BEV
BEV
BEV
32,100
30,235
35,850
35,400
32,640
30,370
25,900
75,700
39,350
200
150
280
200
140–250
150
200–350
600
300
8
15
7
8
13
11
10
38
17
BEV
Type
Toyota Mirai
Honda Clarity
Hyundai ix 35
Average
FCEV
FCEV
FCEV
FCEV
37,505
Price
(€)
79,200
57,600
66,550
62,075
261
Autonomy
(km)
500
650
500
575
13
Charging Time
(min)
3
3
3
3
• Investigate the technological advancements of Battery Electric Ve­
hicles (BEVs) and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs), with a focus on
their historical progress and current innovations.
• Conduct a comparison between BEVs and FCEVs in terms of their
energy efficiency, refueling and charging infrastructure, costs, and
environmental footprint.
• Evaluate the environmental sustainability of both vehicle types by
assessing their lifecycle emissions, including manufacturing, opera­
tion, and disposal or recycling phases.
• Analyze market trends driving the adoption of BEVs and FCEVs,
considering factors like government policies, industrial investments,
and shifts in consumer behavior.
• Identify key challenges faced by both technologies, such as battery
lifespan issues, limitations of hydrogen infrastructure, and the sus­
tainability of energy sources.
• Examine future technological prospects that could support the
growth and efficiency of BEVs and FCEVs, including improvements
in battery chemistry, hydrogen production, and infrastructure
expansion.
• Determine the most suitable applications for BEVs and FCEVs by
identifying the types of transportation (urban, long-distance, or
heavy-duty) that each technology serves best.
charging time.
Despite these advantages, FCEVs are facing challenges mainly linked
to hydrogen Infrastructure. In fact, the lack of widespread hydrogen
refueling stations is a significant barrier to FCEV adoption. Currently,
the infrastructure is limited to certain regions, particularly in California,
Japan, and Germany. In addition, hydrogen production is often carbonintensive if sourced from natural gas via steam methane reforming, for
example. The production of green hydrogen from renewable energy
sources is more environmentally friendly but still expensive. While FCEV
prices are dropping, the cost of fuel cell stacks, hydrogen storage, and
other components remains higher than BEVs or conventional vehicles.
Besides, FCEVs have a smaller market share than BEVs due to infra­
structure challenges, but they are gaining attention for specific use cases
like long-haul trucking and heavy-duty transport. Automakers like
Toyota, Hyundai, and Honda have introduced FCEVs such as the Toyota
Mirai, Hyundai Nexo, and Honda Clarity [22]. Additionally, hydrogenpowered buses and trucks are being developed for commercial appli­
cations by companies like Nikola and Hyundai. In Table 3 below, a
comparative overview of BEVs and FCEVs is summarized.
In conclusion, both BEVs and FCEVs offer significant benefits for
reducing emissions and improving energy efficiency in transportation.
BEVs have a more mature market with growing infrastructure, making
them suitable for everyday urban and regional travel. FCEVs, while less
developed, present a promising solution for longer-range applications
and sectors where fast refueling and extended range are essential. The
future of clean transportation will likely involve a combination of both
The paper will be organized as follows. The first section will be
dedicated to present the background, an overview, scope and objectives,
and the scope of the review on BEVs and FCEVs. In sections 2 and 3,
attention will be paid on the development of BEVs, and FCEVs, respec­
tively. Energy efficiency associated to each type of vehicle will be dis­
cussed in section 4 and a comparative study will be provided.
Environmental impact and sustainability issues related to these twotypes of vehicles will be treated in section 5. Cost analysis and eco­
nomic viability will be examined in section 6. Technological innovations
and prospects will be presented in section 7, while section 8 will be
devoted to Challenges and Barriers to the adoption of BEVs and FCEVs.
2. Development of battery electric vehicles (BEV)
The automotive industry is undergoing a fundamental trans­
formation with the rise of Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs), driven by the
urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality,
and reduce dependence on fossil fuels. BEVs, which rely entirely on
electricity for propulsion, are emerging as a key technology in the shift
toward sustainable transportation. Advances in battery technology,
energy storage systems, electric motors, and power electronics have
fueled the evolution of BEVs. While the potential environmental and
economic benefits of BEVs are widely recognized, their development
and adoption face challenges in infrastructure, market acceptance, and
sustainability. This review paper explores the technological evolution,
historical milestones, infrastructure development, market penetration,
environmental impact, economic viability, and the challenges and op­
portunities associated with BEVs.
Table 3
A summary of a comparative overview of BEVs and FCEVs.
Aspect
Energy Source
Refueling/
Charging Time
Driving Range
Emissions
Infrastructure
Technological
Maturity
Battery Electric Vehicles
(BEVs)
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles
(FCEVs)
Electricity (Stored in
Batteries)
Several Hours (Home
Chargers), 30 min (Fast
Chargers)
100–400+ miles
Zero Tailpipe Emissions
Growing (but still limited in
some regions)
More mature with broader
adoption
Hydrogen (Converted to
Electricity)
Cost
Decreasing with mass
production
Best Use Cases
Urban transport, short to
mid-range trips
3–5 Minutes
300–400 miles
Zero Tailpipe Emissions
Very Limited (especially
outside of select regions)
Emerging with fewer
vehicles on the market
Still high due to hydrogen
production and fuel cell
costs
Long-distance transport,
heavy-duty vehicles
2.1. Technological evolution
The technological evolution of BEVs can be traced through ad­
vancements in various key areas:
a) Battery Technology
4
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
The heart of any BEV is its battery, which has seen dramatic im­
provements over the years. The shift from early lead-acid batteries to
lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries represents a major breakthrough. Li-ion
batteries offer higher energy density, faster charging, and a longer
lifespan compared to older technologies. Today, research is focused on
solid-state batteries, which promise even higher energy densities,
improved safety, and faster charging times. The emergence of lith­
ium‑sulfur and lithium-air batteries may also represent future ad­
vancements, with the potential to further extend range and reduce costs.
b) Electric Motors and Power Electronics
Modern BEVs use highly efficient electric motors, such as permanent
magnet synchronous motors (PMSM) and induction motors, which have
higher power-to-weight ratios compared to internal combustion engines
(ICEs). Additionally, power electronics—responsible for managing the
flow of energy between the battery and the motor—have become more
sophisticated. Innovations such as regenerative braking systems allow
energy to be recaptured during deceleration, improving overall
efficiency.
c) Charging Technology
Fig. 1. Thomas Parker’s EV [24]. Source Wikimedia Commons.
Charging infrastructure has also evolved significantly. While early
BEVs relied on slow home chargers, fast-charging stations that can
recharge a vehicle to 80 % in under 30 min are now common. Wireless
charging and vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technologies are emerging, allowing
vehicles to be charged without a physical connection and even provide
energy back to the grid during peak demand periods.
electricity repeatedly, provided the essential power source that earlier
electric vehicle models lacked. By 1881, Camille Alphonse Faure
improved the design of the lead-acid battery, enabling it to be massproduced and opening new possibilities for electric vehicles [24]
(Fig. 2). Faure’s advances marked the beginning of more serious
experimentation with battery-powered cars, and manufacturers began
exploring ways to improve both the power and speed of these vehicles.
By the late 19th century, electric vehicles began competing with
steam and gasoline-powered automobiles. Early electric cars offered
advantages, such as quieter operation and the absence of harmful
emissions. However, their limited battery capacity—combined with the
rapid improvements in internal combustion engine (ICE)
technology—led to their gradual decline by the early 20th century [24]
(Fig. 2).
d) Autonomous and Smart Driving Features
The integration of smart features such as autonomous driving ca­
pabilities and advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) is becoming
standard in modern BEVs. Tesla’s Autopilot, for example, showcases the
potential for BEVs to be platforms for innovation in mobility and driving
technologies.
2.2. Historical milestones
2.2.2. The modern era begins: from concept to mass production
(1960s–1990s)
After decades of dormancy, the electric vehicle made a comeback in
the 1960s, spurred by growing concerns about air pollution and the
environmental impact of fossil fuels. One of the earliest modern attempts
to develop an electric car came from General Motors (GM), which
The journey of Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) is marked by a series
of technological breakthroughs and pivotal moments that span almost
two centuries. The earliest efforts to develop electric vehicles (EVs) were
deeply intertwined with advancements in electricity and battery tech­
nology. What began as experimental models eventually laid the
groundwork for modern BEVs, which are now at the forefront of the
automotive industry’s transition to sustainable energy solutions.
2.2.1. Early developments: the foundations of electric mobility
(1828–1900s)
The first steps toward creating electric vehicles emerged in the early
19th century when inventors began experimenting with rudimentary
electric motors. In 1828, Hungarian engineer Ányos Jedlik invented a
small-scale electric motor, which he demonstrated using a model car
powered by his new motor. This invention, while rudimentary, was
among the first demonstrations of electricity being harnessed for
transportation [23] (Fig. 1). A few years later, in 1834, Vermont
blacksmith Thomas Davenport developed a more advanced electric
vehicle model. His vehicle moved along a circular track, powered by an
electric motor of his own design. Davenport’s work, although innova­
tive, was hindered by the absence of a rechargeable power sour­
ce—vehicles of this era lacked the onboard energy storage necessary for
practical use [23] (Fig. 1).
The significant breakthrough came in 1859 when French physicist
Gaston Planté invented the lead–acid battery, the first rechargeable
battery. This battery technology, capable of storing and delivering
Fig. 2. GM’s The Electrovair [25]. Source My Car Quest.
5
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
introduced the Electrovair concept vehicle in the mid-1960s. Powered
by a silver‑zinc battery pack that delivered up to 532 V, the Electrovair
represented a bold step forward in electric vehicle technology. However,
its high production cost and technical limitations—particularly with the
battery—prevented the Electrovair from entering mass production. The
real turning point came in the 1990s with the development of GM’s EV1,
the first mass-produced electric car of the modern era. Inspired by the
California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) mandate requiring automakers
to produce zero-emission vehicles, the.
EV1 was launched as a direct response to increasing regulatory
pressures and growing.
environmental awareness. Released in 1996, the EV1 featured an
advanced lead-acid battery pack and later, a nickel-metal hydride
(NiMH) option, significantly improving its range. Despite its techno­
logical promise and passionate user base, the EV1 was ultimately dis­
continued in 2002, and the majority of the vehicles were recalled and
destroyed. The decision remains controversial, but the EV1 played a
pivotal role in reviving interest in electric vehicles and demonstrated
that they were not only feasible but capable of delivering a desirable
driving experience.
Volt, launched in the same year, combined a small gasoline engine with
its electric drivetrain, easing consumer concerns about range anxiety.
This period also saw a significant increase in government incentives
for electric vehicles, driven by a desire to reduce carbon emissions and
combat climate change. Countries like Norway, the Netherlands, and
China introduced generous subsidies, tax breaks, and other financial
incentives to encourage the adoption of electric vehicles. By the end of
the decade, global sales of BEVs had risen sharply, particularly in
Europe, China, and North America. Entering the 2020s, the global
automotive industry has reached a pivotal moment in its shift toward
electrification. Governments around the world, including those of the
United Kingdom, France, and several U.S. states, announced plans to
phase out the sale of new gasoline and diesel vehicles, signalling a clear
commitment to the future of BEVs. Automakers responded by ramping
up their electric vehicle offerings, with companies like Volkswagen,
Ford, and General Motors pledging to electrify their entire vehicle
lineups by the 2030s.
Tesla, by now a dominant force in the automotive industry,
continued to lead the charge. Its development of vehicles like the Model
3 and Model Y, designed for the mass market, helped propel BEVs into
the mainstream, making electric vehicles a viable option for millions of
consumers worldwide. At the same time, advances in battery technol­
ogy, infrastructure development, and government policies ensured that
BEVs were no longer just a niche product but a central component of the
future of transportation.
Thus, from their humble beginnings in the 19th century to their rise
as the future of transportation, the development of BEVs has been
marked by both breakthroughs and setbacks. While early electric vehi­
cles struggled with the limitations of available battery technology,
modern BEVs benefit from decades of innovation and growing global
support for cleaner, more sustainable transportation options. As the
world moves toward a future dominated by electric mobility, BEVs stand
at the forefront of this transformation, offering the promise of a cleaner,
greener, and more technologically advanced automotive landscape.
2.2.3. The tesla revolution: a new era of BEVs (2008–2010s)
The release of the Tesla Roadster in 2008 marked the dawn of a new
era in BEV development. The Tesla Roadster was groundbreaking for
several reasons. It was the first production car to use lithium-ion (Li-ion)
battery cells, which provided significantly higher energy density than
earlier battery technologies. The Roadster could travel over 200 miles on
a single charge, a feat that was unheard of at the time for an electric
vehicle. More importantly, Tesla positioned the Roadster not just as an
electric vehicle, but as a luxury sports car, challenging the notion that
electric cars had to sacrifice performance. [24] (Fig. 3).
Tesla’s success redefined the electric vehicle landscape. With the
Roadster, the company demonstrated that BEVs could be both practical
and aspirational, paving the way for the mass adoption of electric ve­
hicles. Tesla’s subsequent releases, particularly the Model S in 2012,
continued to push the boundaries of what was possible in terms of range,
performance, and design, helping to eliminate much of the skepticism
surrounding electric vehicles.
2.3. Infrastructure development
The widespread adoption of Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) depends
heavily on the development of a robust and scalable infrastructure.
Without the necessary infrastructure, the transition from internal com­
bustion engine (ICE) vehicles to electric vehicles would face numerous
challenges, especially in terms of reliability and convenience for users.
The success of BEVs is tied to a complex web of charging facilities, grid
integration, energy management systems, and supportive urban policies.
This section will delve into these key elements, focusing on charging
station networks, smart grid integration, and energy management stra­
tegies, along with the evolving urban infrastructure and policies
2.2.4. Mass market adoption and the global shift toward electrification
(2010s–2020s)
The 2010s saw the widespread emergence of BEVs as a mainstream
transportation option. Vehicles such as the Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet
Volt became icons of this shift, offering affordable electric alternatives
to the traditional gasoline-powered car. The Leaf, released in 2010, was
the first mass-market BEV designed for affordability and practicality,
featuring a range of approximately 100 miles. Meanwhile, the Chevrolet
Fig. 3. Tesla’s The Roadster [25]. Source Getty Images.
6
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
supply. This bi-directional energy flow not only supports grid stability
but also creates new revenue streams for BEV owners through energy
trading. BEV owners can sell their surplus energy back to the grid during
peak periods, thereby benefiting from fluctuating electricity prices [31].
The increasing integration of BEVs into power grids, however, has
also highlighted unintended consequences such as overloading power
system facilities and reducing the efficiency of energy transmission. To
mitigate these issues, the concept of “smart charging” or “intelligent
charging” has gained significant traction. Intelligent charging schemes
are designed to optimize the charging process based on real-time data
from the grid and the vehicle. For example, charging can be delayed
until off-peak hours when electricity demand is lower, thus reducing the
strain on the grid and lowering costs for the consumer.
In some cases, studies have proposed “valley-filling” approaches,
where BEVs are charged during periods of low demand to balance the
overall energy load and minimize costs associated with electricity sup­
ply [32]. Other studies focus on integrating renewable energy sources,
such as solar and wind, into the charging process, further reducing the
environmental impact of BEV use. For example, intelligent pricing
schemes can be tied to the availability of renewable energy, offering
lower rates for charging during times when renewable power is abun­
dant [33].
To fully capitalize on the potential of intelligent charging and V2G
systems, sophisticated algorithms are necessary to manage the complex
interplay between electricity demand, pricing, and BEV charging. These
algorithms must consider constraints such as reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, minimizing charging costs, and preventing power system
losses. As BEV adoption continues to grow, the development of more
advanced energy management systems will be crucial to maintaining the
balance between electricity supply and demand.
designed to promote BEV use.
2.3.1. Charging stations
The development of public and private charging networks has been
one of the most critical factors in the rise of BEVs. Initially, BEV owners
were largely dependent on home charging solutions, which limited the
practicality of using these vehicles for long-distance travel. Over time,
the expansion of public charging networks, particularly fast-charging
stations, has helped alleviate these limitations.
Fast-charging stations, such as those deployed by Tesla’s Super­
charger network, can add several hundred miles of range to a vehicle in
under an hour, making long-distance travel far more feasible for BEV
owners. Governments and private companies are investing heavily in
expanding these networks in both urban and rural areas, with the goal of
ensuring that charging stations are as ubiquitous as gasoline stations. A
notable example of this trend is Tesla’s Supercharger network, which
offers a widespread, fast-charging option for Tesla drivers, significantly
reducing range anxiety and promoting the adoption of BEVs on a larger
scale [26].
Moreover, home and workplace charging solutions have evolved to
complement public charging networks. Wall-boxes, for example, have
become an essential component of charging management systems. These
semi-fast chargers not only offer greater convenience but also provide
users with a range of smart features. A standard wall-box system can
charge a vehicle at a rate of up to 22 kW, enabling a quicker charge than
a traditional wall socket. These devices often come equipped with fea­
tures such as real-time energy monitoring, allowing users to track their
vehicle’s energy consumption and costs. Other useful features include
charge scheduling, which enables users to take advantage of lower
electricity rates during off-peak hours, and remote control, which allows
users to lock or unlock the charger and adjust the output current.
Compatibility with mobile operating systems like iOS and Android en­
sures that these systems are user-friendly, offering seamless integration
into daily life [27].
As the number of BEVs on the road continues to increase, researchers
and engineers are also developing methods to optimize charging station
operations and alleviate the strain on power grids. One of the primary
concerns with the rapid expansion of BEV infrastructure is the potential
for increased demand on the electricity grid, particularly during peak
hours. To address this, some researchers are exploring rapid recharging
methods that can mitigate the financial and operational strain associated
with peak-time charging. These methods are designed to reduce the
costs of charging during peak hours while also ensuring that the grid can
meet increased demand without suffering from overloads or in­
efficiencies [28].
Charging station operators and builders must also consider various
factors in station design, including equipment dimensions, maintenance
needs, and operational strategies. These factors are crucial for ensuring
that charging stations remain functional, cost-effective, and adaptable to
future demands. Effective maintenance procedures and operational
strategies can significantly enhance the reliability and lifespan of
charging stations, making them a crucial element in the long-term suc­
cess of BEV infrastructure [29,30].
2.3.3. Urban infrastructure and policies
In addition to technological advancements in charging and grid
integration, cities around the world are adapting their infrastructure and
policies to promote the use of BEVs. Urban areas, in particular, have
been at the forefront of implementing policies that incentivize BEV
adoption. Governments have introduced a variety of measures,
including tax incentives, subsidies, and exemptions from congestion
charges or low-emission zone fees, all of which make BEVs more
attractive for urban drivers [34–37].
Moreover, cities are actively incorporating charging infrastructure
into public spaces, residential developments, and parking lots. For
example, many new residential buildings are now required to include a
certain number of charging stations in their parking facilities, while
commercial spaces are increasingly reserving parking spots exclusively
for electric vehicles. These measures are designed to reduce range
anxiety and make charging more accessible to a broader population.
Urban policies are also playing a key role in promoting the adoption of
BEVs by making them more economically viable. In some cities, BEV
drivers benefit from lower registration fees, reduced tolls, and exemp­
tions from congestion charges. These incentives, combined with the
environmental benefits of BEVs, make them an increasingly attractive
option for urban dwellers [38–42].
In conclusion, the development of BEV infrastructure is a multifac­
eted challenge that requires collaboration between governments, pri­
vate companies, and research institutions. The expansion of charging
networks, integration with smart grid systems, and the implementation
of supportive urban policies will all play a vital role in ensuring the
success of BEVs. As these efforts continue, the barriers to BEV adoption
will diminish, paving the way for a cleaner, more sustainable future of
transportation.
2.3.2. Grid integration and energy management
As BEVs become more prevalent, their integration into national
power grids is a major concern. Charging a large number of electric
vehicles can create spikes in electricity demand, potentially leading to
power system overloads and inefficiencies. This presents a challenge for
grid operators who must ensure that energy demand remains balanced
without compromising the reliability of the power supply.
To address these challenges, smart grid technology and Vehicle-toGrid (V2G) systems have emerged as critical solutions. V2G technol­
ogy allows BEVs to feed energy back into the grid when they are not in
use. For instance, a fully charged BEV can transfer excess electricity back
to the grid during periods of high demand, helping to stabilize the power
2.4. Market penetration
The market penetration of Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) has seen
unprecedented growth over the past decade, signalling a significant shift
7
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
in the global automotive landscape. Factors driving this surge include
governmental policies, consumer demand for environmentally friendly
alternatives, advancements in technology, and major commitments by
automakers to electrify their fleets. This section explores global market
growth, the role of government incentives, and the impact of automaker
commitments on the proliferation of BEVs.
more automakers introduce electric models [48].
2.4.2. Government incentives and policies
Government policies and incentives have been pivotal in acceler­
ating BEV market penetration. Countries around the world have
implemented a variety of measures aimed at reducing the upfront cost of
BEVs, making them more competitive with traditional internal com­
bustion engine (ICE) vehicles.
One of the most influential policy tools has been subsidies and tax
rebates for BEV purchases. In many countries, governments offer sub­
stantial financial incentives to consumers, reducing the price disparity
between BEVs and conventional vehicles. For instance, the U.S. federal
government provides a tax credit of up to $7500 for the purchase of a
new electric vehicle, depending on the battery capacity and the manu­
facturer’s sales volume [49]. Additionally, several states offer further
incentives, such as rebates, tax exemptions, and reduced registration
fees, to encourage BEV adoption.
Norway stands as a leading example of how strong government
support can drive market penetration. In Norway, BEVs benefit from a
comprehensive package of incentives, including exemptions from valueadded tax (VAT), reduced road tolls, free access to public parking, and
access to bus lanes in certain areas. As a result of these policies, BEVs
accounted for more than 80 % of new car sales in Norway in 2022,
making the country a global leader in BEV adoption [50]. Other coun­
tries, including Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, have intro­
duced similar programs to promote the transition to electric vehicles.
Beyond financial incentives, governments are also implementing
stricter emissions regulations, which are forcing automakers to accel­
erate their electrification strategies. In Europe, for example, the Euro­
pean Union has introduced progressively stringent CO₂ emission
standards for new vehicles, aiming for a 100 % reduction in emissions
from new cars by 2035 [51,52]. Similar regulations are being considered
in other regions, pushing automakers to invest heavily in BEV technol­
ogy to meet future emissions targets.
2.4.1. Global market growth
Over the past decade, BEVs have transitioned from a niche product to
a mainstream option in the automotive market. Sales of electric vehicles
have experienced exponential growth, with millions of units sold
annually worldwide. In 2022 alone, global BEV sales exceeded 10
million units, marking a significant increase from previous years [43].
The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that by 2030, the global
stock of electric vehicles could reach 230 million, if policies continue to
support the transition [44] (Figs. 4 and 5).
China has emerged as the largest market for BEVs, accounting for
over half of the world’s electric vehicle sales. Several factors contribute
to China’s dominance, including its robust domestic manufacturing
sector, aggressive government policies, and large-scale investments in
charging infrastructure. Chinese companies such as BYD, NIO, and
XPeng have become major players in the BEV market, often offering
lower-cost alternatives compared to their Western counterparts.
Furthermore, the Chinese government has implemented stringent
quotas for electric vehicle production, as well as subsidies for both
manufacturers and consumers, making BEVs more accessible to the
general population [45,46].
Europe is another key region in the global BEV market, with coun­
tries like Norway, Germany, and the Netherlands leading the charge.
Europe’s strict emissions regulations, such as the European Union’s CO₂
emission standards for cars, have pushed automakers and consumers
toward BEVs as a way to meet regulatory requirements. In 2022, electric
vehicles accounted for around 25 % of all new vehicle sales in Europe,
with countries like Norway far outpacing the global average, where
BEVs represented more than 80 % of new car sales [47]. Environmental
concerns, coupled with high fuel prices and government incentives, have
made BEVs a more attractive option for European consumers.
In the United States, BEV sales have also gained momentum,
although they still lag behind Europe and China. The U.S. market is
being driven by a combination of federal and state-level incentives,
along with the growing popularity of brands like Tesla, which dominates
the electric vehicle space. By 2023, electric vehicles made up around 7 %
of new vehicle sales in the U.S., and this number is expected to rise as
2.4.3. Automaker commitments
The commitment of major automakers to electrify their vehicle
lineups has been one of the most significant factors driving the market
penetration of BEVs. Over the past few years, several leading automotive
manufacturers have announced ambitious plans to transition away from
internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and invest billions of dollars
in the development and production of electric vehicles.
Volkswagen, for example, has committed to becoming a global
Fig. 4. BEV sales in selected European countries [44].
8
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
Fig. 5. Market share of new purchased BEVs in selected European countries [44].
2.5.1. Zero tailpipe emissions
A central environmental advantage of BEVs is their complete elimi­
nation of tailpipe emissions, which sets them apart from traditional In­
ternal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles. While ICE vehicles release a
cocktail of harmful pollutants including carbon dioxide (CO₂), nitrogen
oxides (NOₓ), hydrocarbons (HC), and particulate matter (PM) during
operation, BEVs produce no such direct emissions. This directly con­
tributes to improving air quality, particularly in congested urban areas
that suffer from high levels of smog and harmful air pollutants [63].
Air pollution, especially from transport emissions, has been linked to
numerous health issues, including respiratory and cardiovascular dis­
eases, and is responsible for millions of premature deaths globally every
year [64]. In fact, according to the World Health Organization (WHO),
outdoor air pollution contributes to about 4.2 million deaths annually
[65]. By replacing ICE vehicles with BEVs, cities have the opportunity to
significantly reduce air pollution. For example, cities like Oslo, where
BEVs now make up more than 54 % of new vehicle sales [66], have seen
a notable reduction in urban air pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide
(NO₂) and particulate matter.
In addition to reducing air pollution, BEVs play a crucial role in
combatting climate change. Transportation accounts for approximately
15 % of global CO₂ emissions, making it a major contributor to global
warming [67]. As BEVs emit no CO₂ while in operation, they help
directly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The scale of this
reduction depends heavily on how the electricity used to charge BEVs is
generated. In regions where renewable energy sources like wind, solar,
and hydroelectric power are prevalent, the carbon footprint of BEV
operation is dramatically lower than ICE vehicles. For example, in
Norway, where nearly all electricity comes from hydropower, BEVs are
virtually carbon-neutral during operation [68].
Governments and policymakers are recognizing the environmental
benefits of BEVs by implementing measures like Zero-Emission Zones
(ZEZs) and Low-Emission Zones (LEZs), where access for polluting ve­
hicles is restricted. For example, London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone
(ULEZ), introduced in 2019, has successfully reduced nitrogen dioxide
levels by 44 % in central London [69]. The broader deployment of such
zones, combined with the growing market share of BEVs, is anticipated
to further reduce urban pollution levels and GHG emissions.
leader in electric mobility. The German automaker has pledged to invest
€52 billion in electric vehicles by 2026, with a goal of producing 70
electric models by 2030 [53,54]. Volkswagen also plans to phase out
sales of ICE vehicles in Europe by 2035, in line with EU regulations.
Similarly, General Motors (GM) has announced that it will eliminate
gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles from its lineup by 2035, with a
commitment to invest $35 billion in electric vehicle development by
2025 [55–57]. GM’s flagship electric models, such as the Chevrolet Bolt
and the upcoming electric Silverado, are part of the company’s strategy
to lead the North American electric vehicle market.
Ford has also made significant strides in the electric vehicle market,
with plans to invest $50 billion in electric and autonomous vehicle
technology through 2026 [58,59]. The company has set a target of
having 50 % of its global sales come from electric vehicles by 2030.
Ford’s electric vehicle portfolio includes popular models like the
Mustang Mach-E and the all-electric F-150 Lightning, which have
received strong demand from consumers.
These automaker commitments are further reinforced by partner­
ships and collaborations within the industry. For example, Ford and
Volkswagen have formed a strategic alliance to jointly develop electric
vehicles, leveraging each other’s strengths in technology and
manufacturing. Similarly, GM has partnered with Honda to co-develop
electric vehicles, sharing technology platforms to accelerate the
rollout of affordable BEVs [60,61]. These collaborations are essential for
automakers to meet their electrification goals while reducing develop­
ment costs.
In conclusion, the market penetration of BEVs is accelerating at a
rapid pace, driven by a combination of global market growth, govern­
ment incentives, and automaker commitments. As more consumers
adopt electric vehicles and more manufacturers introduce new models,
the BEV market is expected to continue its upward trajectory. While
challenges such as infrastructure development and supply chain con­
straints remain, the momentum behind BEVs suggests that they will play
a central role in the future of transportation.
2.5. Environmental impact
The environmental impact of Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) is a
subject of great importance in the ongoing global shift toward cleaner,
sustainable transportation. With transportation responsible for nearly a
quarter of global CO₂ emissions [62], the adoption of BEVs is seen as a
critical solution to reducing the carbon footprint of the sector. This
section explores three key aspects of the environmental impact of BEVs:
zero tailpipe emissions, reduced lifecycle emissions, and the sustainable
use of materials and recycling practices.
2.5.2. Reduced lifecycle emissions
While BEVs offer significant environmental benefits during opera­
tion, their environmental impact is more complex when considering
their entire lifecycle, which includes production, use, and disposal.
Indeed, BEVs generally have higher emissions during the manufacturing
phase than ICE vehicles, mainly due to the production of large lithium9
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
ion batteries. Battery production is energy-intensive, and the extraction
and processing of raw materials like lithium, cobalt, and nickel generate
considerable emissions [70]. This leads to concerns about the environ­
mental and ethical implications of mining, as well as the energy con­
sumption associated with manufacturing batteries.
Lifecycle assessments (LCAs) of BEVs, however, reveal that despite
their higher manufacturing emissions, BEVs still outperform ICE vehi­
cles in terms of total emissions over their lifetime. A study by the In­
ternational Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) found that even
when accounting for the higher manufacturing emissions, BEVs emit
50–70 % less GHGs than ICE vehicles over their lifetime, depending on
the region and energy mix used for charging [71]. For instance, in re­
gions with high renewable energy penetration, like the EU or California,
the lifetime emissions of a BEV are substantially lower than those of ICE
vehicles. Even in regions reliant on fossil fuels for electricity generation,
such as China, BEVs still exhibit lower lifecycle emissions due to the
superior energy efficiency of electric motors.
BEVs’ energy efficiency is a critical factor in their reduced lifecycle
emissions. Electric motors convert 85–90 % of the electrical energy they
receive into motion, whereas ICE vehicles only convert about 25–30 %
of the energy from gasoline into useful power [72]. This means that even
when BEVs are charged with electricity from fossil fuels, they use energy
far more efficiently, leading to lower emissions per mile driven
compared to ICE vehicles. Over time, as electricity grids decarbonize
and shift toward renewable energy sources, the lifecycle emissions of
BEVs will continue to decrease, further enhancing their environmental
benefits.
Additionally, technological advancements in battery production and
electric vehicle manufacturing are likely to reduce the emissions asso­
ciated with BEV production in the coming years. Automakers are
investing in cleaner production processes, more efficient battery
chemistries, and the use of renewable energy in manufacturing plants.
Tesla, for example, has implemented solar energy in its Gigafactories to
help offset the energy required for battery production [73]. This move
toward greener manufacturing practices will likely reduce the carbon
footprint of BEV production and further enhance their overall environ­
mental profile.
enough capacity for other applications, such as energy storage systems.
Second-life batteries can be repurposed to store energy from renewable
sources, such as solar or wind, helping to stabilize electricity grids and
extend the useful life of the batteries [78]. For example, Nissan has
repurposed old LEAF batteries to store energy for streetlights in Japan,
reducing the need for new raw materials and supporting the transition to
renewable energy [79].
Furthermore, researchers are actively working on developing new
battery chemistries that reduce reliance on scarce or ethically prob­
lematic materials. Solid-state batteries, for example, have the potential
to use less cobalt and offer higher energy densities, which could reduce
the environmental impact of both battery production and use [80].
These advancements, combined with improvements in recycling and
second-life applications, will further enhance the sustainability of BEVs
and their overall contribution to environmental preservation [81].
Thus, the environmental impact of BEVs is overwhelmingly positive
compared to ICE vehicles. With zero tailpipe emissions, BEVs contribute
to cleaner air in urban areas, reducing the health impacts of air pollution
and significantly cutting GHG emissions, particularly when powered by
renewable energy. While the manufacturing of BEVs—particularly their
batteries—has higher initial environmental costs, their overall lifecycle
emissions are considerably lower than ICE vehicles. Moreover, advances
in battery recycling, sustainable material sourcing, and second-life ap­
plications are addressing the challenges associated with raw material
use and disposal. As the world continues to transition toward greener
energy sources and more efficient manufacturing processes, BEVs will
play an increasingly vital role in reducing the transportation sector’s
environmental footprint.
2.6. Economic viability
The economic viability of Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) is a critical
factor driving their widespread adoption. Over the past decade, the
economic case for BEVs has strengthened considerably due to a combi­
nation of lower operating costs, rapid declines in battery prices, and
broader industry shifts toward electrification. This section explores
these key factors in more detail, examining the impact of lower oper­
ating costs, advancements in battery technology, and the economic
transformation driven by the transition to BEVs.
2.5.3. Sustainable materials and recycling
The production of BEV batteries relies on a range of raw materials,
including lithium, cobalt, and nickel, which have significant environ­
mental and social impacts. The mining of these materials can lead to
deforestation, water pollution, and the displacement of local commu­
nities, particularly in countries where environmental regulations are
weak [74]. For example, cobalt, a key component in most lithium-ion
batteries, is predominantly sourced from the Democratic Republic of
Congo, where mining practices have been linked to child labor and
unsafe working conditions [75]. The environmental and ethical con­
cerns surrounding these materials have prompted researchers and
companies to explore more sustainable alternatives and improve recy­
cling practices.
Recycling is a critical solution to addressing the environmental im­
pacts of battery production. As the first generation of BEV batteries nears
the end of its useful life, efforts are being made to develop efficient
recycling technologies that can recover valuable metals and reduce the
need for new mining. Companies like Redwood Materials and Li-Cycle
have pioneered processes to recover up to 95 % of the materials in
used batteries, including lithium, cobalt, and nickel [76]. These mate­
rials can then be reused in the production of new batteries, reducing the
overall environmental footprint of BEVs. Moreover, the European Union
has introduced regulations mandating that automakers be responsible
for recycling their batteries, which is expected to drive further innova­
tion in this field [77].
In addition to recycling, there is growing interest in second-life ap­
plications for BEV batteries. After batteries degrade to the point where
they are no longer suitable for powering vehicles, they often retain
2.6.1. Lower operating costs
One of the most attractive economic benefits of BEVs is their
significantly lower operating costs compared to traditional Internal
Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles. BEVs benefit from several key ad­
vantages in terms of energy consumption, maintenance, and overall
operational expenses.
2.6.2. Cheaper fueling costs
BEVs run on electricity, which is generally more affordable than
gasoline or diesel fuel, particularly in regions where electricity prices are
low or subsidized. In many countries, the cost of charging a BEV is
considerably lower than refueling a conventional vehicle. For example,
in the U.S., the cost per mile for a BEV is approximately half that of a
comparable gasoline vehicle, with BEV drivers typically spending
around $500–600 annually on charging, compared to $1000–1500 for
gasoline [[45],82,]. Additionally, as renewable energy becomes more
widely integrated into the grid, the cost of electricity is expected to
remain stable or even decrease, further enhancing the cost competi­
tiveness of BEVs over time. Figs. 6 and 7 depict the energy costs for
petrol cars and BEVs for driving 100 km based on the data for the year
2018.
2.6.3. Reduced maintenance costs
BEVs have fewer moving parts than ICE vehicles, which translates
into lower maintenance costs over the vehicle’s lifetime. The absence of
components such as an internal combustion engine, transmission, and
10
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
Fig. 6. Minimum, average, and maximum energy costs including taxes per 100 km driven in European countries, 2018 [44].
Fig. 7. TCO of petrol ICE vehicles and BEVs for the average of European countries for different driving ranges, 2018 (car power: 80 kW) [44].
exhaust system means that BEVs do not require regular oil changes, fuel
filter replacements, or exhaust repairs [83]. This results in a reduction in
routine maintenance expenses by approximately 50 % compared to ICE
vehicles [84]. BEV owners also benefit from regenerative braking sys­
tems, which reduce wear and tear on brake components, further
extending the life of key parts.
Throughout its lifetime, a BEV can save thousands of dollars in
maintenance costs. A study by Consumer Reports in 2020 found that
BEV drivers saved an average of $4600 in repair and maintenance costs
over the lifetime of their vehicle compared to owners of traditional
gasoline vehicles [85]. The reduced need for repairs and servicing helps
make BEVs more affordable for consumers, particularly when consid­
ering total cost of ownership (TCO).
Longevity and Durability: BEVs are also known for their longevity.
Electric motors are highly efficient and durable, often outlasting tradi­
tional combustion engines. The fewer mechanical parts that can wear
out or fail mean that BEVs tend to have longer service lives, contributing
to their overall economic viability. Battery degradation, once a major
concern, has been addressed through technological improvements, with
modern BEV batteries often retaining 80–90 % of their capacity after 10
years of use [86]. This further reduces concerns over long-term costs and
increases confidence in BEV adoption.
2.6.4. Battery costs and cost parity
The cost of batteries has been one of the most significant barriers to
the widespread adoption of BEVs. However, in recent years, battery
prices have plummeted, bringing BEVs closer to cost parity with ICE
vehicles and improving their economic appeal.
a) Decline in Battery Prices
Lithium-ion battery prices have dropped by approximately 89 %
11
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
since 2010, from $1100 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) to around $132 per
kWh in 2021 [87]. This dramatic decline has been driven by economies
of scale, advancements in battery technology, and improvements in
manufacturing efficiency. As a result, the cost of producing BEVs has
decreased significantly, allowing automakers to offer electric models at
more competitive prices. According to BloombergNEF, battery costs are
expected to fall below the critical threshold of $100/kWh by 2024,
making BEVs as affordable to produce as ICE vehicles [88].
c) Government Investments in Workforce Training
To support the workforce transition to a greener economy, govern­
ments are investing in training programs to reskill workers from tradi­
tional automotive manufacturing sectors. For instance, the European
Union has launched initiatives to train workers in electric vehicle pro­
duction, renewable energy integration, and battery technology [97]. In
the U.S., President Biden’s $174 billion plan to promote electric vehicles
includes funding for job training programs in the EV and clean energy
sectors [98]. These initiatives are designed to ensure that workers can
transition to new roles in the rapidly growing BEV industry.
b) Cost Parity with ICE Vehicles
Achieving cost parity with ICE vehicles is considered a tipping point
for the mass adoption of BEVs. Once battery prices fall below $100/
kWh, the upfront cost of a BEV will be comparable to, or even lower
than, that of an ICE vehicle, even before accounting for government
incentives. When factoring in lower operating costs (e.g., fuel, mainte­
nance, and tax incentives), BEVs will likely become the economically
superior option for most consumers [89]. This trend is expected to
accelerate BEV adoption, particularly as governments introduce stricter
emissions regulations and phase out subsidies for gasoline-powered
vehicles.
Technological Innovations and New Chemistries: In addition to
reducing battery costs, researchers are developing new battery chemis­
tries that could further enhance the affordability of BEVs. Solid-state
batteries, which promise higher energy density, longer lifespans, and
lower costs, are among the most promising technologies [90]. Auto­
makers like Toyota and Volkswagen are investing heavily in solid-state
battery research, with commercial production expected within the next
decade [91]. As these technologies mature, they are likely to drive down
costs even further, making BEVs an even more attractive option for
consumers and businesses.
d) Economic Impact on Local Communities
The growth of the BEV industry also has a positive impact on local
economies, particularly in regions where new manufacturing facilities
and charging infrastructure are being built. For example, the construc­
tion of Tesla’s Gigafactory in Nevada has contributed significantly to the
state’s economy, creating jobs, boosting local businesses, and increasing
tax revenues [99]. Similarly, the expansion of charging infrastructure in
urban and rural areas is expected to generate economic activity, as
businesses and governments invest in new technologies to support BEV
adoption [100].
Thus, the economic viability of BEVs is improving rapidly as lower
operating costs, declining battery prices, and job creation in the green
economy converge to make electric vehicles more attractive to con­
sumers and businesses. The lower costs of electricity and maintenance,
combined with the falling price of batteries, are bringing BEVs closer to
cost parity with ICE vehicles. Additionally, the shift toward electrifica­
tion is reshaping the global automotive industry, creating new jobs and
economic opportunities in battery production, charging infrastructure,
and clean energy sectors. As governments continue to invest in the
development of electric mobility and workforce training, the economic
case for BEVs will only grow stronger, positioning them as a key driver of
sustainable economic growth in the coming decades.
2.6.5. Job creation and economic impact
The transition to electric mobility is reshaping the global automotive
industry, with significant implications for job creation, economic
growth, and workforce development. While the shift toward BEVs pre­
sents challenges for traditional automotive manufacturing, it also cre­
ates new opportunities in emerging sectors, such as battery production,
electric motor manufacturing, and charging infrastructure development.
2.7. Challenges and opportunities
Despite significant advancements in Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs),
several challenges hinder their widespread adoption. Addressing these
challenges while capitalizing on emerging opportunities is crucial for
the future of BEVs. This section delves into the main challenges and
explores potential opportunities for technological innovation that could
shape the future of electric transportation.
a) Job Creation in the Green Economy
The growth of the BEV market is spurring the creation of jobs in a
variety of industries, including battery manufacturing, software devel­
opment, and energy infrastructure. According to the International En­
ergy Agency (IEA), the electric vehicle industry could create millions of
jobs globally by 2030 [92]. For instance, Europe’s push toward elec­
trification is expected to create over 1 million jobs in the automotive and
energy sectors, as demand for BEV components, charging stations, and
renewable energy increases [93]. In the U.S., major automakers like
General Motors and Ford are investing billions in new electric vehicle
manufacturing plants, which are expected to create tens of thousands of
jobs [94].
a) Range and Charging Anxiety
Range Anxiety: Range anxiety—the fear of running out of battery
power before reaching a charging station—remains a significant barrier
to BEV adoption. Although battery technology has improved, many
consumers are still concerned about the limited range of BEVs compared
to traditional Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles. This is
particularly problematic for long-distance travel and for drivers in re­
gions with sparse charging infrastructure.
Battery Efficiency and Range Improvements: Advances in battery
technology, such as higher energy density and faster charging rates, are
essential to alleviating range anxiety. Manufacturers are investing in
research to develop batteries with greater capacities and longer life­
spans. Solid-state batteries, which promise higher energy density and
safety, are one promising solution. However, they are still in the
development phase and are not yet commercially available.
Expansion of Charging Infrastructure: The availability and con­
venience of fast-charging stations are critical to addressing range anxi­
ety. Expanding the network of fast chargers, particularly in rural and
underserved areas, is necessary to provide more options for BEV drivers.
Governments and private companies are working to increase the number
b) Automotive Industry Transformation
The rise of BEVs is transforming the traditional automotive supply
chain. While jobs in ICE vehicle manufacturing may decline as pro­
duction shifts away from internal combustion engines, new opportu­
nities are emerging in battery production and electric motor
development. For example, Tesla’s Gigafactories, which produce bat­
teries for its electric vehicles, have created thousands of high-skilled jobs
in Nevada and Berlin [95]. Similarly, companies like LG Chem and
Panasonic, which supply batteries to major automakers, are expanding
their production facilities to meet the growing demand for BEV batteries
[96].
12
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
of charging stations, with initiatives to deploy ultra-fast chargers
capable of adding significant range in a short amount of time.
during peak demand periods. This technology can help balance grid
supply and demand, reduce energy costs for BEV owners, and support
the integration of renewable energy sources.
b) Battery Longevity and Recycling
3. Development of fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV)
Battery Degradation: The longevity of BEV batteries is a concern for
both environmental and economic reasons. Over time, batteries lose
their capacity and efficiency, leading to reduced range and performance.
Ensuring that batteries remain functional and effective throughout their
lifespan is critical for maintaining BEV performance and value.
Environmental Impact of Battery Production and Disposal: The
production of lithium-ion batteries involves the extraction of raw ma­
terials such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel, which can have significant
environmental and ethical implications. Additionally, the disposal of
used batteries poses environmental challenges. Developing sustainable
practices for battery production, including the use of recycled materials,
and improving recycling technologies are essential for mitigating these
impacts.
Advancements in Recycling: Effective recycling systems can
significantly reduce the environmental footprint of battery production.
Innovations in recycling technologies, such as hydrometallurgical and
pyrometallurgical methods, are being explored to recover valuable
materials from used batteries and reduce the need for new raw
materials.
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) have emerged as a promising
alternative to Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs), offering zero-emission
transportation, particularly suited for long-distance travel and heavyduty applications. FCEVs are powered by hydrogen fuel cells, which
generate electricity through an electrochemical reaction between
hydrogen and oxygen, with water vapor being the only byproduct. This
section explores the historical development, technological evolution,
infrastructure advancement, environmental impact, and the challenges
and opportunities associated with FCEVs.
3.1. Historical milestones
The history of FCEVs traces back to the invention of fuel cells in 1838
by Sir William Grove. For much of the 19th and early 20th centuries, fuel
cells were used mainly in spacecraft, submarines, and stationary power
plants. However, the first significant milestone in the development of
FCEVs came in 1966 when General Motors (GM) produced the GMC
Electrovan. This vehicle was the result of a two-year development effort
led by Dr. Craig Marks and utilized 32 fuel cell modules, delivering a
continuous output of 32 kW and a peak power of 160 kW. The fuel used
was pure liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The Electrovan achieved a
top speed of 70 mph and had a range of 120 miles. However, due to the
large hydrogen and oxygen tanks and extensive piping, the fuel cell
system reduced the 6-seat van to a 2-seater. Despite test driving at the
GM facility and demonstrating the vehicle to journalists, the project was
discontinued due to the prohibitive costs and the lack of hydrogen
infrastructure at the time (Fig. 8) [101].
Nearly thirty years later, the potential of fuel cell technology for
automotive applications was revisited. In 1994, Daimler-Benz intro­
duced the NECAR 1 (New Electric Car Number 1) to the public. This
vehicle featured a 50 kW Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cell
manufactured by Ballard, which has become one of the leading PEM fuel
cell manufacturers. The NECAR 1 utilized a compressed hydrogen tank,
storing gas at 300 bar. It reached a top speed of 56 mph and had a range
of 81 miles. However, like the GMC Electrovan, the fuel cell and storage
system occupied most of the available space, reducing the vehicle’s
seating to two seats [103].
The NECAR 2, introduced in 1996, featured a fuel cell system onethird the weight of its predecessor. From 1996 to 1999, several major
automakers, including Toyota, GM, Mazda, Ford, Honda, Nissan, and
Volkswagen, launched their own fuel cell vehicle projects. These
c) Infrastructure and Grid Management
Electricity Grid Demand: The widespread adoption of BEVs will
increase the demand on the electricity grid, particularly during peak
charging times. This additional load could strain existing grid infra­
structure and lead to higher electricity costs if not managed properly.
Smart Grid Technology: To accommodate the increased demand,
substantial investment in smart grid technology is needed. Smart grids
use digital communication and automation to improve grid efficiency
and reliability. Features such as demand response and vehicle-to-grid
(V2G) systems, which allow BEVs to supply power back to the grid,
can help balance supply and demand and enhance grid stability.
Renewable Energy Integration: Integrating renewable energy
sources into the grid is crucial for supporting the increased electricity
demand from BEVs while minimizing carbon emissions. Investments in
renewable energy infrastructure, such as solar and wind power, and
energy storage systems are necessary to ensure that the electricity used
for BEVs is sustainably sourced.
d) Opportunities for Technological Innovation
Solid-State Batteries: Solid-state batteries represent a significant
technological advancement over traditional lithium-ion batteries. They
offer higher energy density, increased safety, and faster charging times.
Although they are still in the research and development phase, the
commercial availability of solid-state batteries could address many of
the current limitations of BEVs.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells: Hydrogen fuel cells provide an alternative to
battery-electric propulsion and offer advantages such as faster refueling
times and longer ranges. Although hydrogen infrastructure is currently
limited, expanding hydrogen refueling stations and improving hydrogen
production methods could make fuel cell vehicles a viable complement
to BEVs.
Autonomous Driving: The integration of autonomous driving
technology could further enhance the appeal and convenience of BEVs.
Autonomous vehicles have the potential to improve safety, reduce traffic
congestion, and optimize energy use. Ongoing advancements in sensors,
artificial intelligence, and machine learning are paving the way for more
widespread adoption of self-driving technology.
Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) Systems: V2G technology allows BEVs to
discharge energy back to the grid, providing a source of stored energy
Fig. 8. Illustration of the GM 1966 [102].
13
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
vehicles employed fuel cells with power outputs ranging from 10 to 75
kW and demonstrated ranges of up to 310 miles. Although several au­
tomakers aimed to commercialize fuel cell vehicles by the early 2000s,
none of these goals were realized [104].
In 2002, Toyota launched the world’s first limited leasing program
for its fuel cell hybrid vehicle (FCHV) in the USA and Japan. This vehicle
featured a 90 kW fuel cell and a nickel-metal hydride battery. At low
speeds, the FCHV could run on the battery alone, while both the fuel cell
and battery worked in tandem when higher performance was required.
The combined range of the fuel cell and battery system was 155 miles
[104]. Since then, automakers such as GM, Honda, and Ford have made
significant efforts to test the real-world performance of fuel cell vehicles.
One of the biggest efforts to advance hydrogen and fuel cell tech­
nology came in 2003, when the Bush Administration allocated $1.2
billion in funding for hydrogen research and development. A key project
under this initiative was the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) $170
million Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Validation and
Demonstration Project. This project aimed to test small fleets of FCEVs
and establish fueling stations in five U.S. regions: Northern California,
Southern California, Southeastern Michigan, the Mid-Atlantic, and
Central Florida. These regions were chosen to assess FCEV performance
under different climatic conditions. DOE selected four automobile
manufacturer/energy company teams to participate: Hyundai-Kia/
Chevron, DaimlerChrysler/BP, Ford/BP, and GM/Shell. Together, they
deployed 183 FCEVs, which collectively traveled 3.6 million miles over
500,000 individual trips. By 2009, the project had achieved the DOE’s
targets of a 250-mile range, fuel cell durability of 2000 h, and fuel cell
efficiency of 60 % [105].
In a separate 2009 demonstration, Toyota collaborated with
Savannah River National Laboratory to evaluate the on-road perfor­
mance of its FCHV-adv vehicle. During a one-day test in Southern Cali­
fornia, the FCHV-adv achieved an average range of 431 miles, far
exceeding the DOE’s 250-mile target [106]. Toyota and Hyundai both
announced the commercial availability of their fuel cell vehicles in
2015, following limited lease programs that began in 2014. These ve­
hicles were initially made available in California, where public
hydrogen refueling infrastructure had already been established. Both
models demonstrated ranges that exceeded the Tesla Model S-85, which
at the time had a market‑leading range of 265 miles. Additionally, the
refueling times for these FCEVs were comparable to gasoline vehicles,
providing a significant advantage over BEVs, which require at least 30
min to charge to 80 % of their capacity. Toyota projected that, by the
2020s, FCEVs would become affordable enough for widespread market
penetration [107].
are critical for commercial viability. Additionally, breakthroughs in
materials used for the membrane, electrodes, and catalysts have reduced
the reliance on expensive platinum, further lowering costs.
3.2.2. Hydrogen storage
Efficient and safe hydrogen storage is a critical challenge in FCEV
development. Current FCEVs primarily use high-pressure hydrogen
tanks that store hydrogen gas at pressures of up to 700 bar. These tanks
are designed to provide a driving range comparable to gasoline vehicles,
typically between 300 and 400 miles on a full tank. However, hydrogen
storage presents several challenges:
• Gaseous Hydrogen Storage: High-pressure hydrogen storage re­
quires robust, lightweight tanks made from advanced materials such
as carbon fiber composites. These tanks are designed to withstand
extreme pressures while minimizing the overall weight of the
vehicle.
• Liquid Hydrogen Storage: Researchers are also exploring the use of
liquid hydrogen, which offers higher energy density than gaseous
hydrogen. However, liquid hydrogen must be stored at cryogenic
temperatures (below − 253 ◦ C), making this approach more complex
and costly.
• Solid-State Storage: An alternative storage method under investi­
gation involves solid-state materials that absorb and release
hydrogen. This technology has the potential to increase hydrogen
storage capacity, improve safety, and reduce vehicle weight.
3.2.3. System efficiency and integration
Technological advancements have greatly improved the overall ef­
ficiency and integration of fuel cell systems in FCEVs. These advance­
ments include improvements in power electronics, thermal
management, and the use of lightweight materials. Some of the key
developments include:
• Improved Power Electronics: Modern power electronics systems
have become more efficient, enabling better control over the distri­
bution of power between the fuel cell stack, electric motor, and en­
ergy storage systems. This optimization increases vehicle
performance and energy efficiency.
• Thermal Management: Effective thermal management is critical for
maintaining optimal operating temperatures within the fuel cell
stack. Advanced cooling systems ensure that the fuel cell operates
efficiently, even under extreme temperature conditions.
Hybrid Systems: The integration of hybrid powertrains—which
combine fuel cells with batteries or supercapacitors—has allowed FCEVs
to achieve better energy management. In hybrid FCEVs, the fuel cell
powers the vehicle during cruising, while the battery or supercapacitor
assists during acceleration and high-power demands.
This hybrid approach allows for a smaller, more cost-effective fuel
cell while maintaining high vehicle performance.
3.2. Technological evolution
Continuous advancements in fuel cell efficiency, hydrogen storage,
system integration, and hydrogen production have shaped the techno­
logical evolution of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs). Over the years,
significant progress has been made in overcoming the technical and
infrastructural barriers to make FCEVs a viable alternative to conven­
tional and battery-electric vehicles. The key technological components
driving the evolution of FCEVs are discussed below:
3.2.4. Hydrogen production and sustainability
The environmental sustainability of FCEVs is closely tied to the
source of the hydrogen used to power them. Currently, most hydrogen is
produced from natural gas through a process called steam methane
reforming (SMR). However, SMR emits carbon dioxide (CO2), which
undermines the environmental benefits of FCEVs. To address this, there
has been a growing focus on green hydrogen production.
3.2.1. Fuel cell stack
At the heart of an FCEV is the fuel cell stack, which generates elec­
tricity by combining hydrogen and oxygen in a controlled electro­
chemical reaction. Modern fuel cells are predominantly based on Proton
Exchange Membrane (PEM) technology, which offers several advan­
tages, including high efficiency, rapid start-up times, and the ability to
operate at relatively low temperatures. PEM fuel cells also feature
compact designs, making them suitable for vehicle applications.
Advances in PEM fuel cells have significantly improved the per­
formance, durability, and cost-effectiveness of FCEVs. These improve­
ments have enabled higher power densities and longer lifetimes, which
• Green Hydrogen: Green hydrogen is produced through electrol­
ysis, a process that uses electricity to split water into hydrogen and
oxygen. When powered by renewable energy sources like wind or
solar, electrolysis can produce hydrogen with zero carbon emissions.
This makes green hydrogen a key factor in the long-term sustain­
ability of FCEVs.
14
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
3.2.5. Fuel cell powertrain configurations
FCEV powertrains can be classified into different configurations
based on their use of fuel cells and energy storage systems (ESS), such as
batteries or supercapacitors. These configurations play a crucial role in
determining the vehicle’s performance, energy efficiency, and overall
system design:
configurations due to their ability to provide sufficient power for most
driving conditions while maintaining a reasonable system cost
[106,107].
• Pure Fuel Cell Powertrain: In this configuration, the fuel cell stack
is the primary source of propulsion. While this design offers
simplicity, it often suffers from slow response times during accel­
eration and low traction power during startup. To address these
issues, automakers have incorporated energy storage systems, which
capture energy during regenerative braking and provide traction
assistance during high-power transients or rapid acceleration. This
reduces the size and cost of the fuel cell needed for the vehicle [106].
• Fuel Cell/Battery Hybrid: In hybrid configurations, the fuel cell
works in conjunction with a battery or supercapacitor. The fuel cell
provides power for cruising, while the battery supplements power
during acceleration or hill climbs. This hybrid approach allows for a
smaller fuel cell and more efficient energy use, making the vehicle
more cost-effective and versatile.
• Fuel Cell Range Extender: In some FCEVs, the fuel cell is used solely
as a range extender for the battery-powered electric motor. In this
configuration, the battery is the primary source of propulsion, and
the fuel cell recharges the battery when needed. This design allows
the vehicle to operate on the battery alone for short trips, reducing
the frequency of hydrogen refueling [107].
The development of a robust hydrogen refueling infrastructure is one
of the most critical factors determining the widespread adoption and
success of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs). Unlike Battery Electric
Vehicles (BEVs), which can leverage existing electrical grids for
charging, FCEVs require specialized hydrogen refueling stations equip­
ped with high-pressure systems for safely storing and dispensing
hydrogen. The current state of hydrogen refueling infrastructure and the
challenges and initiatives involved in its expansion are explored below.
3.3. Infrastructure development
3.3.1. Hydrogen refueling stations
The availability of hydrogen refueling stations remains limited
compared to traditional gasoline stations or BEV charging networks. As
of 2023, there are over 500 hydrogen refueling stations worldwide,
but their distribution is highly concentrated in specific regions. The
leading countries in terms of hydrogen infrastructure development
include California, Japan, Germany, and South Korea, which have
made significant investments in building the necessary refueling
networks.
• California: The state of California leads the U.S. in hydrogen refu­
eling infrastructure with more than 60 operational stations, pri­
marily located in urban areas such as Los Angeles and San Francisco.
California’s Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate and the Cali­
fornia Fuel Cell Partnership (CaFCP) have been instrumental in
promoting the expansion of hydrogen refueling stations. The state
government has set ambitious goals to increase the number of sta­
tions to 200 by 2025 [108].
• Japan: Japan is another global leader in hydrogen infrastructure,
driven by the government’s Hydrogen Society initiative. Japan has
over 160 hydrogen refueling stations, with plans to increase this
number to support the growing fleet of FCEVs, including passenger
cars and buses. Toyota and Honda are key players in Japan’s
hydrogen ecosystem, providing vehicles while working closely with
energy companies to expand the refueling network [109].
3.2.6. Comparative Analysis of FCEV Models
An analysis of 83 FCEV models from the top ten automakers reveals
several trends in the size and power output of fuel cells. As shown in
Fig. 9, most pure fuel cell vehicles are equipped with fuel cells ranging
from 80 to 100 kW, providing performance comparable to that of BEVs
like the Nissan Leaf, which has an 80 kW electric motor. Early FCEV
models, developed in the 1990s, featured smaller fuel cells (50 kW), but
technological advances have led to a preference for larger fuel cells.
In fuel cell/ESS hybrid vehicles, the size range of fuel cells is
broader, ranging from 20 to 100 kW. This flexibility allows automakers
to optimize the balance between fuel cell size and battery capacity,
enabling more efficient power delivery and better overall performance.
Fuel cells larger than 60 kW are generally preferred in hybrid
Fig. 9. Range of FCEV powertrains for models from the top ten FCEV automakers [102].
15
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
Society vision. This initiative aims to deploy hydrogen across
various sectors, including transportation, industrial processes, and
power generation. The government is working with private com­
panies to expand refueling infrastructure and increase the number of
hydrogen vehicles on the road. Toyota, Honda, and energy com­
panies such as ENEOS are key players in this collaborative effort
[115].
• European Union’s Clean Hydrogen Alliance: The European Union
has launched the European Clean Hydrogen Alliance as part of its
European Green Deal to support the deployment of hydrogen
infrastructure across Europe. The alliance brings together stake­
holders from various sectors to coordinate investments in hydrogen
refueling stations, production facilities, and research and develop­
ment. By 2030, the EU aims to have a network of hydrogen stations
that can support millions of FCEVs and hydrogen-powered heavyduty vehicles [116].
• South Korea’s Hydrogen Economy Roadmap: South Korea’s gov­
ernment is heavily investing in hydrogen technology through its
Hydrogen Economy Roadmap, which outlines a plan to establish
310 hydrogen refueling stations by 2030. In addition to refueling
infrastructure, South Korea is focusing on hydrogen-powered buses
and trucks, with Hyundai playing a leading role in vehicle develop­
ment [117].
• Germany: Germany has established itself as the hydrogen hub of
Europe, with more than 100 hydrogen refueling stations. Germany’s
H2 Mobility initiative, backed by major automakers such as Daimler
and BMW, aims to create a nationwide network of hydrogen stations
by the end of the decade. Additionally, the German government is
supporting the development of hydrogen production facilities pow­
ered by renewable energy, ensuring a green supply of hydrogen
[110].
• South Korea: South Korea has made significant progress in hydrogen
infrastructure, with over 70 stations as of 2023. The South Korean
government’s Hydrogen Economy Roadmap aims to build 310
hydrogen refueling stations by 2030. The country’s heavy invest­
ment in hydrogen also extends to public transportation, with
Hyundai leading the development of hydrogen-powered buses and
trucks [111].
3.3.2. Challenges in infrastructure development
The development of hydrogen refueling infrastructure faces several
technical, logistical, and financial challenges. These challenges are not
only slowing the pace of infrastructure deployment but also hindering
the widespread adoption of FCEVs. Key challenges include:
High Costs of Infrastructure: Setting up hydrogen refueling stations
is significantly more expensive than BEV charging stations or conven­
tional gasoline stations. The high costs stem from the need for special­
ized equipment to store and dispense hydrogen at pressures of up to 700
bar. In addition, safety regulations, land acquisition, and permitting
processes further add to the complexity and cost of infrastructure
development [112].
Hydrogen Production and Distribution: Most hydrogen is pro­
duced at centralized facilities through processes such as steam methane
reforming (SMR) or electrolysis. Once produced, hydrogen must be
transported to refueling stations, either via pipelines or trucks carrying
compressed hydrogen. Both methods present challenges: pipelines are
expensive to build, and trucks face capacity limitations. Moreover, the
environmental sustainability of FCEVs depends on the source of
hydrogen, as SMR generates significant carbon emissions. The devel­
opment of green hydrogen from renewable energy is essential to
addressing this issue [113].
Low Number of FCEVs: The relatively small number of FCEVs on the
road limits the economic viability of hydrogen stations. Without suffi­
cient demand, hydrogen station operators struggle to recoup the sub­
stantial investment required for construction and operation. This creates
a “chicken-and-egg” problem, where consumers are hesitant to purchase
FCEVs due to the lack of refueling stations, while investors are reluctant
to build stations without a larger fleet of FCEV [114].
3.4. Environmental impact
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) provide substantial environ­
mental benefits, primarily through the reduction of greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions and harmful air pollutants. However, the extent of
these benefits hinges on the production method of hydrogen. This sec­
tion delves into the environmental advantages and challenges associated
with FCEVs, addressing their emission-free operation, the role of green
hydrogen, and lifecycle emissions.
3.3.3. Government and industry initiatives
Governments and private industry play a crucial role in driving the
development of hydrogen refueling infrastructure. Several countries
have introduced policies, subsidies, and long-term strategies aimed at
fostering a hydrogen economy, which includes expanding hydrogen
production, distribution, and refueling capabilities. Some key initiatives
include:
3.4.1. Zero tailpipe emissions
One of the most immediate and evident environmental benefits of
FCEVs is their zero tailpipe emissions. These vehicles emit only water
vapor as a byproduct of the electrochemical reaction between hydrogen
and oxygen in the fuel cell. This makes FCEVs a viable solution for
reducing air pollution in densely populated urban environments, where
internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles contribute significantly to
poor air quality. Traditional ICE vehicles release harmful pollutants such
as carbon dioxide (CO₂), nitrogen oxides (NOₓ), and particulate matter
(PM), all of which exacerbate global warming and lead to respiratory
issues in humans [118]. In contrast, FCEVs contribute directly to
improving urban air quality, aligning with global initiatives to reduce
urban pollution and fight climate change.
Moreover, FCEVs have a positive impact on local air quality,
particularly in cities struggling with smog and other air quality issues
caused by heavy vehicle traffic. Given that transportation accounts for a
significant portion of urban air pollution, widespread adoption of FCEVs
could play a crucial role in meeting air quality standards set by
governmental agencies and environmental organizations [118].
• California’s Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Program: In the United
States, California is leading the charge toward hydrogen infrastruc­
ture development through its ZEV mandate. Under this program,
automakers are required to produce a certain number of zeroemission vehicles, including FCEVs. The state has invested millions
of dollars in developing hydrogen refueling stations, with the goal of
supporting 1000,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2030. The
California Energy Commission (CEC) and California Air Re­
sources Board (CARB) also provide financial incentives for the
construction of new stations [108].
• Japan’s Hydrogen Society Initiative: Japan is striving to build a
comprehensive hydrogen economy as part of its national Hydrogen
3.4.2. Green hydrogen production
While FCEVs themselves produce zero emissions during operation,
the environmental impact of hydrogen production is a critical factor in
assessing the overall sustainability of the technology. Green hydro­
gen—produced through electrolysis powered by renewable energy
sources such as wind, solar, or hydropower—offers a pathway to truly
zero-emission FCEVs [119]. Electrolysis splits water into hydrogen and
oxygen without emitting any GHGs, making green hydrogen the ideal
fuel for environmentally sustainable FCEVs.
However, current hydrogen production is largely dominated by grey
hydrogen, which is derived from natural gas through steam methane
reforming (SMR). This process emits significant amounts of CO₂, which
16
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
undermines the environmental benefits of FCEVs when this form of
hydrogen is used [120]. To bridge this gap, blue hydrogen—produced
through the same SMR process but with carbon capture and storage
(CCS) technology to reduce emissions—has emerged as a lower-carbon
alternative. While not completely emissions-free, blue hydrogen offers
a transitional solution until green hydrogen becomes more commer­
cially viable and widely available.
Countries like Japan, South Korea, and Germany have made sub­
stantial investments in scaling up green hydrogen production through
large-scale renewable energy projects [119]. The European Union’s
“Green Deal” and the European Clean Hydrogen Alliance are similarly
focused on increasing green hydrogen capacity, with ambitious targets
for decarbonizing sectors like transportation through green hydrogen
adoption [120].
Expanding the hydrogen network poses both logistical and financial
challenges. Setting up refueling stations costs significantly more than
electric vehicle charging infrastructure due to the need for high-pressure
hydrogen storage, compression systems, and hydrogen transportation.
Government-led initiatives and private-sector investment are critical in
overcoming this hurdle [124]. For instance, countries like Japan and
Germany are actively investing in hydrogen corridors and public-private
partnerships to support the rollout of hydrogen refueling stations [125].
b) Hydrogen Production
Another major challenge for the FCEV industry is the production of
green hydrogen, which is essential for achieving the full environmental
benefits of FCEVs. Most of the world’s hydrogen is currently produced
via steam methane reforming (SMR), a process that generates substan­
tial carbon dioxide emissions (grey hydrogen) [104]. Although blue
hydrogen, which uses carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to
reduce emissions, is a lower-carbon alternative, it is still not entirely
emissions-free.
Green hydrogen, produced through electrolysis powered by renew­
able energy, is the key to unlocking FCEVs’ potential as a zero-emission
solution. However, producing green hydrogen at scale remains
economically challenging due to the high costs of electrolyzers and the
limited availability of renewable energy infrastructure in many regions
[126]. Scaling up green hydrogen production will require significant
investment in renewable energy sources and advances in electrolyzer
technology to make the process cost-competitive.
3.4.3. Lifecycle emissions
A comprehensive assessment of FCEVs must consider their full life­
cycle emissions, which encompass not only the operational phase but
also hydrogen production, vehicle manufacturing, and end-of-life
disposal. Even when powered by grey hydrogen, FCEVs generate
fewer GHG emissions over their lifetime compared to conventional ICE
vehicles. According to a study by the International Energy Agency (IEA),
FCEVs can reduce lifecycle GHG emissions by up to 60 % when grey
hydrogen is used, due to their high fuel efficiency and zero-emission
operation [121].
When FCEVs are powered by green hydrogen, the emissions reduc­
tion becomes even more dramatic. Studies indicate that FCEVs using
green hydrogen can cut GHG emissions by more than 90 % compared to
gasoline vehicles [121]. This makes FCEVs one of the most environ­
mentally sustainable vehicle technologies available, particularly in re­
gions where green hydrogen production is scaled up alongside
renewable energy initiatives.
Furthermore, the material composition of FCEVs, including the use
of lightweight materials such as carbon fiber for hydrogen storage tanks,
contributes to lower emissions during the manufacturing phase. Ad­
vances in recycling technologies for fuel cell stacks and hydrogen stor­
age systems are also helping to minimize the environmental impact at
the end of the vehicle’s life [122]. As FCEV technology matures and
more efficient manufacturing processes are developed, the overall life­
cycle emissions of these vehicles are expected to decrease further.
c) Cost Competitiveness
The cost of FCEVs is another major challenge to their widespread
adoption. FCEVs remain more expensive than both BEVs and conven­
tional Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles, primarily due to the
high costs associated with fuel cell stacks, hydrogen storage tanks, and
hydrogen production. While costs have decreased significantly in recent
years—thanks to advancements in fuel cell technology, economies of
scale, and improvements in materials like platinum catalysts—they are
still higher than those for BEVs, which have benefitted from a mature
supply chain and reduced battery costs [127].
Achieving cost parity between FCEVs and BEVs or ICE vehicles will
require further innovations to reduce the costs of fuel cell systems and
hydrogen production. Governments can also play a role by providing
subsidies, tax incentives, and research funding to support the FCEV in­
dustry, as seen in California’s Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) program.
3.5. Challenges and opportunities
The development and deployment of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles
(FCEVs) offer both challenges and significant opportunities in the
evolving landscape of sustainable transportation. This section elaborates
on the key hurdles facing FCEVs as well as the potential avenues for their
growth [123].
3.5.2. Opportunities
a) Heavy-Duty Transport
While BEVs have gained traction in the passenger vehicle market,
FCEVs offer a significant opportunity in the heavy-duty transport sector.
Hydrogen’s higher energy density compared to batteries makes FCEVs
well-suited for long-haul trucks, buses, and trains, where extended
driving ranges and short refueling times are critical. FCEVs can over­
come the limitations of BEVs, which struggle with battery weight and
long charging times, especially for large vehicles [127].
Several companies and governments are investing in hydrogenpowered heavy-duty vehicles. For example, Hyundai has launched
hydrogen-powered trucks in Switzerland, and Toyota is collaborating on
hydrogen fuel cell-powered buses for the Tokyo Olympics [105].
Moreover, hydrogen-powered trains, such as Alstom’s Coradia iLint in
Germany, demonstrate that FCEVs can revolutionize not just road
transport but also railways.
3.5.1. Challenges
a) Hydrogen Infrastructure
One of the most significant barriers to the widespread adoption of
FCEVs is the lack of a comprehensive hydrogen refueling infrastructure.
Unlike Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs), which can be charged at home
or via widely available charging stations, FCEVs require specialized
refueling stations that provide compressed hydrogen. As of 2023,
hydrogen refueling infrastructure is mainly concentrated in select re­
gions, such as California, Japan, Germany, and South Korea, with fewer
than 600 hydrogen refueling stations globally [124]. Building a
comprehensive hydrogen network demands substantial investment in
production, distribution, and storage facilities, which require close co­
ordination between governments, private companies, and industry
stakeholders. The lack of infrastructure has resulted in range anxiety for
potential FCEV customers and hinders the adoption of these vehicles.
b) Energy Transition
17
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
FCEVs represent a key component of the broader energy transition
toward a low-carbon future. By using green hydrogen, FCEVs can
decarbonize sectors of the economy that are otherwise challenging to
electrify, such as transportation, industry, and energy storage. FCEVs
can support renewable energy integration by acting as a form of energy
storage, where surplus renewable electricity is used to produce green
hydrogen through electrolysis, which can then be stored and used in fuel
cells [128].
The shift toward hydrogen and FCEVs aligns with international goals
to combat climate change by reducing GHG emissions. As countries
increasingly adopt ambitious climate targets, FCEVs offer a comple­
mentary solution to BEVs in achieving zero-emission transportation. For
instance, the European Union’s Green Deal and Japan’s “Hydrogen So­
ciety” initiatives highlight the growing role of hydrogen in decarbon­
izing transportation [128].
energy conversion from the power plant to the vehicle’s movement. This
method will be detailed in next sub-section. BEVs typically convert a
higher percentage of energy from their power source (electricity) into
kinetic energy compared to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles or
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) [130].
Based on Battery-to-Wheel Efficiency method, BEVs convert about
85 % to 90 % of the electrical energy stored in their batteries to power
the electric motor and drive the wheels. This is substantially higher
compared to ICE vehicles, which only convert 20–30 % of the energy in
gasoline to wheel motion. Around 90 % to 95 % of the electricity from
the grid is used to charge the battery due to losses in the charging pro­
cess [131,132].
With Well-to-Wheel Efficiency approach, BEVs can achieve a total
well-to-wheel energy efficiency of 70–80 %, which considers the energy
losses during electricity generation, transmission, battery charging, and
vehicle operation (Fig. 10) [133]. This compares favorably to traditional
gasoline-powered vehicles, which only achieve around 12–30 % well-towheel efficiency. As BEVs are generally equipped with regenerative
braking systems, which allow the vehicle to recover energy that would
otherwise be lost during braking and deceleration, this further enhances
their overall efficiency by up to 10–15 %, depending on driving condi­
tions [134].
BEVs efficiency depends on battery technology and size, driving
conditions and temperature and climate. In fact, the type of battery and
its size significantly impact energy efficiency. Larger batteries may have
slightly lower efficiency due to additional weight. Highway driving at
high speeds tends to lower BEV efficiency because of increased aero­
dynamic drag, whereas urban driving with stop-start conditions can
benefit from regenerative braking, improving efficiency (Fig. 11). Cold
weather can reduce battery efficiency, as the chemical reactions in the
battery slow down, and more energy is needed for cabin heating.
Energy efficiency estimation of BEVs typically involves evaluating
energy consumption in terms of kilowatt-hours per mile (kWh/mi) or
kilowatt-hours per kilometer (kWh/km), and then converting this into
other metrics like efficiency in terms of miles per gallon equivalent
(MPGe).
Energy consumption (kWh/mi or kWh/km) is the primary measure of
energy efficiency for BEVs. It can be calculated as follows [136]:
c) International Collaboration
The hydrogen economy is fast becoming a global priority, with
countries recognizing the potential of hydrogen in decarbonizing
various sectors. International collaboration is accelerating the devel­
opment and deployment of hydrogen technologies, creating a unique
opportunity for FCEVs. Organizations like the Hydrogen Council—a
global coalition of leading energy, transport, and industry compa­
nies—are working to advance hydrogen technologies and infrastructure
[129]. Meanwhile, initiatives such as the European Clean Hydrogen
Alliance aim to promote collaboration between public and private sec­
tors to deploy hydrogen across Europe, providing a solid foundation for
the FCEV market [129].
The development of global hydrogen corridors, which enable the
production and distribution of hydrogen across borders, could further
accelerate the adoption of FCEVs. For example, Australia, Japan, and
South Korea are exploring partnerships to develop hydrogen supply
chains that would facilitate the large-scale deployment of hydrogen
vehicles in the Asia-Pacific region [129].
4. Comparison of energy efficiency between BEVs and FCEVs
4.1. Analysis of energy conversion efficiency
Energy Consumption =
The energy efficiency of Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) can be
measured by evaluating the well-to-wheel efficiency, which includes the
Eused
D
(1)
Where Eused denotes the total energy used by the battery (kWh), and D
is the traveling distance (mi or km).
Fig. 10. Energy consumption of BEVs in individual round trips (Wh/km) [133].
18
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
Fig. 11. Comparing where energy goes for combined city/highway driving in BEVs and ICEVs [135].
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses MPGe to
compare the efficiency of electric vehicles with internal combustion
engine vehicles (ICEs). MPGe is calculated based on the energy content
of gasoline, where 33.7 kWh is equivalent to 1 gal of gasoline.
MPGe is calculated as follows [137]:
MPGe =
Distane Traveled (Miles)
Eused ×33,7
100
density of hydrogen, and the overall vehicle efficiency.
The efficiency of a fuel cell is calculated based on the ratio of the
useful electrical energy output to the energy input (from hydrogen). The
efficiency ηFC of a fuel cell is given by:
ηFC =
(2)
33, 7 × D
Eused
(7)
With Vout being the output voltage of the fuel cell, and Vth is the
theoretical voltage (about 1, 23 V for a hydrogen‑oxygen fuel cell).
Practical fuel cell efficiency is typically between 40 − 60%.
The energy density of hydrogen EH (kWh/kg) is a key parameter in
determining the potential energy that can be extracted [141,142]. The
energy density of hydrogen is:
Or, simply as:
MPGe =
Vout
Vth
(3)
Here Eused depicts the energy used by the vehicle (in kWh); D is the
distance traveled (in miles).
Sometimes energy efficiency is expressed in Watt-hours (Wh) per
kilometer or mile. This is essentially a measure of energy consumption at
a smaller scale [138]:
/
/
kWh used × 1000
(4)
Wh mi or Wh km =
D
ηFCEV = ηFC × ηPE × ηEM × ηDT
If a vehicle uses regenerative braking, the efficiency improvement
can be factored into the energy calculation. The recovered energy Eregen
can be subtracted from the total energy used [139]:
where ηPE is the efficiency of the power electronics (typically around 95
%); ηEM is the efficiency of the electric motor (around 90–95 %); and ηDT
is the efficiency of the drivetrain (usually around 90 %).
Eused = Etotal − Eregen
EH = 33.33 kWh/kg
The overall energy efficiency of a FCEV includes the efficiency of the
fuel cell, power electronics, electric motor, and drivetrain. It can be
estimated using [143]:
(5)
Ebattery
Econsumption
(9)
4.2. Well-to-Wheel Efficiency Comparison
Where Etotal being the total energy consumed without regenerative
braking, and Eregen depicts the energy being recovered via the regener­
ative braking system.
If the battery capacity and the vehicle’s energy consumption are
known, then we can estimate the range as follows [140]:
Range =
(8)
The Well-to-Wheel (WtW) efficiency refers to the overall energy ef­
ficiency of a vehicle, starting from energy production (well) through to
the energy delivered at the vehicle’s wheels (wheel). This measure
considers all the losses that occur during energy production, distribu­
tion, storage, and conversion. Here’s a detailed comparison between
Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs).
Key Stages in Energy Flow are to be considered to estimate energy
efficiency in Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) based on Well-to-Wheel
Efficiency approach. For this type of vehicles, electricity can come
from various sources, including renewables (solar, wind, hydro) and
fossil fuels (coal, natural gas). It is well-known that efficiency varies
depending on the source. Renewable sources like solar and wind have
(6)
Here Ebattery denotes the total battery capacity (in kWh), and Econsumption
depicts the energy consumption per mile or kilometer (in kWh/mi or
kWh/km).
To estimate the energy efficiency of FCEVs, we must analyze several
aspects, including the efficiency of the fuel cell system, the energy
19
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
high efficiency, but fossil fuel-based electricity (e.g., coal plants) have
efficiencies around 30–45 %. After generation, electricity is transmitted
to the grid with a loss of about 5–10 %. When electricity reaches the
charging point, some energy is lost (~10–15 %) during battery charging.
Once the energy is stored in the battery, it powers the vehicle’s electric
motor with high efficiency. Finally, electric motors convert about 85–90
% of stored battery energy into motion.
The overall well-to-wheel efficiency of a BEV ranges from 60 to 70 %
when powered by electricity from the grid. If renewable energy sources
are used, the efficiency can be even higher as they avoid the energy
losses associated with fossil fuel power plants.
For Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) energy efficiency calculation
based on Well-to-Wheel Efficiency analysis, the following key stages in
energy flow should be taken into consideration. Firstly, steam methane
reforming (SMR) produces hydrogen from natural gas with an efficiency
of about 50–60 %. This is currently the most common method but leads
to significant CO₂ emissions. Green hydrogen could be produced by
renewable energy source like wind, hydro, solar, and nuclear (Fig. 12).
Hydrogen could also be produced by electrolysis. If it is the case, the
electrolyzer uses electricity, preferably renewable to split water into
hydrogen and oxygen with an efficiency of about 60–70 %. Once pro­
duced, the hydrogen must be compressed to 700 bars for storage, and
liquefied for transport, leading to 10–20 % energy losses. In the vehicle,
hydrogen is converted back into electricity using a fuel cell. The fuel cell
efficiency is around 50–60 %. The electric motor in an FCEV is as effi­
cient as in a BEV, converting 85–90 % of the available electrical energy
into motion. The overall well-to-wheel efficiency of a FCEV ranges from
30 to 40 %, mainly due to the energy losses in hydrogen production,
compression, and fuel cell conversion. A summary of the main part
efficiencies for BEVs, and FCEVs are presented in Table 4.
The comparison of BEV and FCEV Well-to-Wheel Efficiency reveals
that (Fig. 13):
• BEVs have an overall WtW efficiency of 60–70 %, while FCEVs
achieve 30–40 %. The difference is primarily due to the more com­
plex hydrogen production and conversion process in FCEVs.
• BEVs can integrate directly with the electric grid and renewable
energy sources. While, FCEVs rely on hydrogen production, which
often uses fossil fuels (unless green hydrogen is available).
• BEVs have fewer conversion stages from energy source to wheel,
reducing losses compared to FCEVs, which have multiple stages of
hydrogen production, storage, and reconversion into electricity.
Table 4
Summary of the main part efficiencies for BEVs and FCEVs [144] [145].
Main parts
BEV
Battery bank
Control DC/AC
Electric motor
Transmission
Regenerative braking bonus
FCEV
Fuel cell
Control DC/AC
Electric motor
Transmission
Regenerative braking bonus
Efficiency
90 % (charge), 92 % (discharge)
96 %
91 %
92 %
110 %
51,8 %
96 %
91 %
92 %
110 %
Fig. 12. WTW pathways and the efficiency of each conversion for BEVs and FCEVs from renewable and nuclear energy resources [144].
20
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
Fig. 13. Comparison of the efficiency of two types of powertrains [146].
• BEVs can more easily shift toward full sustainability with the
increased adoption of renewable electricity. FCEVs require the
hydrogen production process to become greener (i.e., via electrolysis
using renewable energy) for significant sustainability benefits.
as the vehicle ages. Electric motors in BEVs convert 85–90 % of stored
energy into motion. Only 10–15 % is lost, primarily as heat during the
conversion of electrical energy into mechanical energy [147] [148]
[149].
Summarizing all types of energy losses in BEVs described above, it
comes out:
4.3. Energy losses in BEVs vs. FCEVs
• Generation losses (non-renewables): ~35–60 %
• Transmission losses: ~5–10 %
• Charging losses: ~10–15 %
• Battery losses: ~2–5 %
• Motor losses: ~10–15 %
• Overall Well-to-Wheel Efficiency: 60–70 %
The energy losses in BEVs and FCEVs differ significantly due to their
distinct energy conversion pathways. This comparison covers the key
areas where energy is lost from energy generation to the wheels in both
types of vehicles. BEVs use electricity directly to charge a battery, which
then powers an electric motor to drive the vehicle. Energy losses occur
primarily during electricity generation, transmission, charging, and
battery use.
Energy losses depend on the source of electricity. Fossil fuel plants
(coal, natural gas) are about 35–60 % efficient, with significant energy
lost as heat. Renewable sources such as wind and solar have minimal
losses, but they are intermittent. If electricity comes from a fossil-fueldominated grid, then generation losses can be high. For grids that rely
more on renewables, losses are lower. During the transmission of elec­
tricity from the power plant to the charging station, 5–10 % of energy is
lost due to resistance in power lines and transformers. Charging a bat­
tery is not 100 % efficient. 10–15 % of the energy can be lost during
conversion from AC (alternating current) from the grid to DC (direct
current) used by the battery, as well as from heat generated during the
charging process.
While batteries have relatively high storage efficiency, small losses
occur when storing and discharging energy (~2–5 %). Additionally,
battery degradation over time can lead to slightly increased energy loss
FCEVs use hydrogen, which is either produced via electrolysis or
natural gas reforming, and then stored, transported, and converted back
into electricity inside the vehicle using a fuel cell. Energy losses occur at
every step of this complex process. Different key stages of energy loss in
FCEVs are encountered principally linked to hydrogen production,
hydrogen compression and storage, Transportation of Hydrogen, fuel
cell conversion, and electric motor efficiency [148] [150]. Hydrogen
could be produced by electrolysis which is about 60–70 % efficient,
meaning that 30–40 % of the energy is lost in the process of splitting
water into hydrogen and oxygen. Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) is
also a mature process of hydrogen production. SMR is about 50–60 %
efficient, with significant losses due to the energy required to produce
hydrogen from natural gas.
Once produced, hydrogen must be compressed to 700 bars for stor­
age in a vehicle or liquefied for transport. This compression process
21
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
results in about 10–20 % energy loss. Transporting hydrogen either via
pipelines or in compressed/liquefied form incurs additional energy
losses, typically around 5–10 %. FCEVs are equipped with fuel cell
allowing to convert hydrogen into electricity to power the electric
motor. These electrochemical devices are about 50–60 % efficient. This
means that around 40–50 % of the hydrogen’s energy is lost during this
conversion process. The electric motor in FCEVs is as efficient as the one
in BEVs, converting about 85–90 % of the electricity into mechanical
energy to power the vehicle.
Summarizing all types of energy losses in FCEVs as discussed above,
it resorts that [147] [149]:
vehicle. Although the range improvement is less significant
compared to BEVs, regenerative braking in FCEVs still contributes to
a more efficient use of hydrogen fuel. FCEVs can experience a 5–10 %
increase in range, particularly in urban settings [149] [151].
It comes out from the previous discussion that both BEVs and FCEVs
leverage regenerative braking to improve energy efficiency. However,
BEVs presented more significant performance and range enhancements
due to the larger battery capacity.
5. Environmental Impact and Sustainability
• Hydrogen production losses (electrolysis): ~30–40 %
• Compression/storage losses: ~10–20 %
• Transportation losses: ~5–10 %
• Fuel cell conversion losses: ~40–50 %
• Motor losses: ~10–15 %
• Overall Well-to-Wheel Efficiency: 30–40 %
5.1. Carbon footprint of BEVs vs. FCEVs
The carbon footprint of BEVs and FCEVs depends on multiple factors,
including the energy sources for electricity or hydrogen production,
vehicle manufacturing, and the energy efficiency of each technology.
• In BEVs vehicles, the carbon footprint is largely subordinated to the
source of electricity used for charging, as well as the emissions from
battery production. The carbon footprint of BEVs depends heavily on
the carbon intensity of the electricity grid. For grids that rely on coal
or natural gas, the carbon footprint is much higher than grids pow­
ered by renewables (solar, wind, hydro). The following table
(Table 5) provides some carbon footprint values for different elec­
tricity grid types (i.e., coal based, natural gas-based, and renewable
based energy).
In conclusion, BEVs experience most of their losses in electricity
generation (depending on the source) and charging. The total energy
losses result in a well-to-wheel efficiency of 60–70 %. However, FCEVs
Have higher losses due to the complex hydrogen production, compres­
sion, and conversion processes, and the total energy losses result in a
well-to-wheel efficiency of 30–40 %.
FCEVs present higher energy losses because hydrogen production,
either through electrolysis or SMR, introduces significant losses before
the energy even reaches the vehicle. Moreover, additional losses occur
during the storage, transport, and conversion of hydrogen back into
electricity via the fuel cell.
The production of lithium-ion batteries for BEVs is energy-intensive,
with estimated emissions of 56–494 kg CO₂ per kWh of battery capacity,
depending on the location and energy mix of the manufacturing process.
Larger batteries (higher kWh) contribute more emissions during pro­
duction. For example, a typical 60 kWh battery can contribute 3.4–30
tons of CO₂ during manufacturing. In addition to battery production, the
manufacturing of the rest of the vehicle also contributes to CO₂ emis­
sions, although this is relatively similar for both BEVs and FCEVs. BEVs
emit no CO₂ during operation since they run on electricity, unlike con­
ventional internal combustion engine vehicles [152].
The lifetime carbon footprint of a BEV depends on the electricity mix
used for charging. In countries with a cleaner grid, BEVs have signifi­
cantly lower lifetime CO₂ emissions than gasoline or diesel vehicles. It is
estimated to be 50–70 % lower than internal combustion engine (ICE)
vehicles over their lifetime in regions with low-carbon electricity sour­
ces [153] [154].
4.4. Role of regenerative braking in efficiency
Regenerative braking is a key technology used in both BEVs and
FCEVs to improve energy efficiency. This system recaptures energy that
would otherwise be lost as heat during braking and converts it into
electrical energy, which is then stored or reused.
• In BEVs, regenerative braking involves the electric motor acting as a
generator when the vehicle decelerates. As the driver applies the
brakes, the motor runs in reverse, converting kinetic energy (motion)
into electrical energy. This recaptured energy is sent back to the
battery, reducing the need for the vehicle to rely on external charging
for every bit of movement, especially in stop-and-go traffic situa­
tions. Regenerative braking can recover up to 60–70 % of the energy
lost during braking. The actual amount depends on driving condi­
tions, vehicle design, and battery capacity. By reducing the amount
of energy required from the battery, regenerative braking can in­
crease the vehicle’s driving range. On average, BEVs can gain 10–25
% more range in urban driving environments where braking is
frequent. Regenerative braking also reduces wear on the mechanical
braking system, leading to lower maintenance costs and longer
lifespan for brake components [147] [150].
• In FCEVs, regenerative braking works similarly to BEVs. When the
brakes are applied, the electric motor (powered by the fuel cell) re­
verses and functions as a generator, converting kinetic energy into
electrical energy. However, instead of storing the energy in a large
battery (as in BEVs), FCEVs often have a smaller battery or super­
capacitor to temporarily store the recaptured energy. This energy is
then used to power auxiliary systems or assist in vehicle acceleration.
The energy recovery from regenerative braking in FCEVs is generally
lower than in BEVs because of the smaller battery size and the sys­
tem’s design. But it can recover a substantial portion of the energy
lost during braking. By recapturing some of the energy that would
otherwise be wasted, regenerative braking reduces the demand on
the fuel cell system, improving the overall hydrogen efficiency of the
• The carbon footprint of FCEVs depends on the method used to pro­
duce hydrogen fuel, as well as the efficiency of the fuel cell system
and vehicle manufacturing.
Currently, most hydrogen (~95 %) is produced from natural gas
through Steam Methane Reforming (SMR), a process that emits signifi­
cant CO₂. The carbon footprint of hydrogen produced via SMR is about
9–12 kg CO₂ per kg of hydrogen. Hydrogen can also be produced by
electrolysis, which splits water into hydrogen and oxygen using elec­
tricity. If the electricity comes from renewable sources, the carbon
footprint can be near zero. However, if produced using fossil-fuel-based
electricity, electrolysis can have a higher carbon footprint than SMR. For
example, if the electrolysis process is grid-powered (non-renewable)
Table 5
Carbon footprint value for different energy sources.
22
Electricity Grid
Carbon footprint (g CO2/kWh)
Coal-based electricity
Natural gas-based electricity
Renewable energy
900
400–500
10
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
then it can emit 2–6 kg CO₂ per kg H₂, depending on grid mix. Near-zero
emissions when electrolysis is renewable-powered (wind or solar) [48]
[49].
FCEV production has similar emissions to BEVs except for the
hydrogen storage and fuel cell system, which adds complexity, and some
additional emissions compared to BEV manufacturing. Platinum used in
fuel cells has a high environmental impact due to the energy-intensive
mining and refining processes, though the amount used per vehicle is
relatively small. Hydrogen must be compressed or liquefied, both of
which require energy. Compressing hydrogen to 700 bars for use in
FCEVs adds about 10–20 % to the carbon footprint of hydrogen
production.
Moving hydrogen from production sites to fueling stations adds to
the overall carbon emissions, especially if transported over long dis­
tances by trucks. Like BEVs, FCEVs emit no CO₂ during operation, with
water vapor being the only byproduct. The lifetime carbon footprint of
FCEVs is strongly dependent on the hydrogen production method. Using
grey hydrogen (from SMR) results in a higher footprint, while using
green hydrogen (from renewables) significantly reduces the carbon
impact.
intensive processes, such as membrane production and the assembly
of the fuel cell stack. Emissions from the production of fuel cells are
lower than those from lithium-ion batteries but still considerable due to
the use of rare materials and energy-intensive manufacturing.
The environmental footprint of FCEVs is heavily influenced by how
hydrogen is produced: As discussed previously, the steam methane
reforming is the most common method for hydrogen production [156].
This process emits large amounts of CO₂ (~9–12 kg CO₂ per kg H₂). This
makes FCEVs less environmentally friendly when using hydrogen pro­
duced from fossil fuels (grey hydrogen). Using renewable electricity for
electrolysis can produce green hydrogen with near-zero emissions,
drastically reducing the carbon footprint of FCEVs. Thus, hydrogen
production and storage are less efficient than battery storage. In fact,
about 60–70 % of the energy is lost during the production, compression,
and transportation of hydrogen [49].
FCEVs emit no carbon dioxide during operation, with water vapor
being the only byproduct. However, the carbon footprint of the fuel cell
vehicle is largely determined by how the hydrogen fuel was produced.
The efficiency of fuel cells is generally lower than that of batteries, with
only about 40–60 % of the energy from hydrogen being converted to
vehicle movement.
Recycling of fuel cell components, particularly platinum, is impor­
tant for reducing environmental impacts. Platinum recycling can
recover up to 90 % of the material, reducing the need for energyintensive mining [157]. However, recycling fuel cell systems is not as
well-established as battery recycling, and the environmental impacts of
decommissioning fuel cells remain an area of ongoing research.
5.2. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of batteries and fuel cells
A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) evaluates the environmental impacts
of a product across its entire life cycle, from raw material extraction to
manufacturing, use, and disposal or recycling. For BEVs and FCEVs, the
LCA covers the production of batteries and fuel cells, energy use during
the vehicle’s operational phase, and end-of-life treatment. Understand­
ing the LCA of both batteries and fuel cells is critical for comparing their
environmental performance.
Life Cycle Assessment of Batteries reveals different key stages [153].
The first is linked to raw material extraction. In fact, the production of
lithium-ion batteries requires significant amounts of raw materials, such
as lithium, cobalt, nickel, and graphite. Mining these materials has
notable environmental impacts, including habitat destruction, water
pollution, and high carbon emissions. The second is associated with
battery production. Manufacturing lithium-ion batteries is energyintensive. It involves chemical processing, cell assembly, and battery
module production, which all contribute to the carbon footprint [155].
A typical lithium-ion battery has estimated emissions of 56–494 kg CO₂
per kWh of battery capacity, depending on the energy mix used in the
production process. The source of energy for manufacturing plays also a
major role. If production occurs in regions relying on coal, emissions are
higher compared to countries where renewable energy is predominant.
The third key stage is associated to the vehicle use phase. During the
operational phase, the carbon footprint of BEVs depends primarily on
the electricity used for charging. In regions where renewable energy
dominates, the lifetime emissions of BEVs are significantly lower than
internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). The overall energy effi­
ciency of BEVs is higher than that of FCEVs due to fewer conversion
losses. BEVs typically convert 77–82 % of grid electricity into vehicle
movement.
Battery recycling is an emerging field but remains energy intensive
[154]. The recovery of valuable materials like lithium, cobalt, and nickel
can reduce the environmental burden of raw material extraction.
Effective recycling could decrease the life cycle impacts of lithium-ion
batteries by up to 50 %. A rigorous Life Cycle Assessment of Fuel Cells
(FCEVs), as for BEVs should considers the following key stages: raw
material extraction, fuel cell production, hydrogen production, vehicle
use, and end-of-life and recycling. Fuel cell production requires rare
materials such as platinum, which is used as a catalyst in proton ex­
change membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs). Platinum mining is highly
energy-intensive and contributes significantly to the environmental
impact of FCEVs, despite ongoing efforts to reduce the amount of plat­
inum used per vehicle.
Fuel cells are complex to manufacture, involving several energy-
5.3. Impact of battery and hydrogen production on the environment
The environmental impact of both battery production for BEVs and
hydrogen production for FCEVs is significant, involving factors such as
raw material extraction, energy consumption during production, emis­
sions, and end-of-life management. Understanding these impacts is
crucial for evaluating the sustainability of these technologies.
A rigorous assessment of the environmental impact of battery pro­
duction should consider different key areas related to raw material
extraction, Energy Use and Emissions During Battery Manufacturing,
Water and Resource Use, and End-of-Life and Recycling. The main row
materials used in battery manufacturing are lithium, cobalt and Nickel.
Lithium is extracted from brine pools or through hard-rock mining. Both
methods require large amounts of water, leading to water depletion and
ecosystem disruption. In Chile’s Atacama Desert for example, lithium
mining has been reported to use about 500,000 gal of water per ton of
lithium, affecting local water supplies. Cobalt mining is linked to toxic
metal contamination in water bodies, soil degradation, and health im­
pacts on local populations due to exposure to harmful chemicals.
Nickel mining is energy-intensive and causes significant air and
water pollution. Nickel mining releases sulfur dioxide (SO₂), which
contributes to acid rain, and generates large amounts of waste material
that can contaminate water sources [155]. The production of lithiumion batteries is energy-intensive, with emissions ranging from 56 to
494 kg CO₂ per kWh of battery capacity. The anode and cathode pro­
duction, electrolyte preparation, and cell assembly all require high
levels of energy. If this energy is sourced from fossil fuels, the carbon
footprint of battery production is substantial. A 60 kWh battery (typical
for a mid-range electric vehicle) can result in the release of 3.4 to 30 tons
of CO₂ during production, depending on the region’s energy mix (e.g.,
coal-heavy versus renewable-dominated) [154].
The water footprint of battery production is significant, particularly
for lithium extraction from brine. It can exacerbate water scarcity in arid
regions. Moreover, the energy required for battery production can also
lead to significant environmental impacts, especially when coal or nat­
ural gas is used. For instance, in China, where many batteries are
manufactured, much of the electricity comes from coal, resulting in
higher emissions.
23
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
Without effective recycling, the disposal of lithium-ion batteries can
lead to environmental hazards. Improper disposal can cause soil and
water contamination due to leaching of heavy metals like cobalt and
nickel. While recycling of lithium-ion batteries is improving, the process
is still energy-intensive and not widely adopted. Recycling can recover
valuable metals like lithium, cobalt, and nickel, reducing the need for
further mining, but currently, less than 5 % of lithium-ion batteries are
recycled [158].
Similarly, the analysis of the environmental impact of hydrogen
production used in FCEVs should consider different key areas mainly
related to hydrogen production methods, Energy Use and Efficiency,
water use, and end-of-cycle and recycling. Currently, over 95 % of global
hydrogen is produced using SMR, which involves reacting natural gas
(methane) with steam to produce hydrogen and CO₂. This method is
carbon-intensive, emitting 9–12 kg CO₂ per kg of hydrogen produced.
SMR is considered grey hydrogen, as it relies on fossil fuels and releases
significant amounts of greenhouse gases. SMR also leads to methane
leakage during natural gas extraction and transport, further exacer­
bating its environmental impact. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas,
with a global warming potential 25 times greater than CO₂ over a 100year period [159].
Hydrogen could also be produced by electrolysis which splits water
into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity. The environmental impact
of electrolysis depends on the electricity source. When powered by fossil
fuel-based electricity, the carbon footprint of electrolysis can exceed that
of SMR. The emissions range from 2 to 6 kg CO₂ per kg H₂, depending on
the carbon intensity of the grid. On the contrary, if powered by
renewable energy sources like wind, solar, or hydropower, electrolysis
can produce near-zero emissions hydrogen. However, large-scale
renewable electrolysis is still in its first steps, and significant infra­
structure development is required for scaling it up [157].
In addition to its relatively highly impact on the environment, SMR is
also known to be an energy-intensive process, with efficiency rates of
around 65–75 %, meaning a significant portion of the energy in natural
gas is lost as waste heat or in the CO₂ emissions. Electrolysis is also less
efficient, with only 60–70 % of the electrical energy being converted
into hydrogen. When coupled with the energy required to compress,
store, and transport hydrogen, overall system efficiency can drop
further, resulting in greater environmental impacts unless renewable
electricity is used. It is worthy to note that electrolysis requires large
amounts of water. For every kilogram of hydrogen produced, approxi­
mately 9 l of water are consumed. In regions where water is scarce, this
could pose a sustainability issue, particularly in areas also facing high
energy demands for hydrogen production.
Unlike batteries, hydrogen fuel cells have a lower environmental
impact at the end of their lifecycle. However, the use of platinum in fuel
cells presents a challenge, as platinum is rare and energy-intensive to
mine. Recycling platinum from fuel cells can help mitigate some of the
environmental impacts, but large-scale recycling infrastructure is still
developing [156].
relatively new approach for recycling aims to recover and reuse battery
components without breaking them down into raw materials. This
method is particularly effective for lithium-ion batteries.
Overall, recycling batteries poses key challenges mainly related to
safety and handling, economic viability, and environmental impact. In
fact, recycling batteries poses risks due to their chemical composition
and the potential for fire or toxic releases. From an economic point of
view, the cost of recycling lithium-ion batteries often exceeds the value
of the recovered materials, which complicates widespread adoption. In
addition to these challenges, recycling batteries is also impactful on the
environment and improper disposal of batteries leads to environmental
contamination with heavy metals and hazardous chemicals [161].
Fuel cells, particularly hydrogen fuel cells, are gaining traction in the
automotive and stationary energy markets. However, the end-of-life
disposal of fuel cells poses challenges due to the use of rare and
precious metals such as platinum. Fuel cells can be dismantled to recover
high-value materials, particularly the platinum group metals (PGMs).
Mechanical separation, chemical leaching, and thermal processes are
commonly employed to recover these materials [162].
Some challenges are facing recycling of hydrogen fuel cell. In fact,
the process of recovering PGMs is costly, and while it is technically
feasible, the economic incentive for large-scale recycling remains low
[163]. Unlike battery recycling, the infrastructure for fuel cell recycling
is underdeveloped, and there are few commercial-scale recycling
facilities.
In conclusion, both battery and fuel cell recycling face technological
and economic challenges, but ongoing research is making strides in
improving recovery efficiency and reducing environmental impact. With
the rise of electric vehicles and hydrogen-based energy solutions, these
areas will remain critical for sustainable energy transitions.
5.5. Renewable energy integration for BEVs and FCEVs
The integration of renewable energy sources with BEVs and FCEVs is
crucial to creating a sustainable and low-carbon transportation
ecosystem. This integration involves using renewable energy (such as
solar, wind, and hydropower) to charge BEVs or produce hydrogen for
FCEVs, leading to lower emissions and better overall energy efficiency.
The focus of BEV integration with renewable energy is primarily on the
charging infrastructure and the smart grid. In fact, smart Grids and
Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) can efficiently manage renewable energy and
BEV demand, enabling vehicle-to-grid (V2G) services where BEVs not
only consume electricity but also supply it back to the grid [164]. This
helps balance the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources like
solar and wind power. The deployment of solar-powered charging sta­
tions is gaining traction. These stations directly link renewable energy
sources with BEVs, ensuring that the electricity used for charging is
green. Moreover, BEVs can act as mobile energy storage units, storing
excess renewable energy and deploying it when needed, improving grid
stability [165]. However, the integration of renewable energy in BEVs
sector faces serious challenges associated with intermittency of Re­
newables as solar and wind energy are not always available, and this
intermittency poses a challenge for reliable BEV charging. In addition,
developing widespread renewable energy-based charging networks re­
quires significant investment [166].
FCEVs rely on hydrogen as a fuel, and the most sustainable approach
is to produce hydrogen through electrolysis powered by renewable en­
ergy. This process is called green hydrogen production. The integration
of renewable energy into the hydrogen supply chain is critical for FCEVs
to truly contribute to a zero-emissions future [167]. Electrolysis, when
powered by renewable energy, splits water into hydrogen and oxygen
without emitting carbon dioxide. This hydrogen can then be used in
FCEVs. Hydrogen refueling stations are increasingly powered by
renewable energy sources, such as on-site solar or wind systems that
directly power the electrolysis process. These stations ensure that the
hydrogen supplied is clean and sustainable [168] [169].
5.4. Recycling and disposal of batteries and fuel cells
Recycling and disposal of batteries and fuel cells are critical topics in
the context of environmental sustainability and resource management.
With the growing use of lithium-ion batteries in electric vehicles (EVs)
and consumer electronics, recycling technologies for these batteries
have become a significant research focus [160]. There are several
methods for recycling batteries. Pyrometallurgical recycling method
involves smelting batteries at high temperatures to recover valuable
metals such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel. While efficient, this method is
energy-intensive and releases toxic gases. In hydrometallurgical recy­
cling process, aqueous chemistry is used to dissolve battery materials
and selectively recover metals through precipitation or solvent extrac­
tion. It is important to note that the latter method has a lower energy
footprint compared to pyrometallurgical methods. Direct recycling is a
24
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
Power-to-Gas Systems convert excess renewable electricity into
hydrogen gas, which can be stored and used later for FCEVs. This ad­
dresses the issue of renewable energy intermittency by storing excess
energy as hydrogen. The challenging issues related to integration of
renewable energy sources in FCEVs are mainly the cost of green
hydrogen, and the associated infrastructure. In fact, the cost of pro­
ducing green hydrogen via renewable-powered electrolysis is currently
higher than hydrogen from fossil fuels. Besides, hydrogen refueling
infrastructure is not as developed as charging stations for BEVs, and
integrating renewable energy adds further complexity.
In conclusion, integrating renewable energy into BEVs and FCEVs is a
cornerstone for achieving a sustainable transportation system. While
BEVs rely on renewable-powered charging infrastructure and smart
grids, FCEVs need scalable green hydrogen production powered by
renewable sources. The main challenges remain the cost and infra­
structure requirements, but advances in V2G systems, green hydrogen,
and policy support are making progress toward a clean energy future.
distinct technologies involved. It was observed by Thomas [170] that
FCEVs incur lower life-cycle costs due to less wear and tear on
vehicle components. The sensitivity of BEV battery life to external
factors such as climate conditions and charging patterns, which
could lead to higher long-term maintenance costs, was highlighted
by Ajanovic and Haas [180]. A comparison of the environmental and
cost impacts of BEVs and FCEVs in heavy-duty vehicles by Cunanan
et al. [181] noted the challenges BEVs face with battery degradation,
whereas FCEVs offer longer lifespans and reduced maintenance re­
quirements. An optimal sizing method for FCEV components,
designed to minimize both fixed and operational costs, was proposed
by Xu et al. [182], indicating that strategic design can significantly
reduce maintenance expenses. Moreover, Hu et al. [183] developed a
cost-optimal predictive energy management strategy for FCEVs that
considers degradation of both fuel cells and batteries, which could
lead to lower maintenance costs over time.
d) Market Pricing and Consumer Affordability
• Current and projected pricing trends for BEVs and FCEVs: The
affordability and market pricing of BEVs and FCEVs have been
influenced by a range of factors, including production costs, tech­
nological advancements, and policy incentives. It was reported by Li
et al. [184] that in major Chinese cities, stringent environmental
policies have made BEVs and FCEVs more competitive compared to
conventional vehicles. Despite anticipated reductions in production
costs, Lipman [185] noted that the purchase prices of BEVs and
FCEVs are expected to remain higher than those of conventional
vehicles unless significant technological breakthroughs are achieved.
Contestabile et al. [186] emphasized the necessity of robust policy
interventions to support the widespread adoption of BEVs and
FCEVs, as current market prices do not yet compete effectively with
traditional vehicles. A projection by Tanç et al. [175] suggested that
FCEVs will become increasingly affordable between the 2030s and
2050s, driven by technological advancements and infrastructure
expansion. Additionally, Ruffini and Wei [174] conducted a detailed
life cycle cost analysis, which indicated that FCEVs could become
cost-competitive with ICE vehicles by 2025, depending on the rate of
technological progress in fuel cells.
e) Economic Impact of Scaling Up Production
• Implications of mass production on costs and the economy: The
scaling up of production for BEVs and FCEVs is anticipated to have
considerable economic implications, particularly as these technolo­
gies mature. It was suggested by Wolf and Smeers [187] that
although initial infrastructure costs for BEVs and FCEVs are similar,
hydrogen infrastructure could become more cost-effective as vehicle
penetration increases. Pollet et al. [188] discussed the challenges of
decarbonizing transport and emphasized the need for major ad­
vancements in low-carbon technologies to reduce costs and enhance
market viability. An optimal design strategy for minimizing the cost
of fuel cells and supercapacitors in FCEVs was proposed by Wu et al.
[189], indicating that efficient production methods could result in
substantial cost savings. Furthermore, Hu et al. [183] highlighted the
importance of advanced energy management strategies in reducing
operational costs for FCEVs, where efficient hydrogen utilization
could lead to significant economic benefits. The importance of
economies of scale in driving down costs, particularly when pro­
duction is aligned with market demand and segmentation, was
reinforced by Contestabile et al. [186].
6. Cost analysis and economic viability
6.1. Manufacturing costs for BEVs and FCEVs
a) Cost breakdown of producing BEVs and FCEVs
The manufacturing costs of BEVs and FCEVs have been extensively
compared, with significant differences identified between the two
technologies. It has been found by Thomas [170] that FCEVs are more
cost-effective for ranges exceeding 160 km, owing to lower life-cycle
costs. According to Eaves and Eaves [171], the FCV propulsion system
was determined to be 43 % heavier and required nearly three times more
space than that of BEVs, leading to a production cost approximately 46
% higher. A projection by Offer et al. [172] suggested that by 2030, cost
reductions could enable FCEVs to become competitive with BEVs as
economies of scale are realized. It was further noted by Cano et al. [173]
that advancements in battery technology are essential for reducing BEV
costs, while hydrogen fuel cells offer a cost-effective solution for longrange applications. The potential for FCEVs to achieve cost parity with
ICE vehicles by 2025, provided an 18 % learning rate in technology is
maintained, was estimated by Ruffini and Wei [174]. Additionally, the
demand for hydrogen FCEVs is expected to rise significantly between the
2030s and 2050s as production costs decrease, as predicted by Tanç
et al. [175].
b) Cost of Ownership and Operation
• Comparative analysis of operating costs, including fuel/energy
and maintenance: The operational costs associated with BEVs and
FCEVs have been shown to vary depending on the technology’s
maturity and usage patterns. A strong cost advantage for BEVs over
FCEVs is currently observed, as noted by Morrison et al. [176], but
this advantage is expected to diminish by 2030 as FCEV costs
decrease. By 2040, it has been predicted that FCEVs could be more
cost-effective per mile in 71–88 % of the light-duty vehicle (LDV)
market. Sagaria et al. [177] found that FCEVs exhibited an average
operating cost of less than 7 cents/km, while BEVs were reported to
cost over 10 €/km, highlighting the efficiency of hydrogen fuel cells.
The higher energy efficiency of BEVs, which results in lower energy
consumption per kilometer, was emphasized by Bekel and Pauliuk
[178] as a key factor in their lower operational costs. Despite these
advantages, it was argued by Aguilar and Groß [179] that both BEVs
and FCEVs can complement each other, with BEVs being more suit­
able for short distances and FCEVs being preferred for long-range
travel due to their quicker refueling times and extended range.
c) Analysis of Maintenance Costs
• Long-term maintenance and repair considerations: Maintenance
costs for BEVs and FCEVs have been observed to differ based on the
7. Technological innovations and future prospects
7.1. Emerging battery technologies
Significant progress has been made in the field of battery technolo­
gies, which are essential for the development of Battery Electric Vehicles
(BEVs). Recent innovations, including solid-state and graphene-based
batteries, have been pivotal. Solid-state batteries are particularly
25
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
noteworthy for their potential to increase energy density and improve
safety by replacing liquid electrolytes with solid ones. This advance­
ment, as emphasized by Mierlo and Maggetto [190], could lead to an
increase in BEV range by as much as 50 % compared to traditional
lithium-ion batteries, thereby contributing to a significant reduction in
CO2 emissions. Graphene-based batteries, which offer faster charging
times and greater energy storage capacity, are also being developed. The
work of Mierlo et al. [191] has shown that the integration of graphene
into battery electrodes can enhance conductivity and reduce charging
times by up to 70 %. Such improvements are crucial for addressing one
of the primary concerns associated with BEVs—extended charging du­
rations. Additionally, hybrid energy storage systems that combine bat­
teries with ultracapacitors are being increasingly explored. Offer et al.
[192] have indicated that these systems could optimize the energy ef­
ficiency of BEVs by managing energy storage more effectively, partic­
ularly during high power demands. The potential improvement in BEV
fuel economy by 15–20 % through such systems makes them a more
viable option for long-distance travel. In the context of enhancing BEV
performance, Khaligh and Li [193] have discussed the potential of
hybrid energy storage systems that integrate batteries with fuel cells and
ultracapacitors. Their findings suggest that such hybrid systems could
significantly improve energy density and power density, potentially
doubling the all-electric range (AER) of BEVs.
potentially increasing the effective range of BEVs by up to 30 %. In the
context of shared autonomous vehicles, the concept of Shared Autono­
mous Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (SAFCEVs) has been explored by Lee
et al. [200] Their research indicates that SAFCEVs could offer a more
cost-effective and energy-efficient solution for urban transportation,
with the potential to reduce fleet sizes by nearly 10 % while increasing
overall driving range by over 100 %. This demonstrates the viability of
FCEVs in autonomous shared mobility platforms, especially in densely
populated urban areas.
Additionally, Forrest et al. [201] have analyzed the feasibility of
using BEVs and FCEVs for medium and heavy-duty vehicles in autono­
mous systems. Their findings suggest that while BEVs are suitable for
shorter trips, FCEVs could be more feasible for longer distances due to
their superior energy density and faster refueling times. This further
underscore the potential of integrating autonomous technologies with
FCEVs to meet diverse transportation needs.
7.4. Advancements in lightweight materials for vehicle design
The development of lightweight materials is considered crucial for
improving the efficiency and performance of both BEVs and FCEVs. By
reducing the overall weight of vehicles, significant enhancements in
energy efficiency, driving range, and emission reductions could be
achieved. Habib and Butler [202] have discussed the role of advanced
composites and aluminum alloys in reducing vehicle weight by up to 30
%, which correlates with a 10–15 % improvement in energy efficiency
for BEVs and FCEVs. Miotti et al. [203] have highlighted the use of
carbon fiber in the construction of hydrogen storage tanks for FCEVs.
Although more expensive, carbon fiber’s high strength-to-weight ratio
makes it ideal for storing hydrogen at high pressures, potentially
increasing the overall energy efficiency of FCEVs by up to 20 %. This
advancement not only improves the performance of FCEVs but also
enhances their safety and durability. Continued innovation in material
sciences has been emphasized by Ajanovic and Haas [204] as essential
for overcoming the challenges of weight and cost in EV manufacturing.
It has been projected that with further advancements in lightweight
materials, the cost of BEVs and FCEVs could decrease by 10–15 % over
the next decade, making them more accessible to a broader range of
consumers. Burke [205] has also noted the benefits of integrating
ultracapacitors and advanced materials in hybrid electric vehicles
(HEVs). It has been suggested that the use of lightweight materials,
combined with energy-dense ultracapacitors, could lead to a 10–15 %
improvement in fuel economy, particularly in mild hybrids.
7.2. Future of hydrogen production
The future of hydrogen production is crucial to the widespread
adoption and feasibility of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs). Advances
in green hydrogen production, especially through electrolysis powered
by renewable energy sources, have been identified as key to reducing the
carbon footprint of FCEVs. Ajanovic [194] has highlighted that
hydrogen produced from renewable sources, such as wind and solar,
could reduce CO2 emissions by up to 90 % compared to conventional
methods relying on natural gas. The economic viability of hydrogenbased road transport has been analyzed by Li and Kimura [195],
particularly in the ASEAN region. It has been predicted that with the
implementation of appropriate policies, including subsidies and tax in­
centives, the cost of green hydrogen could decrease by 30–40 % by 2030,
making FCEVs a more attractive option for reducing emissions in the
transportation sector. Challenges related to hydrogen storage and dis­
tribution have also been addressed. Recent advancements in hydrogen
storage technologies, such as the use of high-pressure tanks and
advanced materials, have been reviewed by Manoharan et al. [196],
who suggest that these innovations could increase the driving range of
FCEVs by up to 50 %. This would make FCEVs more competitive with
BEVs in terms of both range and refueling time.
Further challenges in hydrogen production have been discussed by
Muthukumar et al. [197], who have emphasized the ongoing difficulties
in handling hydrogen and managing water in FCEVs. Their research
indicates that technological breakthroughs in these areas are necessary
to enhance the performance and cost-effectiveness of FCEVs.
7.5. Prospects for hybrid electric and fuel cell vehicles
The exploration of hybrid approaches that combine BEV and FCEV
technologies is seen as a promising area of research and development.
Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) that incorporate both battery and fuel
cell systems have the potential to offer extended range and reduced
emissions. Parikh et al. [206] have discussed the possibility of reducing
CO2 emissions by integrating a small fuel cell with a battery pack,
potentially reducing the overall carbon footprint of vehicles by up to 40
%. Range-extender hybrids, where a small fuel cell or internal com­
bustion engine is used to extend the range of a BEV, have been explored
by Tran et al. [207] Their findings suggest that such hybrid systems
could alleviate range anxiety while maintaining the environmental
benefits of BEVs. It is estimated that these systems could potentially
increase the range of BEVs by up to 50 %, making them more suitable for
long-distance travel. Fernández et al. [208] have proposed a new hybrid
model that combines the advantages of both BEVs and FCEVs. Their
study shows that by integrating a small fuel cell into a BEV, significant
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved, while also
extending the driving range. This hybrid approach is considered a
transitional technology, potentially bridging the gap between current
BEV and FCEV technologies until more advanced solutions become
7.3. Integration of autonomous driving with BEVs and FCEVs
The integration of autonomous driving technologies with BEVs and
FCEVs is expected to significantly advance the automotive industry.
Autonomous systems, when combined with electric powertrains, have
the potential to optimize energy usage, reduce emissions, and improve
safety. According to Wanitschke and Hoffmann [198], autonomous
BEVs and FCEVs could potentially reduce energy consumption by up to
20 % through more efficient driving patterns and optimized route
planning. Thomaas [199] has further explored the potential of autono­
mous technologies in addressing BEV range anxiety. Predictive analytics
and real-time data processing, when incorporated into autonomous
BEVs, could optimize battery usage and extend driving ranges by
dynamically adjusting to road conditions and traffic patterns,
26
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
widely available.
Finally, Li et al. [209] have compared the well-to-wheel (WTW) ef­
ficiencies of BEVs and FCEVs across different energy resource pathways.
Their research indicates that hybrid vehicles, especially those combining
battery and fuel cell technologies, could achieve superior efficiency and
lower emissions compared to traditional ICE vehicles, particularly when
renewable energy sources are utilized for hydrogen production.
Compliance with these regulations adds complexity and cost to the
adoption process, particularly in regions where regulatory frameworks
are still developing. Market entry barriers also pose significant chal­
lenges for BEV and FCEV manufacturers. Wu et al. [220] have high­
lighted the difficulties in bringing new electric vehicle models to market,
which have slowed commercialization efforts. The high costs of research
and development (R and D) and competition from established internal
combustion engine (ICE) vehicles have created a fragmented market,
where BEVs and FCEVs struggle to achieve the necessary economies of
scale to be competitive. Additionally, Eberle et al. [221] have addressed
the infrastructural and regulatory efforts required for the adoption of
fuel cell technologies. The complexity of building hydrogen refueling
stations that meet safety and performance standards remains a regula­
tory hurdle that must be addressed to facilitate the broader use of FCEVs.
8. Challenges and barriers to adoption
8.1. Technical challenges
The adoption of Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) and Fuel Cell
Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) is hindered by several technical challenges.
One significant issue faced by BEVs is battery degradation, which im­
pacts both vehicle lifespan and performance. The challenges related to
energy management in hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), as noted by
Sulaiman et al. [210], remain a concern, particularly in how these
challenges affect battery durability. Additionally, the difficulties asso­
ciated with maintaining hydrogen purity in fuel cells, discussed by İnci
et al. [211], are critical to the efficient operation of these vehicles.
Challenges specific to fuel cells in FCEVs, including issues with cold
starts and hydrogen storage, have been emphasized by Waseem et al.
[212]. The performance and reliability of FCEVs are constrained by
these challenges, limiting their commercial viability. Furthermore, the
reliability of systems that combine energy sources like fuel cells, batte­
ries, and supercapacitors in HEVs still requires significant improvement,
as stressed by Hannan et al. [213]. These technical barriers must be
overcome to achieve optimal performance and extend the lifespan of
these vehicles. Sorlei et al. [214] have also highlighted the technological
challenges faced by FCEVs, particularly in integrating hybrid energy
storage systems that combine batteries and ultracapacitors to meet the
dynamic power demands of electric motors. The degradation of these
subsystems, along with the need for advanced energy management
strategies, presents a significant challenge that must be addressed to
improve the efficiency and reliability of FCEVs.
8.4. Consumer concerns and misconceptions
Consumer concerns and misconceptions about BEVs and FCEVs play
a significant role in their adoption. Range anxiety, one of the primary
concerns preventing consumers from adopting electric vehicles, has
been identified by Sanguesa et al. [222]. Although advancements in
battery technology have increased the range of BEVs, skepticism about
their capabilities persists, slowing adoption rates. Misconceptions about
fuel cells are also prevalent among consumers. Pramuanjaroenkij and
Kakaç [223] have discussed the confusion between fuel cells and bat­
teries, noting that many consumers do not understand that fuel cells
require a continuous supply of hydrogen to generate electricity. This
misunderstanding leads to unrealistic expectations regarding vehicle
performance and refueling requirements. Safety concerns further
complicate consumer adoption. Wilberforce et al. [224] have noted that,
despite the clean energy benefits of fuel cells, significant concerns
remain about hydrogen storage and handling, particularly the risks
associated with leaks or explosions. Addressing these safety concerns
through technological advancements and consumer education is essen­
tial to increase acceptance of FCEVs.
Finally, the slow charging times of BEVs and the limited availability
of fast-charging stations have caused frustration among consumers, as
argued by Suciu and Pasat [225]. Expanding charging infrastructure is
critical to alleviating concerns about convenience and reliability, which
are key factors in consumer decision-making.
8.2. Economic barriers
Economic barriers present significant challenges to the widespread
adoption of BEVs and FCEVs. The high upfront costs associated with fuel
cell vehicles, particularly those related to hydrogen storage systems and
fuel cells, have been noted by Emadi et al. [215]. Although these vehi­
cles offer long-term environmental benefits, the initial financial invest­
ment remains a deterrent for many potential consumers. The
development of infrastructure to support FCEVs is also a considerable
economic challenge. Sulaiman et al. [216] have pointed out the high
costs and slow progress associated with establishing hydrogen refueling
infrastructure, which has further impeded market penetration. This
perspective is supported by Greene et al. [217], who discuss the coevolution of hydrogen refueling networks and the demand for fuel cell
vehicles. Significant government investment is necessary to create a
sustainable infrastructure capable of supporting the broader adoption of
FCEVs. Moreover, the financial backing required for large-scale renew­
able energy projects needed to produce hydrogen fuel has been high­
lighted by Deng et al. [218]. Innovations in project finance are crucial
for scaling these projects to the necessary magnitude, making the cost of
hydrogen production another key factor hindering the adoption of
FCEVs.
8.5. Industry competition and market dynamics
Competition within the electric vehicle industry is intense, with BEVs
and FCEVs competing for dominance. Hardman et al. [226] have dis­
cussed the concept of disruptive innovation within the automotive
sector, noting that both BEVs and FCEVs have the potential to revolu­
tionize the industry. However, achieving widespread market penetra­
tion remains challenging due to the entrenched position of traditional
ICE vehicles. Market dynamics also play a crucial role in the adoption of
these technologies. Lebrouhi et al. [227] have emphasized that the
adoption of BEVs is heavily influenced by policy measures, government
incentives, and infrastructure availability. Without sufficient support
from both governments and the private sector, BEVs are unlikely to gain
the market share needed to dominate the transportation sector. The
ongoing “standards battle” between battery-powered and hydrogen fuel
cell-powered electric vehicles has been explored by Van de Kaa et al.
[228]. Their findings suggest that BEVs currently have a greater chance
of winning this battle due to their technological maturity and compat­
ibility with existing infrastructure. However, FCEVs still hold significant
potential, particularly in sectors requiring longer driving ranges and
faster refueling times. The role of industry partnerships in accelerating
the development of FCEVs has been addressed by Garland et al. [229].
Collaboration among automakers, energy companies, and governments
is essential for overcoming the economic and technical challenges facing
FCEVs. These partnerships are likely to shape the competitive landscape
8.3. Regulatory hurdles and market entry barriers
Regulatory challenges are among the most significant barriers to the
adoption of BEVs and FCEVs. The stringent safety and regulatory stan­
dards that FCEVs must meet, which differ substantially from those of
conventional vehicles, have been discussed by Das et al. [219].
27
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
of the electric vehicle industry in the coming years.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
9. Conclusion
References
In summary, this review article presents comparative analysis be­
tween Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles
(FCEVs) highlights both technologies’ strengths, limitations, and po­
tential role in the future of sustainable transportation. BEVs have gained
significant popularity due to their greater energy efficiency and rapidly
developing infrastructure, while FCEVs are recognized for their advan­
tages in long-range and heavy-duty applications. Despite these benefits,
both vehicle types encounter challenges related to cost, infrastructure,
and environmental sustainability. The path forward will depend on
continued advancements in battery and hydrogen technology, alongside
government policies that encourage adoption and infrastructure
expansion. Below are the key takeaways from this review:
[1] Ayre J. Tesla battery tech vs. CleanTechnica: Hydrogen Fuel Cells; 2019.
[2] Kirsch DA. The electric vehicle and the burden of history. Rutgers University
Press; 2000.
[3] Anderson C. The rise and fall of electric vehicles. https://spectrum.ieee.org;
2016.
[4] Council, H. Hydrogen insights report. 2021.
[5] Motors G. The Electrovan: The World’s first fuel cell vehicle. 2016.
[6] Systems BP. History of fuel cells. 2020.
[7] Corporation TM. Toyota Mirai: A symbol of the hydrogen society. 2022.
[8] Lutsey NSD. Emerging Technology for Electric Vehicles. J Transp Res 2012;21(3):
112–31.
[9] (IEA). I.E.A. The Future of Hydrogen. IEA Hydrogen Report. 2021.
[10] Global, T. Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles. 2022.
[11] S. Vengatesan, S.J., A.; & Sadasivuni, K. k., FCEV vs. BEV—A short overview on
identifying the key contributors to affordable & clean energy (SDG-7). Energ Strat
Rev, 2024. 53: p. 101380.
[12] (IEA). I.E.A. The Future of Hydrogen: Seizing Today’s Opportunities. 2020.
[13] Lutsey N, Nicholas M. Update on Electric Vehicle Costs in the United States
Through 2030. In: International council on clean transportation (ICCT); 2019.
[14] Council, H. Path to hydrogen competitiveness: A cost perspective. 2020.
[15] Al-Alawi BM, Bradley TH. Review of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric vehicle
market modeling studies. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2013;21:190–203.
[16] (IEA). I.E.A. Global EV Outlook. 2020.
[17] Sperling, D., Three Revolutions: Steering Automated, Shared, and Electric Vehicles to
a Better Future. 2018: Three revolutions: steering automated, Shared, and Electric
Vehicles to a Better Future.
[18] Lutsey N, Nicholas M. Update on Electric Vehicle Costs in the United States
Through 2030. In: International council on clean transportation (ICCT); 2019.
[19] Systems BP. Fuel cell electric vehicles: An overview of hydrogen and fuel cell
technologies. 2021.
[20] Council, H. Hydrogen Insights. A perspective on hydrogen investment.
Deployment, and Cost Competitiveness 2021;2021.
[21] DeWolf DSY. Comparison of battery electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles. World
Electr Veh J 2023;14:262.
[22] Corporation TM. Toyota motor Corporation. 2020.
[23] Fuller J. What is the history of electric cars? How Stuff Works; 2009.
[24] World’s first electric Car built by Victorian inventor in 1884. London: The Daily
Telegraph; 2009.
[25] Faraz A, Ambikapathy A, Thangavel S, Logavani K, Arun Prasad G. Battery
electric vehicles (BEVs). Electric Vehicles: Modern Technologies and Trends;
2021. p. 137–60.
[26] Taherzadeh E, Dabbaghjamanesh M, Gitizadeh M, Rahideh A. A new efficient fuel
optimization in blended charge depletion/charge sustenance control strategy for
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. IEEE Trans Intell Veh 2020;3:374–83.
[27] Jar B, Watson N, Miller A. Rapid EV chargers: implementation of a charger. In
Proceedings of the EEA Conference & Exhibition, Wellington, New Zealand 2018;
22–24:1–17.
[28] Rumale S, Al Ashkar H, Kerner T, Koya F, Eitzenberger M. Design and
Implementation of an On-Board Vehicle CHAdeMO Interface for Vehicle-to-Grid
Applications. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Power
Electronics. Smart Grid Renewable Energy (PESGRE2020), Cochin, India 2020:
1–6.
[29] Das S, Acharjee P, Bhattacharya A. Charging Scheduling of Electric Vehicle
incorporating Grid-to-Vehicle (G2V) and Vehicle to Grid (V2G) technology in
Smart-Grid. In: In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on
Power Electronics, Smart Grid and Renewable Energy (PESGRE2020), Cochin,
India, 2–4 January 2020; 2020. p. 1–6.
[30] Xu L, Li Z, Sun H, Fan J, Bai Q, Ou Y, et al. Study on control strategy for seriesparallel hybrid electric vehicles. J Phys Conf Ser 2020;1617:012059.
[31] Zhao H, Burke A. Modelling and analysis of plug-in series-parallel hybrid
medium-duty vehicles. Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Congress, Brussels,
Belgium: In Proceedings of the European Battery; 2022. p. 2–4.
[32] Ding N, Prasad K, Lie TT. The Design of Control Strategy for blended seriesparallel power-Split PHEV—A simulation study 2 optimization Design for Seriesparallel Power-split PHEV 3 simulation study. Int J Transp Syst 2019;2:21–4.
[33] Puma-Benavides DS, Izquierdo-Reyes J, Calderon-Najera JDD, RamirezMendoza RA. A systematic review of technologies, control methods, and
optimization for extended-range electric vehicles. Appl Sci 2021;11:7095.
[34] Jiang H, Xu H, Liu Q, Ma L, Song J. An urban planning perspective on enhancing
electric vehicle (EV) adoption: evidence from Beijing. Travel Behav Soc 2024;34:
100712.
[35] Jiang H, Xu H, Liu Q, Ma L, Song J. An urban planning perspective on enhancing
electric vehicle (EV) adoption: evidence from Beijing. Travel Behav Soc 2024;34:
100712.
[36] Winkler L, Pearce D, Nelson J, Babacan O. The effect of sustainable mobility
transition policies on cumulative urban transport emissions and energy demand.
Nat Commun 2023;14(1):2357.
a) BEVs are leading the clean transportation market due to their higher
energy efficiency, better-established infrastructure, and falling bat­
tery prices, making them an ideal choice for short to medium-range
urban travel.
b) FCEVs are more suited to long-distance and heavy-duty transport due
to faster refueling and longer ranges, but they are constrained by
high hydrogen production costs and the limited availability of refu­
eling stations.
c) Both BEVs and FCEVs produce zero tailpipe emissions, significantly
reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. However, the
overall environmental benefit of each technology is dependent on the
method used to generate the energy (electricity for BEVs, hydrogen
for FCEVs).
d) BEVs offer superior energy efficiency compared to FCEVs, experi­
encing lower energy losses from electricity generation to propulsion,
while FCEVs face higher losses in hydrogen production and energy
conversion.
e) The sustainability of BEVs is affected by battery production, partic­
ularly regarding the environmental impact and ethical concerns
around the extraction of raw materials like lithium and cobalt.
f) FCEVs have the potential to complement BEVs, especially in longhaul transport and other areas requiring quick refueling, though
broader adoption will rely on reducing hydrogen costs and expand­
ing infrastructure.
g) Technological advances and infrastructure improvements are key to
the success of both BEVs and FCEVs, including innovations in battery
technologies, hydrogen production, and the growth of supporting
networks.
h) Government regulations and incentives are crucial in shaping the
future of BEVs and FCEVs by fostering infrastructure development,
encouraging research, and providing incentives for widespread
consumer adoption.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Hussein Togun: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft,
Supervision. Ali Basem: Conceptualization. Tuqa Abdulrazzaq: Data
curation. Nirmalendu Biswas: Writing – review & editing, Writing –
original draft. Azher M. Abed: Data curation. Jameel M. dhabab:
Formal analysis. Anirban Chattopadhyay: Investigation. Khalifa
Slimi: Formal analysis. Dipankar Paul: Conceptualization. Praveen
Barmavatu: Data curation. Amani Chrouda: Resources.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
28
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
[37] Borowska-Stefańska M, Kowalski M, Kurzyk P, Mikušová M, Wiśniewski S.
Privileging electric vehicles as an element of promoting sustainable urban
mobility—effects on the local transport system in a large metropolis in Poland.
Energies 2021;14(13):3838.
[38] Aasness MA, Odeck J. Road users’ attitudes towards electric vehicle incentives:
empirical evidence from Oslo in 2014–2020. Res Transp Econ 2023;97:101262.
[39] Bjerkan KY, Nørbech TE, Nordtømme ME. Incentives for promoting battery
electric vehicle (BEV) adoption in Norway. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ
2016;43:169–80.
[40] Liu Y, Zhao X, Lu D, Li X. Impact of policy incentives on the adoption of electric
vehicle in China. Transp Res A Policy Pract 2023;176:103801.
[41] Qadir SA, Ahmad F, Al-Wahedi AMA, Iqbal A, Ali A. Navigating the complex
realities of electric vehicle adoption: a comprehensive study of government
strategies, policies, and incentives. Energ Strat Rev 2024;53:101379.
[42] Martins H, Henriques CO, Figueira JR, Silva CS, Costa AS. Assessing policy
interventions to stimulate the transition of electric vehicle technology in the
European Union. Socio Econ Plan Sci 2023;87:101505.
[43] Li Z. A review of the current status of global electric vehicle charging
infrastructure development. Int J Global Econ Management 2024;3(3):123–34.
[44] Rietmann N, Hügler B, Lieven T. Forecasting the trajectory of electric vehicle
sales and the consequences for worldwide CO2 emissions. J Clean Prod 2020;261:
121038.
[45] Busch C, Gopal A. Electric vehicles will soon lead global auto markets, but too
slow to hit climate goals without new policy. Energy Innovation 2022. November,
3.
[46] Zhu L, Wang P, Zhang Q. Indirect network effects in China’s electric vehicle
diffusion under phasing out subsidies. Appl Energy 2019;251:113350.
[47] Yang A, Liu C, Yang D, Lu C. Electric vehicle adoption in a mature market: a case
study of Norway. J Transp Geogr 2023;106:103489.
[48] Khaleel M, Nassar Y, El-Khozondar HJ, Elmnifi M, Rajab Z, Yaghoubi E, et al.
Electric vehicles in China, Europe, and the United States: current trend and
market comparison. Int J Electr Eng and Sustain 2024:1–20.
[49] Slowik P, Searle S, Basma H, Miller J, Zhou Y, Rodríguez F, et al. Analyzing the
impact of the inflation reduction act on electric vehicle uptake in the United
States. Energy innovation and international council on clean. Transportation
2023.
[50] Pham MK. Using diffusion models to forecast electric vehicle outlook in Finland,
Sweden, and Norway (Bachelor’s thesis). 2023.
[51] UPDATE, P.. Emission standards for new passenger cars and vans in the European
Union. POLICY; 2023.
[52] Haas T, Sander H. Decarbonizing transport in the European Union: emission
performance standards and the perspectives for a European green Deal.
Sustainability 2020;12(20):8381.
[53] Trinkler A. Analyzing the case of Volkswagen and the transition to electric
vehicles in 2020-mobility as a service (Master’s thesis,. Universidade NOVA de
Lisboa (Portugal); 2021.
[54] Jellinghaus M. Analyzing the case of Volkswagen and the transition to electric
vehicles in 2020-sustainability of electric vehicles (Master’s thesis,. Universidade
NOVA de Lisboa (Portugal); 2021.
[55] Murray M, Sesia A. General Motors commits to 100% electric vehicles by 2035.
2025.
[56] Agnihotri A, Bhattacharya S. General Motors creating shareholder value through
diversification in electric vehicles: Can a legacy company win? SAGE Business
Cases Originals: SAGE Publications; 2023.
[57] Xu R. Analysis of general Motors company between 2018-2020. 2025.
[58] Katiyar AA. Ford Motor Company: Looking for a ‘charger’?. 2021.
[59] Katiyar AA. Equity research report on Ford Motor Company: Looking for a
‘charger’? (Master’s thesis, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa (Portugal); 2021.
[60] Agnihotri A, Bhattacharya S. General Motors creating shareholder value through
diversification in electric vehicles: Can a legacy company win? SAGE Business
Cases Originals: SAGE Publications; 2023.
[61] Cabigiosu A. Open and collaborative innovation in the automotive industry. In:
The green transition of the automotive industry: From technological sustainable
innovation to mobility Servitization. Cham: Springer International Publishing;
2023. p. 131–59.
[62] Li Z. A review of the current status of global electric vehicle charging
infrastructure development. Int J Global Econ Management 2024;3(3):123–34.
[63] Franke P, Lange AC, Steffens B, Pozzer A, Wahner A, Kiendler-Scharr A. European
air quality in view of the WHO 2021 guideline levels: effect of emission
reductions on air pollution exposure. Elem Sci Anth 2024;12(1):00127.
[64] Brook RD, Motairek I, Rajagopalan S, Al-Kindi S. Excess global blood pressure
associated with fine particulate matter air pollution levels exceeding World
Health Organization guidelines. J Am Heart Assoc 2023;12(8):e029206.
[65] Slowik P, Isenstadt A, Pierce L, Searle S. Assessment of light-duty electric vehicle
costs and consumer benefits in the United States in the 2022–2035 time frame.
International Council on Clean Transportation: Washington, DC, USA; 2022.
[66] Figenbaum E. An empirical study of the policy processes behind Norway’s BEVOlution. World Electric Vehicle Journal 2024;15(2):37.
[67] Citaristi I. International energy agency—Iea. In: The Europa directory of
international organizations 2022. Routledge; 2022. p. 701–2.
[68] Haddeland I, Hole J, Holmqvist E, Koestler V, Sidelnikova M, Veie CA, et al.
Effects of climate on renewable energy sources and electricity supply in Norway.
Renew Energy 2022;196:625–37.
[69] Gustafsson G. Urban planning for better air quality: A case study of the low-traffic
Neighbourhoods in London. 2022.
[70] Tang B, Xu Y, Wang M. Life cycle assessment of battery electric and internal
combustion engine vehicles considering the impact of electricity generation mix:
a case study in China. Atmosphere 2022;13(2):252.
[71] Bieker G. A global comparison of the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of
combustion engine and electric passenger cars. communications 2021;49(30).
847129–102.
[72] Laskowski P, Zimakowska-Laskowska M, Zasina D, Wiatrak M. Comparative
analysis of the emissions of carbon dioxide and toxic substances emitted by
vehicles with ICE compared to the equivalent emissions of BEV. Combustion
Engines 2021;60.
[73] Vig SG, Suta A, Tóth Á. Corporate reporting of CO2 emission disclosures in
electric vehicle manufacturing: an overview of tesla Inc. Chem Eng Trans 2022;
94:391–6.
[74] Gholami A, Tokac B, ZHANG Q. Entwined Development of the Mine Life Cycle
and the Mining Value Chain to Address Climate Change. 2025. Available at SSRN
4696349.
[75] Williams JT, Vangu AM, Mabiala HB, Mangungulu HB, Tissingh EK. Toxicity in
the supply chain: cobalt, orthopaedics, and the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. The Lancet Planetary Health 2021;5(6):e327–8.
[76] Dunn J. Lithium-ion battery material circularity: Material availability, recycling
economics, and the waste hierarchy. Davis: University of California; 2022.
[77] Hoarau Q, Lorang E. An assessment of the European regulation on battery
recycling for electric vehicles. Energy Policy 2022;162:112770.
[78] Neubauer JS, Wood E, Pesaran A. A second life for electric vehicle batteries:
answering questions on battery degradation and value. SAE Int J Mater
Manufacturing 2015;8(2):544–53.
[79] Ramanan A, Sekhar M, Mehra S. Solar PV and second life batteries powered EV
charging station: Case study for India. In: In 7th E-mobility power system
integration symposium (EMOB 2023). 2023. IET; 2023. p. 153–63.
[80] Shen H, Yi E, Cheng L, Amores M, Chen G, Sofie SW, et al. Solid-state electrolyte
considerations for electric vehicle batteries. Sustainable Energy Fuels 2019;3(7):
1647–59.
[81] Ajanovic A, Haas R. On the economics and the future prospects of battery electric
vehicles. Greenhouse Gases: Sci Technol 2020;10(6):1151–64.
[82] Slowik P, Isenstadt A, Pierce L, Searle S. Assessment of light-duty electric vehicle
costs and consumer benefits in the United States in the 2022–2035 time frame.
International Council on Clean Transportation: Washington, DC, USA; 2022.
[83] Propfe B, Redelbach M, Santini DJ, Friedrich H. Cost analysis of plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles including maintenance & repair costs and resale values. World
Electric Vehicle Journal 2012;5(4):886–95.
[84] Slowik P, Isenstadt A, Pierce L, Searle S. Assessment of light-duty electric vehicle
costs and consumer benefits in the United States in the 2022–2035 time frame.
International Council on Clean Transportation: Washington, DC, USA; 2022.
[85] Muratori M, Alexander M, Arent D, Bazilian M, Cazzola P, Dede EM, et al. The rise
of electric vehicles—2020 status and future expectations. Progress Energy 2021;3
(2):022002.
[86] Ou S. Estimate long-term impact on battery degradation by considering electric
vehicle real-world end-use factors. J Power Sources 2023;573:233133.
[87] Curry C. Lithium-ion battery costs and market. Bloomberg New Energy Finance
2017;5(4–6):43.
[88] Shaikh J, Sharpe B. Assessment of light-duty electric vehicle costs in Canada in
the 2023 to 2040 time frame. 2023.
[89] Hou F, Chen X, Chen X, Yang F, Ma Z, Zhang S, et al. Comprehensive analysis
method of determining global long-term GHG mitigation potential of passenger
battery electric vehicles. J Clean Prod 2021;289:125137.
[90] Itani K, De Bernardinis A. Review on new-generation batteries technologies:
trends and future directions. Energies 2023;16(22):7530.
[91] Iijima R. Technological development trajectories of the component Technologies
in Battery Electric Vehicles (Doctoral dissertation,. MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE
OF TECHNOLOGY; 2024.
[92] Dechamps P. The IEA world energy outlook 2022–a brief analysis and
implications. Eur Energy Climate J 2023;11(3):100–3.
[93] Szabo, J., Deák, A., Szalavetz, A., & Túry, G. The Future Eur Automobile ind.
[94] Murray M, Sesia A. General Motors commits to 100% electric vehicles by 2035.
2025.
[95] Kristensen, L., & Kristensen, E. Price Vs. Value, Tesla-a Trillion-Dollar Company.
[96] Jeong E, Mah JS. The role of the government in the development of the
rechargeable battery industry in Korea. Perspectives on Global Development and
Technology 2022;21(2):202–20.
[97] Vandeplas A, Vanyolos I, Vigani M, Vogel L. The possible implications of the
green transition for the EU labour market. Publications Office of the European
Union; 2022.
[98] Dolezal AE. Power to the people: distributing the benefits of a clean energy
transition through equitable policy, legislation, and energy justice initiatives.
Minn L Rev 2021;106:2441.
[99] Juden RP. A cautionary tale from Nevada’s desert-people before company: A case
study on economic development approaches in Nevada (Doctoral dissertation,.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas; 2022.
[100] Li Z. A review of the current status of global electric vehicle charging
infrastructure development. Int J Global Econ Management 2024;3(3):123–34.
[101] GM Heritage Center. https://history.gmheritagecenter.com/wiki/index.php
/1966_GM_Electrovan; 2025.
[102] Qin N, Raissi A, Brooker P. Analysis of fuel cell vehicle developments. The Florida
Solar Energy Center (FSEC); 2014.
[103] Ernst J. History of fuel cell development at Mercedes-Benz. Daimler
Communications: Stuttgart, Germany; 2007.
29
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
[104] Wipkke K, Sprik S, Kurtz J, Ramsden T, Ainscough C, Saur G. National fuel cell
electric vehicle learning demonstration final report. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory; 2012.
[105] Toyota Fuel Cell Vehicle. http://www.toyotaglobal.com/innovation/enviro
nmental_technology/fuelcell_vehicle/; 2025.
[106] Markel T, Zolot M, Wipke K, Pesaran A. Energy storage system requirements for
hybrid fuel cell vehicles. In: Advanced automotive battery conference, Nice,
France; 2003.
[107] Wood E, Wang L, Gonder J, Ulsh M. Overcoming the range limitation of mediumduty battery electric vehicles through the use of hydrogen fuel-cells. SAE Int J
Commer Veh 2013;6:563–73.
[108] Burke AF, Zhao J, Miller MR, Fulton LM. Vehicle choice modeling for emerging
zero-emission light-duty vehicle Markets in California. Heliyon 2024;e32823.
[109] Iida S, Sakata K. Hydrogen technologies and developments in Japan. Clean
Energy 2019;3(2):105–13.
[110] Willich C, Königsberger C, Prickler P, Aydin M, Heilmann O, Schlick M. Assessing
the future hydrogen demand in the mobility sector for the Ulm region in southern
Germany. 2023.
[111] Stangarone T. South Korean efforts to transition to a hydrogen economy. Clean
Techn Environ Policy 2021;23:509–16.
[112] Melaina MW. Initiating hydrogen infrastructures: preliminary analysis of a
sufficient number of initial hydrogen stations in the US. Int J Hydrog Energy
2003;28(7):743–55.
[113] Barrett M, Cassarino TG. Heating with steam methane reformed hydrogen–a
survey of the emissions, security and cost implications of heating with hydrogen
produced from natural gas. 2021.
[114] Lerede D, Bustreo C, Gracceva F, Lechón Y, Savoldi L. Analysis of the effects of
electrification of the road transport sector on the possible penetration of nuclear
fusion in the long-term european energy mix. Energies 2020;13(14):3634.
[115] Cullenward D. California’s Foreign Climate Policy Global Summitry 2017;3(1):
1–26.
[116] Sakthi P, Ghahremanlou D, Farahmand F. A thorough analysis of sustainable
hydrogen pathways in the Western United States. 2023.
[117] Li XJ, Allen JD, Stager JA, Ku AY. Paths to low-cost hydrogen energy at a scale for
transportation applications in the USA and China via liquid-hydrogen distribution
networks. Clean Energy 2020;4(1):26–47.
[118] Breuer JL, Samsun RC, Stolten D, Peters R. How to reduce the greenhouse gas
emissions and air pollution caused by light and heavy duty vehicles with batteryelectric, fuel cell-electric and catenary trucks. Environ Int 2021;152:106474.
[119] Kopacak N, Guldorum HC, Erdinc O. Development of a cost minimization
oriented optimization algorithm for green hydrogen production in a multi-energy
system considering EVs and FCEVs availability. IEEE Access; 2024.
[120] Lau HC, Ramakrishna S, Zhang K, Radhamani AV. The role of carbon capture and
storage in the energy transition. Energy Fuel 2021;35(9):7364–86.
[121] Mbaba O. A prospective comparative lifecycle assessment for green and grey
hydrogen production and utilisation in the south African context. 2022.
[122] Monteiro H, Alonso R, Gonçalves M, Iten M, Caetano NS. Life cycle energy of
vehicles on lightweighting and alternative powertrain strategies—a review.
Energy Rep 2022;8:241–7.
[123] Usai L, Hung CR, Vásquez F, Windsheimer M, Burheim OS, Strømman AH. Life
cycle assessment of fuel cell systems for light duty vehicles, current state-of-theart and future impacts. J Clean Prod 2021;280:125086.
[124] Li Z, Wang W, Ye M, Liang X. The impact of hydrogen refueling station subsidy
strategy on China’s hydrogen fuel cell vehicle market diffusion. Int J Hydrog
Energy 2021;46(35):18453–65.
[125] Gronau S, Hoelzen J, Mueller T, Hanke-Rauschenbach R. Hydrogen-powered
aviation in Germany: a macroeconomic perspective and methodological approach
of fuel supply chain integration into an economy-wide dataset. Int J Hydrog
Energy 2023;48(14):5347–76.
[126] Gorji SA. Challenges and opportunities in green hydrogen supply chain through
metaheuristic optimization. J Comput Design Eng 2023;10(3):1143–57.
[127] Hernandez Adrian, Ng Max, Siddique Choudhury, Durango-Cohen Pablo L,
Elgowainy Amgad, Mahmassani Hani, et al. LOwering CO2: Models to optimize
train infrastructure, vehicles, and energy storage (LOCOMOTIVES): Northwestern
University freight rail infrastructure and energy network Decarbonization
(NUFRIEND) framework. 2023.
[128] Ajanovic A. Electricity vs hydrogen in the transition towards sustainable mobility.
Oxford open. Energy 2023;2:oiad013.
[129] Ha-Duong M. International collaboration on the energy transition in Vietnam. In
Colloque ICISE "Questions environnementales: des réponses scientifiques et
juridiques". 2023.
[130] Hawkins TR, Gausen OM, Strømman AH. Environmental impacts of hybrid and
electric vehicles—a review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2012;17(8):997–1014.
[131] Aarniovuori L, Pyrhönen J, Liu D, Kauranen P, Korhonen J, Tikka V. Energy
efficiency analysis of electric vehicle system components, in IEEE transportation
electrification conference and expo, Asia-Pacific (ITEC Asia-Pacific). Editor: IEEE;
2023. p. 1–6.
[132] Notter DA, Gauch M, Widmer R, Wäger P, Stamp A, Zah R, et al. Contribution of
Li-ion batteries to the environmental impact of electric vehicles. Environ Sci
Technol 2010;44(17):6550–6.
[133] Janpoom K, et al. Investigating the influential factors in real-world energy
consumption of battery electric vehicles. Energy Rep 2023;9:316–20.
[134] Ma H, Balthasar F, Tait N, Riera-Palou X, Harrison A. A new comparison between
the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of battery electric vehicles and internal
combustion vehicles. Energy Policy 2012;44:160–73.
[135] Regulator CE. Market snapshot: Battery electric vehicles are far more fuel efficient
than vehicles with internal combustion engines. https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca; 2021.
[136] Energy. U.S.D.o.E.E.E.a.R. Alternative Fuels Data Center. 2025.
[137] (EPA). U.S.E.P.A. Learn about the Fuel Economy Label. 2023 [cited 2024].
[138] Hofman CH, Dai T. Energy efficiency analysis and comparison of transmission
technologies for an electric vehicle. In: IEEE vehicle power and propulsion
conference. IEEE; 2010.
[139] Larminie J, Lowry J. Electrical vehicle technology explained. Wiley; 2012.
[140] De Gennaro M, Paffumi E, Martini G, Manfredi U, et al. Experimental
Investigation of the Energy Efficiency of an Electric Vehicle in Different Driving
Conditions, S.T.P. 2014-01-1817, Editor. 2014.
[141] Ewan BCR, Allen RWK. A figure of merit assessment of the routes to hydrogen. Int
J Hydrog Energy 2005;30(8):809–19.
[142] Cano ZP, Banham D, Ye S, Hintennach A, Lu J, Fowler M, et al. Batteries and fuel
cells for emerging electric vehicle markets. Nat Energy 2018;3(4):279–89.
[143] Larminie J, Dicks A. Fuel Cell Systems Explained2. John Wiley & Sons; 2003.
[144] Mengyu Li XZ. Guojun Li, a comparative assessment of battery and fuel cell
electric vehicles using a well-to-wheel analysis. Energy 2016;94:693–704.
[145] Pollet BGSI, Shang JL. Current status of hybrid, battery and fuel cell electric
vehicles: from electrochemistry to market prospects. Electrochim Acta 2012;84:
235–49.
[146] Tsakiris A. Analysis of hydrogen fuel cell and battery efficiency, in World
Sustainable Energy Days 2019, Young Energy Researchers Conference, C.C.o.E.
Efficiency, Editor. 2019. Wels/Austria.
[147] (DOE). U.S.D.o.E. 2024. cited 2024.
[148] (EEA). E.E.A. Electric vehicles. 2024. cited 2024.
[149] (NREL). N.R.E.L. 2024. cited 2024.
[150] (IEA). I.E.a. energy System. 2024. cited 2024.
[151] Council, H. 2024. cited 2024.
[152] Tsiropoulos I, Tarvydas D, Lebedeva N. Li-ion batteries for mobility and
stationary storage applications. in Joint Research Centre (JRC) report 2018.
https://doi.org/10.2760/87175.
[153] Ellingsen LA-W, Singh B, Strømman AH. The size and range effect: lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles. Environ Res Lett 2016;11(5):
054010.
[154] Romare M, Dahllöf L. The life cycle energy consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions from Lithium-ion batteries. Editor: I.S.E.R.I. Report; 2017.
[155] Peters JF, Baumann M, Zimmermann B, Braun J, Weil M. The environmental
impact of Li-ion batteries and the role of key parameters—a review. Renew Sust
Energ Rev 2017;67:491–506.
[156] Bhandari R, Trudewind CA, Zapp P. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production
methods: a review. J Clean Prod 2014;85:151–63.
[157] Zhang X, Bauer C, Mutel CL, Volkart K. Life cycle assessment of power-to-gas:
approaches, system variations, and their environmental implications. Appl Energy
2017;190:326–38.
[158] García-Herrero I, Margallo M, Onandía R, Aldaco R, Irabien A. Life cycle
assessment model for the mineral extraction of nickel. Resour Conserv Recycl
2020;157:104787.
[159] Staffell I, Scamman D, Velazquez Abad A, Balcombe P, Dodds PE, Ekins P, et al.
The role of hydrogen and fuel cells in the global energy system. Energy Environ
Sci 2019;12(2):463–91.
[160] Zeng X, Li J, Singh N. Recycling of spent lithium-ion battery: a critical review.
J Clean Prod 2023;245:118901.
[161] Fan E, Li L, Wang Z, et al. Sustainable recycling technology for Li-ion batteries
and beyond: a review and future perspective. Chemosphere 2023;300:134669.
[162] Tian Y, Zhang H, Yang Y. End-of-life management for hydrogen fuel cells: a
sustainable approach. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2023;151:111587.
[163] Pecho O, Friedrich KA, Fichtner M. Recycling of fuel cells: challenges and
opportunities. Electrochim Acta 2023;420:140580.
[164] García-Villalobos J, Zamora I, San Martín JI, et al. Integration of renewable
energies in vehicle-to-grid systems: a comprehensive review. Renew Sust Energ
Rev 2023;132:110054.
[165] Chen T, Zhao H, Li W. Optimizing renewable energy-based charging
infrastructure for electric vehicles. IEEE Trans Sustainable Energy 2023;14(1):
558–67.
[166] Narassimhan E, Johnson M. Renewable energy and BEV charging infrastructure:
Challenges and policy implications. Journal of Energy Policy 2024;164:112065.
[167] Zhang X, Li M, Liu X, et al. Integration of renewable energy in hydrogen
production and refueling infrastructure for fuel cell vehicles: a review. Renew
Energy 2023;178:733–51.
[168] Santos MJ, Silva V. Green hydrogen for fuel cell electric vehicles: current
technologies and future challenges. Int J Hydrog Energy 2024;49(1):2041–55.
[169] Kumar A, Luthra S, Mangla SK. Sustainability of green hydrogen production for
fuel cell vehicles using renewable energy: a systemic review. J Clean Prod 2023;
374:134953.
[170] Thomas CE. Fuel cell and battery electric vehicles compared. Int J Hydrog Energy
2009;34(15):6005–20.
[171] Eaves S, Eaves J. A cost comparison of fuel-cell and battery electric vehicles.
J Power Sources 2004;130(1–2):208–12.
[172] Offer GJ, Howey D, Contestabile M, Clague R, Brandon NP. Comparative analysis
of battery electric hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid vehicles in a future sustainable
road transport system. Energy Policy 2010;38(1):24–9.
[173] Cano ZP, Banham D, Ye S, Hintennach A, Lu J, Fowler M, et al. Batteries and fuel
cells for emerging electric vehicle markets. Nat Energy 2018;3(4):279–89.
[174] Ruffini E, Wei M. Future costs of fuel cell electric vehicles in California using a
learning rate approach. Energy 2018;150:329–41.
30
H. Togun et al.
Applied Energy 388 (2025) 125726
[175] Tanç B, Arat HT, Baltacıoğlu E, Aydın K. Overview of the next quarter century
vision of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles. Int J Hydrog Energy 2019;44(20):
10120–8.
[176] Morrison G, Stevens J, Joseck F. Relative economic competitiveness of light-duty
battery electric and fuel cell electric vehicles. Transp Res Part C: Emerging
Technol 2018;87:183–96.
[177] Sagaria S, Moreira A, Margarido F, Baptista P. From microcars to heavy-duty
vehicles: vehicle performance comparison of battery and fuel cell electric
vehicles. Vehicles 2021;3(4):691–720.
[178] Bekel K, Pauliuk S. Prospective cost and environmental impact assessment of
battery and fuel cell electric vehicles in Germany. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2019;24:
2220–37.
[179] Aguilar P, Groß B. Battery electric vehicles and fuel cell electric vehicles: an
analysis of alternative powertrains as a means to decarbonize the transport sector.
Sustain Energy Technol Assess 2022;53:102624.
[180] Ajanovic A, Haas R. Economic and environmental prospects for battery electricand fuel cell vehicles: a review. Fuel Cells 2019;19(5):515–29.
[181] Cunanan C, Tran MK, Lee Y, Kwok S, Leung V, Fowler M. A review of heavy-duty
vehicle powertrain technologies: diesel engine vehicles battery electric vehicles
and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles. Clean Technol 2021;3(2):474–89.
[182] Xu L, Ouyang M, Li J, Yang F, Lu L, Hua J. Optimal sizing of plug-in fuel cell
electric vehicles using models of vehicle performance and system cost. Appl
Energy 2013;103:477–87.
[183] Hu X, Zou C, Tang X, Liu T, Hu L. Cost-optimal energy management of hybrid
electric vehicles using fuel cell/battery health-aware predictive control. IEEE
Trans Power Electron 2019;35(1):382–92.
[184] Li J, Liang M, Cheng W, Wang S. Life cycle cost of conventional battery electric
and fuel cell electric vehicles considering traffic and environmental policies in
China. Int J Hydrog Energy 2021;46(14):9553–66.
[185] Lipman TE. Manufacturing and lifecycle costs of battery electric vehicles directhydrogen fuel cell vehicles and direct-methanol fuel cell vehicles. In collection of
technical papers. 35th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference
and Exhibit (IECEC) (cat No 00CH37022) 2000 July;2:1352–8.
[186] Contestabile M, Offer GJ, Slade R, Jaeger F, Thoennes M. Battery electric vehicles
hydrogen fuel cells and biofuels: which will be the winner? Energy Environ Sci
2011;4(10):3754–72.
[187] De Wolf D, Smeers Y. Comparison of battery electric vehicles and fuel cell
vehicles. World Electric Vehicle Journal 2023;14(9):262.
[188] Pollet BG, Staffell I, Shang JL. Current status of hybrid battery and fuel cell
electric vehicles: from electrochemistry to market prospects. Electrochim Acta
2012;84:235–49.
[189] Wu Y, Gao H. Optimization of fuel cell and supercapacitor for fuel-cell electric
vehicles. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 2006;55(6):1748–55.
[190] Van Mierlo J, Maggetto G. Fuel cell or battery: electric cars are the future. Fuel
Cells 2007;7(2):165–73.
[191] Van Mierlo J, Maggetto G, Lataire P. Which energy source for road transport in
the future? A comparison of battery hybrid and fuel cell vehicles. Energy Convers
Manag 2006;47(17):2748–60.
[192] Offer GJ, Contestabile M, Howey DA, Clague R, Brandon NP. Techno-economic
and behavioural analysis of battery electric hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid vehicles
in a future sustainable road transport system in the UK. Energy Policy 2011;39(4):
1939–50.
[193] Khaligh A, Li Z. Battery ultracapacitor fuel cell and hybrid energy storage systems
for electric hybrid electric fuel cell and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles: state of
the art. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 2010;59(6):2806–14.
[194] Ajanovic A. The future of electric vehicles: prospects and impediments. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment 2015;4(6):521–36.
[195] Li Y, Kimura S. Economic competitiveness and environmental implications of
hydrogen energy and fuel cell electric vehicles in ASEAN countries: the current
and future scenarios. Energy Policy 2021;148:111980.
[196] Manoharan Y, Hosseini SE, Butler B, Alzhahrani H, Senior BTF, Ashuri T, et al.
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles; current status and future prospect. Appl Sci 2019;9
(11):2296.
[197] Muthukumar M, Rengarajan N, Velliyangiri B, Omprakas MA, Rohit CB, Raja UK.
The development of fuel cell electric vehicles–a review. Mater Today: Proceedings
2021;45:1181–7.
[198] Wanitschke A, Hoffmann S. Are battery electric vehicles the future? An
uncertainty comparison with hydrogen and combustion engines. Environ Innov
Soc Trans 2020;35:509–23.
[199] Thomas CS. Transportation options in a carbon-constrained world: hybrids plugin hybrids biofuels fuel cell electric vehicles and battery electric vehicles. Int J
Hydrog Energy 2009;34(23):9279–96.
[200] Lee U, Jeon S, Lee I. Design for shared autonomous vehicle (SAV) system
employing electrified vehicles: comparison of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and
fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). Cleaner Eng Technol 2022;8:100505.
[201] Mac Forrest K, Kinnon M, Tarroja B, Samuelsen S. Estimating the technical
feasibility of fuel cell and battery electric vehicles for the medium and heavy duty
sectors in California. Appl Energy 2020;276:115439.
[202] Habib ARR, Butler K. Environmental and economic comparison of hydrogen fuel
cell and battery electric vehicles. Future Technol 2022;1(2):25–33.
[203] Miotti M, Hofer J, Bauer C. Integrated environmental and economic assessment of
current and future fuel cell vehicles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2017;22:94–110.
[204] Ajanovic A, Haas R. On the economics and the future prospects of battery electric
vehicles. Greenhouse Gases: Sci Technol 2020;10(6):1151–64.
[205] Burke AF. Batteries and ultracapacitors for electric hybrid and fuel cell vehicles.
Proc IEEE 2007;95(4):806–20.
[206] Parikh A, Shah M, Prajapati M. Fuelling the sustainable future: a comparative
analysis between battery electrical vehicles (BEV) and fuel cell electrical vehicles
(FCEV). Environ Sci Pollut Res 2023;30(20):57236–52.
[207] Tran MK, Bhatti A, Vrolyk R, Wong D, Panchal S, Fowler M, et al. A review of
range extenders in battery electric vehicles: current progress and future
perspectives. World Electric Vehicle Journal 2021;12(2):54.
[208] Fernández RÁ, Cilleruelo FB, Martínez IV. A new approach to battery powered
electric vehicles: a hydrogen fuel-cell-based range extender system. Int J Hydrog
Energy 2016;41(8):4808–19.
[209] Li M, Zhang X, Li G. A comparative assessment of battery and fuel cell electric
vehicles using a well-to-wheel analysis. Energy 2016;94:693–704.
[210] Sulaiman N, Hannan MA, Mohamed A, Majlan EH, Daud WW. A review on energy
management system for fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle: issues and challenges.
Renew Sust Energ Rev 2015;52:802–14.
[211] İnci M, Büyük M, Demir MH, İlbey G. A review and research on fuel cell electric
vehicles: topologies power electronic converters energy management methods
technical challenges marketing and future aspects. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2021;
137:110648.
[212] Waseem M, Amir M, Lakshmi GS, Harivardhagini S, Ahmad M. Fuel cell-based
hybrid electric vehicles: an integrated review of current status key challenges
recommended policies and future prospects. Green energy and intelligent.
Transportation 2023:100121.
[213] Hannan MA, Azidin FA, Mohamed A. Hybrid electric vehicles and their
challenges: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2014;29:135–50.
[214] Sorlei IS, Bizon N, Thounthong P, Varlam M, Carcadea E, Culcer M, et al. Fuel cell
electric vehicles—a brief review of current topologies and energy management
strategies. Energies 2021;14(1):252.
[215] Emadi A, Williamson SS. Fuel cell vehicles: Opportunities and challenges. In: IEEE
power engineering society general meeting 2004. IEEE; 2004 June. p. 1640–5.
[216] Sulaiman N, Hannan MA, Mohamed A, Ker PJ, Majlan EH, Daud WW.
Optimization of energy management system for fuel-cell hybrid electric vehicles:
issues and recommendations. Appl Energy 2018;228:2061–79.
[217] Greene DL, Ogden JM, Lin Z. Challenges in the designing planning and
deployment of hydrogen refueling infrastructure for fuel cell electric vehicles.
ETransportation 2020;6:100086.
[218] Deng J, Bae C, Denlinger A, Miller T. Electric vehicles batteries: requirements and
challenges. Joule 2020;4(3):511–5.
[219] Das HS, Tan CW, Yatim AHM. Fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles: a review on
power conditioning units and topologies. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2017;76:268–91.
[220] Wu D, Ren J, Davies H, Shang J, Haas O. Intelligent hydrogen fuel cell range
extender for battery electric vehicles. World Electric Vehicle Journal 2019;10(2):
29.
[221] Eberle U, Müller B, Von Helmolt R. Fuel cell electric vehicles and hydrogen
infrastructure: status 2012. Energy Environ Sci 2012;5(10):8780–98.
[222] Sanguesa JA, Torres-Sanz V, Garrido P, Martinez FJ, Marquez-Barja JM. A review
on electric vehicles: technologies and challenges. Smart Cities 2021;4(1):
372–404.
[223] Pramuanjaroenkij A, Kakaç S. The fuel cell electric vehicles: the highlight review.
Int J Hydrog Energy 2023;48(25):9401–25.
[224] Wilberforce T, El-Hassan Z, Khatib FN, Al Makky A, Baroutaji A, Carton JG, et al.
Developments of electric cars and fuel cell hydrogen electric cars. Int J Hydrog
Energy 2017;42(40):25695–734.
[225] Suciu G, Pasat A. Challenges and opportunities for batteries of electric vehicles.
In: In 2017 10th international symposium on advanced topics in electrical
engineering (ATEE). IEEE; 2017. p. 113–7.
[226] Hardman S, Steinberger-Wilckens R, Van Der Horst D. Disruptive innovations: the
case for hydrogen fuel cells and battery electric vehicles. Int J Hydrog Energy
2013;38(35):15438–51.
[227] Lebrouhi BE, Khattari Y, Lamrani B, Maaroufi M, Zeraouli Y, Kousksou T. Key
challenges for a large-scale development of battery electric vehicles: a
comprehensive review. Journal of Energy Storage 2021;44:103273.
[228] Van de Kaa G, Scholten D, Rezaei J, Milchram C. The battle between battery and
fuel cell powered electric vehicles: a BWM approach. Energies 2017;10(11):1707.
[229] Garland NL, Papageorgopoulos DC, Stanford JM. Hydrogen and fuel cell
technology: Progress challenges and future directions. Energy Procedia 2012;28:
2–11.
31