Hello everyone,
I’m truly excited to share that a paper I co-authored with Soumia Ayyadi and Ryan Sims has recently been published, focusing on the lifetime cost analysis of zero-emission refuse collection vehicles (RCVs) in Scotland. This research is particularly timely as we continue to explore sustainable solutions for urban and rural environments alike.
Let’s delve into some of the key findings from our study.
Comparing Powertrains: Fuel Cell vs. Battery vs. Diesel
Our research compared the tank-to-wheel lifetime costs of zero-emission RCVs powered by hydrogen fuel cells and electric batteries against traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) RCVs. We looked at the complete waste collection operation, daily driving mileage, and crucially, the social costs involved in both rural and urban settings. We also examined how the connection of the hydrogen plant to the energy source impacts overall costs.
Here are some standout findings:
- FCRCV Competitiveness: In our base case scenario, where hydrogen is produced centrally, the fuel cell RCV (FCRCV) demonstrated strong competitiveness against the traditional ICE RCV. Specifically, the lifetime cost of the FCRCV was found to be 8.34% lower in urban areas and nearly 20% lower in rural areas compared to the ICE RCV.
- Impact of Hydrogen Production Method: When we shifted to considering the hydrogen cost from a decentralised pathway (where the hydrogen plant is directly connected to renewable energy sources), the results were quite interesting. In urban areas, the FCRCV’s lifetime cost was slightly higher, at 5.4% more than the battery RCV (BRCV). However, in rural areas, the FCRCV came out ahead, being 6.63% less expensive than the BRCV. This difference can largely be attributed to the anticipated maturity of hydrogen production technology, which is expected to lower hydrogen prices, coupled with the expectation of rising electricity prices over time. Additionally, the BRCV’s high electricity consumption in rural areas plays a significant role in this cost difference.
- Sensitivity to Fuel Costs: Our sensitivity analysis on fuel costs revealed significant variations, showing how sensitive the economics are. You can see the impact in this figure:
The analysis showed that under centralised production scenarios (Scenario 1), the FCRCV’s lifetime cost increased by 17.6% and 21.23% in urban and rural areas, respectively, compared to the base case. Conversely, in decentralised production scenarios, the FCRCV’s lifetime cost decreased by 8.22% and 10.37% for urban and rural areas, respectively.
Beyond the Numbers: Social Benefits
Beyond the economic considerations, it’s vital to highlight the broader social benefits of transitioning to low-emission vehicles. These benefits include long-term savings, improved public health (especially in areas close to residential zones, schools, and hospitals), and a significant reduction in environmental impact. Including these ‘hidden’ social benefits in the lifetime cost analysis provides a clearer picture of the real advantages of zero-emission technologies.
Conclusion
The insights from this research underscore the importance of considering both economic and social factors when evaluating the transition to zero-emission technologies. By understanding the full lifecycle costs and benefits, including the nuances of hydrogen production pathways and regional differences, we can better support policies and initiatives that promote sustainable and healthy environments for all.
I hope you find this information as exciting as I do. As always, I’m here to discuss any thoughts or questions you might have. Let’s keep the conversation going! 🚀
Further Reading
For those interested in diving deeper into the research, methodology, and detailed findings, you can find the full paper here.
