''How Green Are Electric Vehicles - ''
''How Green Are Electric Vehicles - ''
''How Green Are Electric Vehicles - ''
Article history: Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) are often
Received 28 September 2011 labeled “green”, implying that they will significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emis-
Received in revised form sions. But actual GHG reductions will depend on two factors: the number of electric
14 December 2011 vehicles that can be sold to Americans that are fond of driving large vehicles long
Accepted 18 December 2011 distances, and the GHGs emitted by the electrical power plants that charge the EV batteries.
Available online 14 January 2012 This article evaluates the maximum potential of EVs to cut GHG emissions and oil
consumption in the U.S. and compares them with the GHG and oil reduction potential of
Keywords: hydrogen-powered fuel cell electric vehicles. Even if all US light duty vehicles (LDVs) (cars
Electric vehicles and trucks) were replaced by a combination of battery EVs for small vehicles and plug-in
Fuel cell vehicles hybrids for all other LDVs, then GHGs could at most be reduced by 25% and oil
Greenhouse gas emissions consumption could be reduced by less than 67%. But if all LDVs in the U.S. were replaced by
Oil consumption fuel cell electric vehicles powered by hydrogen made from natural gas, then GHGs would be
Plug-in hybrids immediately reduced by 44% and oil consumption by nearly 100%.
Copyright ª 2011, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights
reserved.
Table 2 e GHG emissions (million metric tonnes or terragrams of CO2-equivalent) in 1990 and 2009 for the US
transportation sector and % reductions from 2009 levels to reach the goal of 80% below 1990 level.
1990 2009 LDV % of % change 80% Reduction % Reduction
all GHGs 2009 1990 to 2009 Goal from 2009
desired vehicle acceleration, and the brake system must be phones, and now BEVs such as the Nissan Leaf BEV.4 As shown
slightly larger to safely stop the vehicle. The vehicle frame and in Fig. 1, the specific energy for a fuel cell energy storage
suspension systems must also be augmented to carry this system (hydrogen tanks, plus the fuel cell system plus a peak
additional mass, further increasing total vehicle mass. And, power battery system) is better (larger) than even advanced Li-
finally, additional batteries will be required to propel this ion batteries that meet the minimum goals for the U.S.
heavier vehicle the required distance in an iterative, non- Advanced Battery Consortium long-term commercialization
linear feedback process. Malen and Reddy have evaluated goals [16] as summarized in Table 3 along with the Nissan Leaf
the mass compounding effects of 32 late-model (2002e2007) characteristics.
vehicles [15]. They found that adding a load such as 100 kg of Hydrogen systems are shown for two pressures in Fig. 1.
batteries will require an additional 59.8 kg for 12 vehicle 35 MPa (350-bar or 5250 psia) that was used in early FCEVs, and
subsystems such as structure, brakes, and suspension 70 MPa or 10,250 psia used in more recent FCEVs by several car
systems. This added mass will require still more batteries to companies. The higher pressure 70-MPa storage tanks require
provide the desired range. more carbon fiber to hold the higher pressure, so these tanks
The mass for any electric vehicle is limited by the useful are slightly heavier and have lower specific energies than 35-
specific energy (in Whkg1) of the complete storage system. As MPa tanks.
shown in Fig. 1, the specific energy of battery systems has The useful energy density of the storage system deter-
improved over the last few decades, from 35 Wh kg1 for the mines how much space must be occupied on the vehicle to
lead-acid (Pb-A) batteries used to start ICVs for a century to obtain the required range. Fig. 2 illustrates the significant
75 Wh kg1 for nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) batteries used in improvements in battery energy density, but again shows that
the original Prius hybrid electric vehicles, to the advanced a hydrogen/fuel cell/battery system has slightly higher energy
lithium ion (Li-ion) batteries used in laptop computers, cell density than even an advanced Li-ion battery system meeting
the USABC long-term goals, particularly with 70-MPa tank
pressure. However, since the battery system has much lower
specific energy, it will be heavier than a hydrogen & fuel cell
storage system and will therefore have to store more energy
than the hydrogen system for a given range, and the total
volume of the battery system would be larger than the total
volume for the hydrogen/fuel cell system even if the two
systems had equal energy densities.
As a result of the mass and volume required for the battery
system, BEVs will be limited to relatively small vehicles such
as the BEVs sold or under development by auto companies as
summarized in Table 4.
To assess the likely market share for BEVs in the U.S., we
need to know the proportion of vehicles of various sizes and
classes on the road, but we were not able to find such data in
4
Nissan lists their battery pack with a 24 kWh energy storage
capacity. With a mass of 300 kg, this corresponds to a specific
Fig. 1 e Useful specific energy of batteries compared to
energy of 80.2 Whkg1 which we use in this model for the Leaf;
hydrogen/fuel cell energy storage systems; USABC [ U.S. however, this may not be the useful energy capacity, since
Advanced battery Consortium minimum goals for long- batteries can typically only utilize 70% of the stored energy,
term commercialization. which would decrease the specific energy to only 56 kWhkg1.
6056 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 6 0 5 3 e6 0 6 2
Table 3 e Nissan Leaf BEV battery parameters comapared with the USABC long-term commercialization goals.
Specific Energy Specific Power Power Density Energy Density
the literature. We therefore estimated the number of light To determine the possible market penetration of BEVs, we
duty vehicles in the different EPA size classes on the road in assumed that all small cars and wagons could be powered by
the US today by analyzing LDV sales numbers for the last 30 batteries, along with all small vans, all small pickups, and all
years [17]. For each class of vehicle, we then multiplied the small SUVs. We also assumed that half of all midsize sedans
annual sales times the survival rates (See Table 5 for could be powered by batteries, since the Nissan Leaf BEV is
passenger car survival rates) for LDVs to determine the frac- rated as a “midsize sedan” by the EPA, based on its internal
tion of vehicles on the road today [18]; note that survival rates volume of 113 cubic feet.5
are increasing. Thus for model year 1970 cars, only 9.6% would The resulting number of vehicles on the road in this
still be on the road after 20 years, while the 20-year survival “small” category suitable for BEVs, along with the estimated
rates for 1980 model year (MY) cars increased to 13,8% and to VKT and weighted average fuel economies and annual
35.4% for 1990 MY cars. gasoline consumption are summarized in Table 8. We
Table 6 summarizes the results of this analysis showing conclude that BEVs could replace up to 39.6% of all US cars on
the estimated number of vehicles on the road, along with the the road; However, since these smaller vehicles generally
number of vehicles in each class sold in 2010. have higher fuel economy, they account for only 24.9% of all
We conclude that approximately 28.1% of all cars on the gasoline consumed by the US car fleet, and they account for
road today are small passenger vehicles, and 28.1% of all new 27.2% of all VKT. In addition, since petroleum is consumed in
passenger cars sold in 2010 were small vehicles. If we include mining, processing and transporting coal and natural gas to
all small vans, all small pickup trucks and all small SUVs, then the electrical generators to charge BEV batteries, the net
the totals increase to 30.9% of all vehicles on the road and reduction of petroleum consumption from replacing all small
28.7% of 2010 sales. vehicles and 50% of all midsize vehicles with BEVs is equiv-
We also estimated the average vehicle kilometers traveled alent to only a 24.4% reduction in oil consumption in the LDV
(VKT) for each model year, using VKT data provided by the fleet.
Argonne National Laboratory [19], as summarized in Table 7.
Argonne provided the VKT data for the first 16 years
(1994e2010), and we extrapolated the Argonne VKT data 2.2. Fuel cell electric vehicle market potential
curves back to 1982.
While BEVs will most likely be limited to smaller vehicles
traveling relatively short distances per trip, FCEVs are able to
provide the range and refueling times comparable to
conventional gasoline cars. Five major automobile companies
have already demonstrated SUV-size vehicles powered by fuel
cells:
a RAV4 charging times for prototype; production unit charging time expected to be shorter.
b Smart Fortwo charging from 20% to 80% SOC; 8 hours for full charge.
c Wheego charging time for 50% to 100% SOC.
Kia has demonstrated an FCEV version of their Borrego SUV, emissions for these vehicles using the Argonne National
with an estimated range of 750 km (466 miles) using 70-MPa Laboratory GREET model [4]. One important input to the
hydrogen storage tanks GREET model for electric vehicles is the electrical generation
grid mix used to charge BEV and PHEV batteries, which is
We conclude that FCEVs could replace all LDVs, large and currently dominated by burning fossil fuels in the US. For
small. example, the DOE’s Energy Information Agency (EIA) in their
2011 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) [22] estimates that 70.3%
of all US electricity is generated by fossil fuels (46.2% coal
3. Greenhouse gas emissions and 23.1% natural gas and 1.0% oil) in 2010. Furthermore,
given the number of “climate change deniers” elected in
To determine the impact of replacing all small vehicles with 2010, it is unlikely that the US Congress will pass any
BEVs, we calculated the annual greenhouse gas (GHG) climate change legislation in the foreseeable future that
might provide incentives for utilities to switch to cleaner
fuel sources. As shown in Table 9, the 2011 AEO reference
Table 5 e Estimated passenger vehicle survival rates. case projects very small declines in fossil fuel generation
out to 2035, decreasing from 70.3% to 68.6% of all US elec-
Age 1970 MY 1980 MY 1990 MY
tricity [22]. With these average US grid mixes, the estimated
30 0.4% 0.8% 6.6% GHGs for various alternative vehicles calculated by the
29 0.5% 1.1% 8.2% Argonne GREET model is summarized in Table 10 for
28 0.8% 1.6% 10.0%
various alternative vehicles; we used the EIA’s 2011 Annual
27 1.1% 2.2% 12.1%
26 1.6% 2.9% 14.5%
25 2.2% 3.9% 17.1%
24 3.1% 5.2% 20.2%
23 4.2% 6.7% 23.5% Table 6 e Estimated percentage of vehicles on the road
22 5.6% 8.7% 27.2% compared to the percentage of new cars sold in 2010.
21 7.4% 11.0% 31.1%
% on the road % of 2010 Sales
20 9.6% 13.8% 35.4%
19 12.3% 17.0% 39.9% Two-seaters 0.9% 0.8%
18 15.5% 20.8% 44.6% Minicompact 0.5% 0.4%
17 19.3% 25.0% 49.5% Subcompact 8.2% 7.8%
16 23.7% 29.8% 54.6% Compact 16.7% 14.6%
15 28.7% 29.8% 59.7% Small wagons 1.8% 4.5%
14 34.2% 40.8% 64.9% All Small cars 28.1% 28.1%
13 40.3% 46.9% 70.0% Small vans 0.1% 0.1%
12 46.9% 53.3% 75.0% Small pickups 1.1% 0.0%
11 53.8% 60.0% 79.8% Small SUVs 1.6% 0.5%
10 60.9% 66.6% 84.4% All Small Vehicles 30.9% 28.7%
9 68.1% 73.3% 88.7% Midsize sedans 17.6% 21.9%
8 75.2% 79.7% 92.7% Midsize vans 7.2% 3.3%
7 82.0% 85.7% 96.3% Medium wagon 1.2% 0.8%
6 88.4% 91.3% 99.4% Large wagon 0.2% 0.1%
5 94.1% 96.3% 100.0% Midsize pickups 3.6% 1.4%
4 99.0 100.0% 100.0% Midsize SUVs 12.0% 14.0%
3 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Large cars 8.5% 8.0%
2 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Large vans 0.7% 0.1%
1 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Large pickups 10.2% 11.2%
0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Large SUVs 8.0% 10.4%
6058 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 6 0 5 3 e6 0 6 2
Energy Outlook data [22] for the average on-the-road pro- for electricity GHG calculations [23]: “An average emission rate
jected fuel economy6 of stock gasoline ICVs (second row of is easy to calculate, but it provides only a rough approxima-
Table 10). tion of marginal displaced emissions.” That is, adding a new
For BEVs with batteries charged by the average US grid load such as a BEV or PHEV will require the utility to ramp up
mix, BEVs through 2035 will generate from 33% to 35% more the electrical generator that is on the operating margin. For
GHGs than FCEVs running on hydrogen made from natural example, the zero-carbon electrical generators, non-
gas according to the GREET model and AEO 2011 projec- dispatchable renewables such as hydroelectric plants and
tions. Notice also that plugging in gasoline-powered nuclear also have the lowest operating cost. With economic
PHEVs increases GHGs in all time periods by 5.8e9% dispatch, utilities run their lowest cost generators first, and
compared to HEVs running exclusively on gasoline. There- only turn on the more expensive generators when demand
fore in most parts of the US, drivers purchasing PHEV-40’s rises. As a result, nuclear and dispatchable renewable power
like the Chevy Volt will minimize GHGs if they never plug plants are run at full capacity whenever possible. Adding
in these PHEVs but run them exclusively on gasoline at all a new load such as a BEV or a PHEV then requires the utility to
times! ramp up other generators, primarily natural gas fired
combustion turbines in California, which do generate signifi-
3.1. California GHGs and marginal grid mix cant GHGs.
McCarthy and Yang [24] determined that up to 40% of the
GHGs are less in some parts of the country with a lower electricity to charge BEV and PHEV batteries would come from
proportion of coal-generated electricity. For example, many natural gas fired combustion turbines. As a result, the large
analysts point to California that has a lower fraction of coal- fraction of nuclear and renewable energy in California has
generated electricity on the average and more zero-carbon little impact on the GHGs from charging batteries. The results
sources (nuclear and renewables, primarily hydroelectric) of their analysis are shown in Fig. 3.
than the rest of the country as shown in Table 11 for 2010. They conclude that even in California with higher zero-
However, the average utility mix is not the appropriate metric carbon electricity,7 FCEVs using hydrogen made from
for calculating GHG emissions. As stated in the GHG Protocol natural gas will generate lower GHGs than either BEVs or
PHEVs. All the other GHG data in this report use the average
6
Fuel economy in Liters of gasoline per 100 km, which is
7
inversely proportional to the fuel economy numbers in miles per “SMR” in Fig. 3 refers to “steam methane reforming,” the
gallon used in the U.S. process of converting natural gas to hydrogen.
i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 6 0 5 3 e6 0 6 2 6059
Table 8 e Estimated number of small vehicles suitable for BEVs on the road, and estimated VKT and gasoline consumption
for those vehicles in US LDV fleet.
No. of vehicles Average fuel Total km traveled ICV Gasoline BEV gasoline Net Oil Savings
on the road economy (VKT-million km Consumed (Million liters (million Liters
(thousands) (Liters per 100 km) per year) (million per year) per year)
1/liters/year)
9
However, intermittent renewables such as wind and solar will
8
Estimating the marginal electricity grid mix is very complex, be on the margin during some periods of the day since they have
which is why average grid mix is often used instead. As stated by to be added to grid as soon as the electricity is generated. But for
the GHG Protocol [23] “A simple average emission rate may be the most part, the average grid mix over emphasizes the benefits
necessary in situations where data are not available to perform of renewables since utilities cannot increase the output from
one of the marginal rate methods described in this chapter.” intermittent renewables to meet new loads.
6060 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 6 0 5 3 e6 0 6 2
Table 12 e Estimated greenhouse gas reductions by replacing all small vehicles (and 50% of all midsize sedans) with BEVs
powered by the average US grid mix in 2015.
ICV GHG ICV GHGs BEV GHGs BEV GHGs Net GHG
(grams per km) (Tonnes per (gram per km) (Tonnes Savings
yr CO2-eq.) per yr CO2-eq.)
small vehicles and PHEVs for all other vehicles, which can
Table 13 e Projected average vehicle fuel economy and
petroleum consumption in kJ-kmL1 for various vehicle reduce petroleum consumption by less than 67%.
types in four time periods.
2010 2015 2020 2035
6. Conclusions
AEO Fuel Economy 11.3 10.2 9.9 8.7
(Liters/100 km)¼>
Petroleum Consumption (kJ-km1) Based on the detailed “well-to-wheels” analysis using the
Argonne National Laboratory GREET model, we conclude that:
Gasoline ICV 3,808 3,435 3,317 2,935
To substantially cut greenhouse gas emissions and oil
Gasoline HEV 2,720 2,453 2,369 2,096
dependence, society must curb gasoline and diesel fuel in the
Gasoline PHEV-40 1,761 1,596 1,546 1,377
NGV 21 19 18 16 operation of conventional vehicles. These reductions in
NG PHEV-40 36 33 35 32 transportation GHGs and oil consumption will require a port-
BEV (average US grid) 63 53 55 46 folio of alternative vehicles. No single alternative will suffice.
FCEV (H2 from NG) 16 15 14 13 The Obama administration’s selection of battery electric
vehicles and plug-in hybrids as the only options for their
alternative vehicle strategy is particularly short-sighted and
ill-advised since:
Battery electric vehicles alone, even if they replaced all
small cars, all small vans, all small pickup trucks and all small
SUVs plus 50% of all midsize passenger cars in the U.S. would
only reduce LDV GHGs by less than 7.5%, far less than the 83%
reduction below 2009 levels required to achieve an overall
reduction of 80% below 1990 GHG levels, and they would only
cut petroleum consumption by less than 25%.
Therefore BEVs alone will not be able to make substantial
reductions in GHGs or oil consumption until a) higher specific
power batteries are developed so that BEVs can replace larger
cars with longer driving capacity, and b) almost all carbon is
eliminated from electricity generation.
If, in addition to the small BEVs mentioned above, plug-in
Fig. 4 e Estimated percentage reduction in GHGs (large is hybrids replace all other vehicles, (all gasoline vehicles
good!) for four vehicle scenarios and three time periods. would be replaced by either BEVs or PHEVs) then GHGs would
be reduced by less than 25% and oil consumption by less than
67%.
If, on the other hand, fuel cell electric vehicles replaced all
near-term by over 43% with hydrogen made from natural gas, vehicles in the U.S., then GHGs would immediately be reduced
while the next best option, BEVs and PHEVs could at best by more than 40% and oil consumption would be cut by nearly
100%, even if all hydrogen was still made from natural gas.
reduce GHGs by only 25%.
Greater GHG reductions would be achieved as hydrogen is
Finally, Fig. 5 shows the percentage reduction in petroleum
made from low-carbon sources such as from landfill gas or
consumption for the same four scenarios as Fig. 4. Again, the
from waste water treatment plant anaerobic digester gas, or,
best option is the FCEV case, which eliminates almost all
eventually, from water electrolysis using renewable electricity
petroleum use, while the second-best option is BEVs for all
or nuclear power.
The need to reduce GHGs and oil consumption from the
transportation sector is too urgent to limit our options at this
time. We need to develop all of the above.
references
[3] Bullis K. “The secretary of energy talks with Technology & Climate change, ” Available at: http://www.wbcsd.org/
Review about the future of nuclear power post Yucca web/publications/pathways.pdf, [accessed 09.12.2011].
Mountain and why fuel-cell cars have no future, ” [15] Malen DE, Reddy K. “Preliminary vehicle mass estimation
Technology Review, MIT, May 14, 2009. Available at: http:// using empirical subsystem influence coefficients, ”
www.technologyreview.com/business/22651/page1/ University of Michigan, May 9, 2007 (revised June 26, 2007),
[accessed 12.12.2011]. Available at: http://www.a-sp.org/database/custom/Mass%
[4] M. Q. Wang, “The Greenhouse gas, regulated emissions and 20Compounding%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf [accessed
energy use in transportation (GREET), ” Model 1_2011 Energy 12.12.2011].
Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Available at: [16] See USABC Goals for Advanced Batteries for EVs on the U.S.
http://greet.es.anl.gov/ [accessed 09.12.11]. Council for Automotive Research, LLC web page at: http://
[5] Thomas CE. Transportation Options in a carbon-constrained www.uscar.org/guest/article_view.php?articles_id¼85
world: hybrids, plug-in hybrids, fuel cell electric vehicles and [accessed 12.12.11].
battery electric vehicles. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34: [17] Alson J. “Light duty Automotive Technology, carbon Dioxide
9279e98. emissions and fuel economy trends: 1975 through 2010, ”
[6] Thomas CE. Fuel cell and battery electric vehicles compared. Appendix F, US Environmental Protection Agency, Ann
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:6005e20. Arbor, Michigan, Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oms/
[7] The National Hydrogen Association, “The Energy evolution: fetrends.htm#report [accessed 12.12.2011].
analysis of alternative vehicles and fuels to 2100, ” Available [18] Davis SC, Diegel SW, Boundy RG. “Transportation energy
at: http://www.ttcorp.com/work.asp#industryRpts [accessed data Book”, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National
01.05.12]. Laboratory Center for Transportation Analysis, Edition 29,
[8] Kromer M, Heywood J. “Electric Powertrains: Opportunities July 2010, Table 3.11 for passenger vehicles and Table 3.13 for
and Challenges in the US light duty vehicle fleet, ” MIT report light duty trucks, Available at: http://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.
# LFEE 2007-03 RP, May 2007. Available at: http://web.mit. shtml [accessed 12.12.11].
edu/sloan-auto-lab/research/beforeh2/files/kromer_electric_ [19] Private communication with A. Elgowainy at the Argonne
powertrains.pdf, [accessed 09.12.2011]. National Laboratory, 4/25/2011, using data compiled by
[9] Bandivadekar A, Bodek K, Cheah L, Evans C, Groode T, Anant Vyas using the 2009 NHTS survey of households with
Heywood J, et al. “On the Road in 2035: reducing 309,163 vehicles.
transportation’s petroleum consumption and GHG [20] “Vehicle size classes used in the fuel economy guide” the US
emissions, ” MIT report # LFEE 2008-05 RP, July 2008, Environmental Protection Agency, Available at: http://www.
Available at: http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/ fueleconomy.gov/feg/info.shtml (Click on “How are vehicle
documents/fueling-transportation/OTRin2035_MIT_July% size classes defined?”) [accessed 11.12.11].
202008.pdf, [accessed 01.05.12]. [21] Wipke K, Anton D, Sprik S. “Evaluation of range estimates for
[10] Elgowainy A, Han J, Poch L, Wang M, Vyas A, Mahalik M, Toyota FCHV-adv under open-road driving conditions, ”
Rosseau A. “Well-to-Wheel analysis of energy use and Savannah River National Laboratory and National
greenhouse gas emissions of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, Renewable Energy Laboratory, Report # SRNS-STI-
” Argonne National Laboratory report # ANL/ESD/10-1, June 2009e00446, August 10, 2009, Available at: http://www.nrel.
2010. Available at: http://www.osti.gov/greenenergy/ gov/hydrogen/pdfs/toyota_fchv-adv_range_verification.pdf
rddetail?osti_id¼982352, [accessed 09.12.2011]. [accessed 11.12.11].
[11] . Plotkin, Singh M, “Multi-path Futures Study: vehicle [22] The Annual Energy Outlook 2011, The DOE’s energy
characterization and scenario analysis, ” Argonne National Information administration, Available at: http://www.eia.
Laboratory report # ANL/ESD/09-5, Available at: http://www. gov/forecasts/aeo/ [accessed 11.12.11].
transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/614.PDF, [accessed 09.12.2011]. [23] Breoekhoff D, “The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Guidelines for
[12] MacLean H, Lave L. Life cycle assessment of automobile/fuel quantifying GHG reductions from grid-connected electricity
options. Environ Sci Technol 2003;37:5445e52. projects, ” World Resources Council and the World Business
[13] Ramage M. Chairman, Committee on the assessment of Council for Sustainable Development, August 2007. Available
Resource needs for fuel cell and hydrogen Technologies, at: http://pdf.wri.org/GHGProtocol-Electricity.pdf, [accessed
“Transition to alternative transportation Technologies: 11.12.11].
a focus on hydrogen. Available at:. National Research [24] McCarthy R, Yang C. “Determining the marginal electricity
Council http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_ for near-term plug-in and fuel cell vehicle demands in
id¼12222&page¼R6; 2008 [accessed 12/9/2011]. California: impacts on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions, ” J
[14] Riberio S (Brazil), Koborshi S (Japan). Chapter 5, “Transport Power Sources, (2009) doi: 10.1016/j.jpowersour.2000.10.024,
and its infrastructure” in the world Business Council for Available at: http://pubs.its.ucdavis.edu/publication_detail.
Sustainable development project “Pathways to 2050: Energy php?id¼1362, [accessed 11.12.11].