$8,000 more if an ultracapacitor or flywheel is used. The battery version is preferable because
such a hybrid can be operated as an EV with a range of 25 to 30 miles, compared with five miles
with an ultracapacitor, or 10 miles with a flywheel. When not operated as an EV, a hybrid vehicle
may not have any emissions advantage over the advanced conventional vehicle.
OTA estimates that a PEM fuel cell hybrid vehicle, using hydrogen from methanol reformed
onboard, could attain a fuel economy of about 80 mpg, if its structural and other characteristics
matched the 2015 advanced conventional vehicle. Such a vehicle probably could not be
commercialized in a mass-market vehicle before 2015 or so. Currently, the PEM fuel cell’s power
density and cost are ill-suited to a light-duty vehicle, and considerable improvements are required.
If fuel-cell costs decrease by one order of magnitude from current levels, a mid-size car powered
by a PEM fuel cell/battery hybrid drivetrain could be available for about $39,000 over an
advanced conventional vehicle in 2015. If costs came down by twO orders of magnitude, the
vehicle price increment could decrease to less than $5,000, but the potential for such large
decreases is highly uncertain. Even if such price decreases were possible, the marginal fuel
economy benefit over an ICE hybrid is small--the fuel cell vehicle’s zero emission potential
appears to be its primary value.
LIFECYCLE COSTS
Cost and price analyses in this report have focused primarily on vehicle purchase price.
Although vehicle purchasers have tended to weigh initial purchase price extremely heavily in their
buying decisions, there are strong reasons to examine differences in operating and maintenance
(O&M) costs, as well as differences in trade-in value or vehicle longevity, or both, in attempting
to measure the commercial potential of advanced vehicles. First, there iS evidence that many
vehicle purchasers strongly consider lifecycle costs in choosing vehicles. For example, diesel-
powered vehicles traditionally have been more expensive and less powerful than otherwise-
identical gasoline vehicles, but diesels are extremely popular in Europe because of their lower
maintenance costs, greater longevity, and lower fuel costs. Similarly, they enjoyed a period of
popularity in the United States when diesel fuel prices were below gasoline prices and public
concern about oil prices was high. Second, differences in O&M costs among the alternative
vehicles examined here are likely to be much larger than the differences among current vehicle
alternatives. For example, the limited lifespan of the batteries in EVs and HEVs and their high
costs imply that owners of these vehicles must contend with one or more payments of thousands
of dollars for battery replacement during their vehicle’s lifetime. Also, there are sharp differences
in “per unit of energy” prices for the various fuels--gasoline, diesel, electricity, methanol, and
hydrogen--considered here, which, coupled with substantial differences in fuel efficiency, will
cause overall fuel charges for the different vehicles to vary considerably.
A few simple calculations show how a higher vehicle purchase price may be offset by lower
O&M costs or longer vehicle lifetime. Assuming a 10 percent interest rate and 10-year vehicle
lifetime, a $1,000 increase in purchase price would be offset by a $169/year reduction in O&M
costs. Similarly, an increase in vehicle price of about 25 percent--such as from $20,000 to
$25,000--would be offset by an increase in longevity of five years, assuming the less expensive
vehicle would last 10 years.