NPC Future Transportation Fuels Study – Hydrogen & Fuel Cells Subgroup
Sources and Rationale for Quantitative Data Inputs
Five key data sets were required to define the evolution of light duty FCEVs and
hydrogen fueling infrastructure in the VISION model through 2050: FCEV market
penetrations, FCEV fuel economy, FCEV pricing, hydrogen fuel feedstock mix, and
hydrogen fuel pricing. The detailed data sets can be found in the Excel ‘inputs’ data
sheet attached to this scenario summary. Following is a brief description the basis for
each data set and how the detailed data points were produced.
FCEV market penetration was targeted at 25% by 2050 as a moderate expectation. This
target is consistent with the scenario assumption of a portfolio of technical solutions, and
this target also matched the base case of the recently released EU Powertrains study that
served as one of our reference documents. 2015 is the stated target year for commercial
introduction of FCEVs in the 2009 Letter of Understanding on the Development and
Market Introduction of Fuel Cell Vehicles signed by multiple OEMs. A Weibull S-curve
function was used to create FCEV market penetrations from 2015 to 2050 by starting the
S-curve at 0% in 2015 and scaling it to a 25% maximum value by 2050.
FCEV fuel economy was anchored to two public data points: the Honda Clarity FCV
EPA fuel economy for cars and the Toyota FCHV-adv DOE fuel economy test value for
trucks. These were calibrated to VISION input values (EPA test cycle values), and in the
case of the FCHV-adv the base vehicle (Highlander) was used to scale the fuel economy
rating from small truck to average truck. These adjusted data points were taken as the
2015 initial market entry values, and improvement over time was then assumed to occur
at the same rate as the ICE vehicles within the VISION base case. To reflect EPA
practice, the VISION on-road degradation factors were adjusted within the model from
80% to 70%, and the inputs reflect this assumed difference between test cycle and onroad fuel economy for FCEVs.
FCEV initial price was set at twice the price of a conventional vehicle. This may or may
not reflect actual OEM costs, but 2x was assumed to be the maximum price point that the
mass market will accept for an advanced technology vehicle. In the electric vehicle
world, the Volt and the Leaf have come into the market at about 2x their conventional
counterparts, and this served as guidance in selection of this value for FCEVs. In the EU
Powertrains study, the ratio of FCEV cost to conventional vehicle cost for C/D and J
segments averages 1.12 in 2050, so a 12% FCEV price premium was targeted for 2050.
These two end points, a 100% price premium on market entry in 2015 and a 12% price
premium in 2050, were joined with an exponential decay function that represents a
hypothetical learning curve, and the resultant values became VISION inputs.
The hydrogen fuel feedstock mix was evolved over time from a natural gas base (today’s
industrial hydrogen mainstay) to a lower carbon mix from coal with CCS, biofuels, and
surplus renewable electric power. The specific feedstock choices over time were not
based on modeling but were rather the Subgroup’s consensus on how a low-carbon
hydrogen future might evolve while using regional resources and expanding to meet the
needs of a growing hydrogen vehicle fleet. These feedstock choices are consistent with
NPC Future Transportation Fuels Study – Hydrogen & Fuel Cells Subgroup
the NRC. The shift to low carbon is consistent with the scenario assumption that policies
will support reduction in the carbon intensity of transportation.
Hydrogen prices were taken directly from the EU Powertrains study. The values from
the study were converted from Euros to dollars using today’s exchange rate, and all dollar
values were then converted to 2005 dollars, the VISION input convention, by using a CPI
adjustment factor. Fuel taxes were not explicitly added, but neither were adjustments
made for the general higher prices of consumer products in the EU. It will be assumed
for this scenario that these two considerations offset each other, and that the hydrogen
cost values thus represent taxed fuel prices as specified by VISION. Hydrogen prices
when compared to DOE and NRC price projections represent a moderate case consistent
with the chosen vehicle penetration rate.
One further change made to the model for this scenario run was to fix the VMT fuel price
elasticity at zero. By default, VISION adjusts VMT as a function of fuel prices. This is a
reasonable approach, but the Subgroup was unable to confirm that fuel price is handled
correctly in the model with two variables changing at once. It was therefore decided that
VMT should be held constant for now.