IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-01116997.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A cost benefit analysis of fuel cell electric vehicles

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Creti

    (X-DEP-ECO - Département d'Économie de l'École Polytechnique - X - École polytechnique - IP Paris - Institut Polytechnique de Paris, LEDa - Laboratoire d'Economie de Dauphine - IRD - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement - Université Paris Dauphine-PSL - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Université Paris Dauphine-PSL - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres)

  • Alena Kotelnikova

    (X-DEP-ECO - Département d'Économie de l'École Polytechnique - X - École polytechnique - IP Paris - Institut Polytechnique de Paris)

  • Guy Meunier

    (X-DEP-ECO - Département d'Économie de l'École Polytechnique - X - École polytechnique - IP Paris - Institut Polytechnique de Paris)

  • Jean-Pierre Ponssard

    (CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, X-DEP-ECO - Département d'Économie de l'École Polytechnique - X - École polytechnique - IP Paris - Institut Polytechnique de Paris)

Abstract

This study develops a consistent framework to compare FCEV with gasoline ICE (ignition combustion engine) and applies this framework to the German market over the period 2015-2050. As such it provides for: - The formulation of a proper cost benefit analysis, including the definition of the abatement cost for the hydrogen technology; - The simulation of the results under various technological and cost assumptions; - The identification of the major conceptual issues to facilitate analytical developments. The sources used in the analysis are based on an update of previous industry studies. The main conclusion is that FCEV could be a socially beneficial alternative for decarbonizing part of the projected German car park at the horizon 2050. The corresponding abatement cost would fall in the range of 50 €/t CO2 to 60 €/t CO2. This range is higher than the current estimate for the normative cost of carbon as expressed in Quinet (2009 and 2013), which is around 30€/t in 2015. Still the gap is not out of hand. We identify the market and cost conditions that would shorten the gap. The methodology used in this study could be expanded to integrate two pending issues noted in the literature for the successful deployment of FCEV: - Making the deployment for FCEV endogenous and depending on the public and private instruments that could induce the decreasing of costs and the acceptance of the FCEV technology by consumers. - Designing an appropriate institutional framework to promote cooperation for manufacturing FCEV, producing carbon free H2 and investing in the distribution of H2. The initial sunk costs necessary for investment cannot be recouped through pure market equilibrium behavior. This study already provides an order of magnitude to quantify these issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Creti & Alena Kotelnikova & Guy Meunier & Jean-Pierre Ponssard, 2015. "A cost benefit analysis of fuel cell electric vehicles," Working Papers hal-01116997, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-01116997
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-01116997
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-01116997/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ellerman, Danny & Delarue, Erik & Weigt, Hannes, 2012. "CO2 Abatement from RES Injections in the German Electricity Sector: Does a CO2 Price Help?," Working papers 2012/14, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    2. Stern,Nicholas, 2007. "The Economics of Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521700801, November.
    3. Ignacio J. Perez-Arriaga & Carlos Batlle, 2012. "Impacts of Intermittent Renewables on Electricity Generation System Operation," Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2).
    4. Partha Dasgupta, 2008. "Discounting climate change," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 141-169, December.
    5. Newell, Richard G. & Pizer, William A., 2003. "Discounting the distant future: how much do uncertain rates increase valuations?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 52-71, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anna Creti & Alena Kotelnikova & Guy Meunier & Jean-Pierre Ponssard, 2018. "Defining the Abatement Cost in Presence of Learning-by-Doing: Application to the Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(3), pages 777-800, November.
    2. Olfa Tlili & Christine Mansilla & David Frimat & Yannick Perez, 2019. "Hydrogen market penetration feasibility assessment: Mobility and natural gas markets in the US, Europe, China and Japan," Post-Print hal-02265824, HAL.
    3. Jesus Ochoa Robles & Catherine Azzaro-Pantel & Guillem Martinez Garcia & Alberto Aguilar Lasserre, 2020. "Social cost-benefit assessment as a post-optimal analysis for hydrogen supply chain design and deployment: Application to Occitania (France)," Post-Print hal-03118656, HAL.
    4. De-León Almaraz, Sofía & Rácz, Viktor & Azzaro-Pantel, Catherine & Szántó, Zoltán Oszkár, 2022. "Multiobjective and social cost-benefit optimisation for a sustainable hydrogen supply chain: Application to Hungary," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 325(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cropper, Maureen, 2012. "How Should Benefits and Costs Be Discounted in an Intergenerational Context?," RFF Working Paper Series dp-12-42, Resources for the Future.
    2. Freeman, Mark C. & Groom, Ben, 2016. "How certain are we about the certainty-equivalent long term social discount rate?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 152-168.
    3. Kollenberg, Sascha & Taschini, Luca, 2016. "Emissions trading systems with cap adjustments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 20-36.
    4. Rick van der Ploeg, 2020. "Discounting and Climate Policy," CESifo Working Paper Series 8441, CESifo.
    5. Lawrence H. Goulder & Roberton C. Williams, 2012. "The Choice Of Discount Rate For Climate Change Policy Evaluation," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(04), pages 1-18.
    6. Koen Vermeylen, 2013. "The Consumption Discount Rate for the Distant Future (if we do not die out)," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 13-201/VI, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Rick van der Ploeg & Johannes Emmerling & Ben Groom, 2022. "The Social Cost of Carbon with Intragenerational Inequality under Economic Uncertainty," CESifo Working Paper Series 9777, CESifo.
    8. van der Ploeg, Frederick & Emmerling, Johannes & Groom, Ben, 2023. "The social cost of carbon with intragenerational inequality and economic uncertainty," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 117898, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Ben Groom & David Maddison Pr., 2019. "New Estimates of the Elasticity of Marginal Utility for the UK," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(4), pages 1155-1182, April.
    10. Moritz Drupp & Mark Freeman & Ben Groom & Frikk Nesje, 2015. "Discounting disentangled: an expert survey on the determinants of the long-term social discount rate," GRI Working Papers 196a, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    11. Michael Spackman, 2011. "Government discounting controversies: the valuation of social time preference," GRI Working Papers 68, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    12. Freeman, Mark C., 2009. "Yes, we should discount the far-distant future at its lowest possible rate: a resolution of the Weitzman-Gollier puzzle," Economics Discussion Papers 2009-42, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    13. Michalis Skourtos & Dimitris Damigos & Areti Kontogianni & Christos Tourkolias & Alistair Hunt, 2019. "Embedding Preference Uncertainty for Environmental Amenities in Climate Change Economic Assessments: A “Random” Step Forward," Economies, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-22, October.
    14. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    15. Min Gong & David Krantz & Elke Weber, 2014. "Why Chinese discount future financial and environmental gains but not losses more than Americans," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 103-124, October.
    16. Steve Newbold & Charles Griffiths & Christopher C. Moore & Ann Wolverton & Elizabeth Kopits, 2010. "The "Social Cost of Carbon" Made Simple," NCEE Working Paper Series 201007, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Aug 2010.
    17. Luca Gerotto & Paolo Pellizzari, 2021. "A replication of Pindyck’s willingness to pay: on the efforts required to obtain results," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 1(5), pages 1-25, May.
    18. Philippe Aghion & Antoine Dechezleprêtre & David Hémous & Ralf Martin & John Van Reenen, 2016. "Carbon Taxes, Path Dependency, and Directed Technical Change: Evidence from the Auto Industry," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(1), pages 1-51.
    19. Daron Acemoglu & Philippe Aghion & Leonardo Bursztyn & David Hemous, 2012. "The Environment and Directed Technical Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 131-166, February.
    20. Pindyck, Robert S., 2012. "Uncertain outcomes and climate change policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 289-303.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-01116997. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.