Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 29 (2004) 369 – 374

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhydene

Plug-in fuel cell hybrids as transition technology to hydrogen

infrastructure
G.J. Suppes∗ , S. Lopes, C.W. Chiu
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Missouri, W2028 EBE, Columbia, MO 65211, USA

Accepted 14 July 2003

Abstract
A plug-in fuel cell hybrid with as little as 20 mile of range from rechargeable hydrogen could displace more than 50% of the
gasoline consumed in the US. While the well-to-wheel e4ciencies are poor, proper utilization of the grid electricity along with
electrical infrastructure modi6cations would lead to acceptable and sustainable overall e4ciencies. The limited-range plug-in
option provides a viable transition technology toward a hydrogen refueling infrastructure. The technology is also sustainable
and available on a short timeline.
? 2003 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fuel cell; Hydrogen; Recharge; Plug-in; E4ciency

1. Introduction
The basic concept behind the hybrid vehicle is to use
a stored (secondary) energy source on the vehicle to sup-
plement the primary energy converter toward the goal of
increasing overall fuel e4ciency. The primary energy con-
verter operates at a constant power output that is much more
e4cient than the dynamic operation needed to match ve-
hicle needs—gains in fuel e4ciency are the driver for this
technology. The secondary energy source supplements the
primary energy converter or stores the excess energy.
Additional bene6ts of the hybrid design include: (1) a
smaller primary energy converter that costs less, (2) reduced
emissions resulting from substantially eliminating dynamic
modes of internal combustion engine (ICE) operation, and
(3) an electric power train that allows for other advantages
such as fewer moving parts and regenerative braking. It is
generally recognized that the hybrid with its electric power
train is compatible with the use of fuel cells for the primary
energy converter [1]. The ability of the hybrid to reduce the
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-573-884-0562;
fax: +1-573-884-4940.
E-mail address: suppesg@missouri.edu (G.J. Suppes).
size of the fuel cell stack as a primary energy converter will
be crucial to reduce the costs of fuel cell vehicles during
initial stages of commercialization.
The plug-in hybrid is a modi6ed version of a hybrid
vehicle with a secondary power source larger than in a stan-
dard hybrid that can be recharged using grid electricity.
By replacing vehicular fuel consumption with grid power,
advantages of zero point-source emissions and displace-
ment of petroleum fuel consumption can be realized. In this
con6guration, the hybrid vehicle functions more like an
electric car with ICE (or fuel cell) backup to provide in-
creased range upon demand [2]. The fuel cell hybrid pro-
vides an additional degree of freedom on this plug-in option;
namely, the grid power could be used to recharge batteries
(the secondary power source) or to hydrolyze water to hy-
drogen for use with the fuel cell (primary energy converter).
This paper compares advantages and disadvantage of these
two plug-in options.
2. Background
As the costs of fuel cells decrease, the likelihood of trans-
forming large sectors of the petroleum-based transportation

0360-3199/$ 30.00 ? 2003 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0360-3199(03)00216-7
370 G.J. Suppes et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 29 (2004) 369 – 374
Table 1
Typical operating costs for vehicle
Vehicle operating Average
cost range ($/mile) cost (%)
Depreciation 22.5 –31.8 49.2
Insurance 6.9 –10.5 14.3
Financing 4.8–8.3 12.3
Fuel 4.5 – 6.9 10.9
Maintenance, oil, tires 4.7–5.3 9.1
License and registration 1.4 –3.2 4.2
Ranges include low-end cost of mid-sized car and upper-end
costs for luxury car and SUV [12].
infrastructure to a hydrogen-based infrastructure increase.
These trends are motivated by the potential of fuel cells to
reduce vehicle operating cost. Table 1 summarizes typical
vehicle operating costs, and as illustrated by these itemized
costs, fuel costs are minor in comparison to those costs re-
lated to the vehicle, its maintenance, and the insurance costs
to repair damaged vehicles.
The proposed transformation to a hydrogen-based trans-
portation infrastructure is motivated by the potential for fuel
cells to reduce the costs related to the vehicle and its main-
tenance. Fundamentally, the drive-by-wire technology [3]
and substantial elimination of moving parts can reduce the
vehicle costs [4]; however, the challenges of providing a
hydrogen refueling infrastructure are many. Transition tech-
nologies will play the important role of creating a demand for
the hydrogen infrastructure while not relying on the hydro-
gen infrastructure for operation. The limited range plug-in
fuel cell hybrid is one of the best transition technology
options.
Fig. 1 illustrates two of many possible con6gurations for
a plug-in fuel cell hybrid. In the hydrogen storage option,
reversible fuel cells are used to generate hydrogen and oxy-
gen which are stored in compressed tanks. This con6gu-
ration can actually reduce the amount of secondary source
battery storage that is necessary since stored pure hydrogen
can power the fuel cells. Alternative to hydrogen storage,
a larger battery pack can be used to provide the 20-mile
recharge range.
In both the options of Fig. 1, a liquid fuel is the primary
energy source.Reformer technology converts the liquid fuel
to hydrogen through sequential steps of reforming, water–
gas-shift, and preferential oxidation of carbon monoxide re-
maining from the water–gas-shift [5,6]. The reformer tech-
nology is being developed for fuels ranging from natural
gas, and methanol to gasoline and diesel [7]. Development
obstacles are many, including: (1) needs for ultra-low sulfur
fuel, [4] (2) long startup times (signi6cantly longer than the
3 s a typical vehicle owner is accustomed), (3) a hydrogen
product that is diluted with nitrogen and carbon monoxide
[7] and (4) development and optimization of the reformer
system as well as all associated unit operations.
The plug-in fuel cell option addresses these challenges as
follows:
• Ultra-low sulfur fuel: By substantially displacing liquid
fuel consumption with grid electricity, more expensive fu-
els (like methanol, ethanol, and biodiesel) that are avail-
able today can be used. Refueling needs are also reduced,
addressing potential problems with locating alternative
fuel refueling stations.
• Startup times: Because the vehicle would operate for sev-
eral miles oJ the recharge, several minutes are available
to start up the reformer system allowing this to be ad-
dressed with technology available within the timeframe
of the plug-in fuel cell technology.
• Dilution of hydrogen: Diluting hydrogen reduces the fuel
cell e4ciency. This is less of a problem for a recharge
vehicle where reliance on the liquid fuel and reformer is
substantially displaced with grid electricity.
• Needs for development and optimization: Less than
optimal reformer systems would be acceptable since
the vehicle will be less dependent upon the reformer
hydrogen.
Also, the plug-in fuel cell hybrid would not require a
hydrogen refueling infrastructure and could use com-
pressed hydrogen and oxygen storage since the quantities
of hydrogen would be far less than needed for a vehicle
relying only on stored hydrogen for extended range travel
(200 –400 mile).
The major development obstacles of an extended-range
fuel cell vehicle are overcome by the plug-in fuel cell hybrid
that operates predominantly with the recharge option. This
paper addresses design details of the plug-in fuel cell hy-
brid toward (1) identifying optimal recharge capacities, (2)
quantifying the well-to-wheel e4ciencies including the im-
pact on greenhouse gas emissions, (3) comparing the costs
of recharging batteries versus hydrogen versus ICE or re-
formed hydrogen and (4) comparing the battery recharge
versus hydrogen recharge.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Optimal recharge capacities
Travel habits play an important role in fuel tank de-
sign for the plug-in fuel cell hybrid. Fig. 2 shows the
average daily travel habits in the US. About 47% of all
miles put on passenger vehicles in a day are within the
6rst 20 mile of travel by a vehicle. Furthermore, about
50% of the vehicles travel 20 mile or less per day, and
this 20 mile is intensive in inner-city travel where fuel
economy for conventional ICEs is poor and emissions
have their greatest adverse impacts. A 20-mile recharge
range would have an ample market and could displace up
to 50% of petroleum fuel consumption. This impact could
 G.J. Suppes et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 29 (2004) 369 – 374 371

Fig. 1. Con6gurations for hybrid, plug-in fuel cell hybrid with hydrogen recharge, and plug-in fuel cell hybrid with battery recharge.

120

100
Cumulative Percent of Vehicle

80

60
47% of vehicles traveling on an
average day travel less or equal
to 20 miles
40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Average Daily Travel Distance per Vehicle (miles)

Fig. 2. Pattern of average daily travel distance in USA (source—1990 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey) [11].

be extended by providing recharge options at employment
locations for those workers who have commutes of over
10 mile each way.
3.2. Well-to-wheel e9ciencies and greenhouse gas
emissions
Well-to-wheel e4ciencies provide a basis for comparing
diJerent transportation options when considering the im-
pact on the 6nite reserves of fossil fuels. The well-to-wheel
e4ciency also correlates with greenhouse gas emissions
from fossil fuels. The gasoline ICE provides a good point of
reference where the extraction (96% e4cient), processing
and delivery (88%), and vehicle (18%) combine to provide
an overall well-to-wheel e4ciency of about 15% [4]. When
using the most e4cient small diesel ICEs, this e4ciency
reaches about 22%.
When reforming gasoline on the vehicle, the same ex-
traction, processing, and delivery e4ciency apply. In addi-
tion, the reforming to hydrogen (78% assumed), fuel cell
372 G.J. Suppes et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 29 (2004) 369 – 374
(55% less 10% penalty for diluted hydrogen), and electric
motor with controls and accessories (80%) combine to pro-
vide about 30%. For direct use of natural gas and use of a
methanol intermediate, this overall e4ciency for reforming
a fuel varies from 22% to 33% [4].
When using electrolysis to produce hydrogen, as would
be the case for the recharge option of a plug-in fuel cell hy-
brid, well-to-wheel e4ciencies drop. Today’s most e4cient
grid electricity is the 53% e4cient combined cycle power
generation from natural gas with an extraction, cleaning and
delivery e4ciency of about 88% prior to the power produc-
tion. Electrical transmission (90%), electrolysis (75 –85%),
fuel cell (55%) and electric motor with controls and ac-
cessories (80%) combine to provide about 14.5% e4ciency
[8]. For today’s nuclear power, the overall e4ciency would
be about 9.5%. Both advanced nuclear and integrated gasi-
6cation combined cycle coal facilities provide about 14%
overall e4ciency.
To a 6rst approximation, the plug-in option fails to match
the well-to-wheel e4ciency of the best ICE options and pro-
posed reformer fuel cell options; however, the Mexibility of
the electrical power grid can overcome this obstacle. For ex-
ample, e4ciency is irrelevant for wind power. For nuclear
power, the amount of energy available from reprocessing
spent fuel rods already located at nuclear power plants could
provide electrical power for many centuries, and so, e4-
ciency is not totally relevant (especially when considering
the potential of new energy breakthroughs that can occur
within the useful life nuclear fuel reserves).
When utilizing natural gas, the Mexibility of the electrical
power infrastructure would diminish or eliminate potential
increases in greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the use
of peak load power generation units. Today, much peak
demand electrical power is produced at e4ciencies of about
26% since the demand for “oJ peak” hours is insu4cient to
warrant the capital expenditures for combined cycle facilities
capable of producing electricity at 53% e4ciency. Nighttime
recharging would create oJ-peak demand that would justify
the building of new, highly e4cient natural gas facilities.
These new electrical power facilities and more-even use
of electricity from day to night (and throughout the year)
would displace the use of the 26% peak demand facilities. If
1 kWh of power used to recharge a plug-in hybrid allowed
1 kWh of 26% peak demand power to be displaced with 53%
baseline load, ZERO additional greenhouse gases would be
generated from the plug-in fuel cell hybrid and any e4ciency
lost through the electrolysis option (relative to reforming) is
nulli6ed by displacing the use of ine4cient peak load power
generation systems.
Depending upon the details of electrical power gener-
ation and how the electrical-power generating infrastruc-
ture responds to the increase in electrical power demand
created by plug-in option vehicles, the impact on e4-
ciency and greenhouse gas emissions could be negative or
positive. Speci6cally, the plug-in option provides multiple
options (wind, nuclear, and an improved electrical power
infrastructure in response to increases in baseline electri-
cal loads) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions relative to
either reforming or ICEs. From this perspective, the “op-
portunity” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce
the consumption of fossil fuels makes the plug-in option
preferred to either the ICE or reforming, regardless of the
well-to-wheel e4ciency.
3.3. Comparison of fuel costs
The fuel costs are about $0.025 and $0:032=mile 1 for
gasoline ICE and hydrogen produced by grid (oJ-peak,
$0:056=kWh [9]. Recharging batteries using grid electricity
would cost about $0.021/mile. These fuel costs are less
than those of Table 1 because they do not include highway
taxes and are based on a light-weight vehicle consistent
with trends in hybrid vehicle technology. Continued escala-
tion of petroleum prices would cause the gasoline prices to
rapidly surpass the hydrogen electrolysis costs. In any case,
the electricity costs are small in comparison to those costs
summarized in Table 1 that are related to the depreciation,
upkeep, and protection of the vehicle. For drive-by-wire
technology, the reductions in vehicle costs (and depre-
ciation) should more than compensate for the increased
fuel costs.
3.4. Battery recharge versus hydrogen recharge
Fig. 2 illustrates two plug-in fuel cell hybrid options
allowing for a 20-mile (or more) recharge capacity to be
stored in batteries or compressed hydrogen. The battery stor-
age option has a charger and larger battery pack as compared
to the standard hybrid. The hydrogen storage option uses re-
versible fuel cells and has a hydrogen and oxygen storage
tank. The battery pack for the hydrogen option would ac-
tually be smaller than for a traditional hybrid because pure
hydrogen and pure oxygen (versus reformed hydrogen and
air) would provide increased power output from the fuel cell
on demand. Both systems would utilize garage-Moor-based
automatic connection recharge options that would eliminate
the inconveniences associated with plugging in the vehicle
every night for oJ-peak recharging. Switching from use of
hydrogen to reforming of liquid fuels on board the vehicle
would also be handled by the vehicle control system without
driver interaction.
The lead acid, nickel–metal hydride and zinc–air bat-
teries have all been used for HEV design. The lead acid
battery is a mature product with a long and well-established
record of commercial performance. In practical terms, the
1 Costs are based on a vehicle getting 30 mpg and fuel at
$1:00=gal (not including highway taxes). An energy content
of $114; 500 Btu=gal for gasoline translates to 3817 Btu gaso-
line/mile.This translates to 687 Btu of wheel energy/mile applied
to all fueling options.
 G.J. Suppes et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 29 (2004) 369 – 374 373

Table 2
Comparison of performance advantages of hydrogen versus battery storage

Category Comments

Volume Hydrogen and oxygen tank volumes of 20 and 10 l are less than the battery
pack volume of 48 l.
Weight Hydrogen and oxygen tank weights of 4 and 6 kg are less than the battery
pack weight of 127 kg.
Incremental weight Hydrogen storage could eliminate much of the battery storage over the
standard hybrid because stored hydrogen and the fuel cell could replace
battery functions leading to a weight reduction for hydrogen storage
over a conventional hybrid vehicle. A 20-mile battery storage option
is compared to about 6 mile for a standard hybrid which translates to
an additional battery weight of 90 kg.
Life cycle High life cycle of tanks and electrolyzer are greater than the battery life
cycle of about 20; 000 mile.
Operating costs The cost of about $0.021/mile for recharging batteries is less than the
$0.032/mile for recharging hydrogen.
1
Vehicle cost Electrolyzer cost of 36 th the fuel cell stack cost is less than the battery
pack cost. Estimated battery cost [2] of $532–$665.

lead acid battery has a low cost and satisfactory energy
e4ciency compared to other batteries. To date, expectations
of improved alternatives to the lead acid battery have not
manifested. For 20-mile range using batteries, the weight
and size of lead acid batteries (35 Wh=kg) are 126:78 kg
[2] and occupy about 0:048 m3 with an energy conversion
e4ciency [10] of about above 80% for both recharging and
utilization. Battery chargers are relatively inexpensive and
widely available. Upto 1000 cycles [10] (or ¡ 20; 000 mile)
would be realized from the battery pack.
Using a PEM fuel cell with an e4ciency of 50% and a
20% loss during transfer of power to the wheels would re-
quire 6:2 kg of hydrogen to provide a range of 300 mile.
The main options for hydrogen storage in a fuel cell are
compressed gas, condensation to liquid hydrogen, carbon
adsorption, and metal hydrides. Compressed hydrogen pro-
vides the lowest near-term cost option for fuel cell vehicles.
For hydrogen storage as compressed gas the size of tank at
a design pressure of 34:5 MPa and 25◦ C, 20 mile of range
would be achieved with 0:42 kg of hydrogen in a 3:1 kg
tank having a volume of 20 l. The oxygen tank would be
about one-half the volume.Cycle life should exceed that of
the vehicle. For an electrolysis system designed to recharge
in 12 h for a capacity of 20 min of travel at 60 mile=h, the
1
electrolyzer capacity/cost would be about 36 th the capac-
ity/cost of the fuel cell units. This additional cost would be
the upper end of the cost since, in principle, reversible fuel
cells could provide both power and hydrogen.
Table 2 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of
battery versus hydrogen plug-in options. Stored hydrogen
has many advantages over battery packs; however, batteries
are more e4cient and thus have lower electricity costs. The
primary limiting factor on the use of the plug-in fuel cell
hybrid is the availability of the fuel cells—obstacles like
quick startup and hydrogen storage are overcome with the
plug-in option having a large secondary power source.
An additional advantage of the hydrogen storage over
battery storage is that additional recharge range could be
gained with minor penalty in the way of cost—the primary
penalty is in volume and which is acceptable for ranges up
to 60 mile (60 l + 30 l). A standard 20 mile recharge ca-
pacity could be readily extended to 40 mile for those com-
muters who have longer commutes.This ability to tailor the
vehicle to applications would greatly extend the ability of
the plug-in fuel cell hybrid and would displace petroleum
consumption.
The plug-in fuel cell hybrid will have advantages associ-
ated with the purity of the hydrogen and oxygen produced
through electrolysis. Thomas et al [7] reports a 36% de-
crease in fuel cell e4ciency when switching from 100% H2
to approximately 40% H2 (generated by gasoline reformer).
When switching from 100% H2 to approximately 75% H2
(generated by methanol reformer), the e4ciency decreases
by about 27%. A similar impact on e4ciency of fuel cell is
observed for oxygen when switching from pure oxygen to
hydrogen.
4. Conclusions
The plug-in hybrid vehicle with as little as 20 mile of
plug-in recharge capacity could displace up to 50% of the
petroleum fuels consumed in the US. At less than $1000
incremental cost to today’s standard hybrid vehicle, this is a
good option today and a great option for tomorrows fuel cell
hybrid vehicles. While well-to-wheel e4ciencies are less
than either diesel ICEs or reformed-hydrogen approaches to
fuel cells, the well-to-wheel e4ciency is not a meaningful
374 G.J. Suppes et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 29 (2004) 369 – 374
measure of the performance of the plug-in option. The
well-to-wheel e4ciency does not take into account the
potential use of nuclear or wind power which are both
sustainable well into the next century. Even when using nat-
ural gas for electrical power production, the well-to-wheel
e4ciency does not account for the Mexibility of the
electrical-power generating infrastructure to displace in-
e4cient peak load power generation (26% e4cient) with
e4cient base load power generation (53%).
Fuel cell vehicles could provide the option of using elec-
trolysis to produce 20 mile of stored hydrogen and oxygen
alternative to using batteries. The hydrogen/oxygen stor-
age would take about 30 l in volume which is considerably
less than the volume of battery packs providing the same
energy storage capacity. Depending upon commuting dis-
tances, recharge options of 40 or even 60 mile would also
be reasonable and would further displace the consumption
of petroleum fuels. Designing for overnight charging, the
1
cost of the electrolysis equipment would be less than 30 th
the cost of the fuel cell stacks.
The rechargeable hydrogen option lessens demands on
technology advances needed for on-board fuel reforming
and high-density on-board hydrogen storage—relying pre-
dominantly on available technology and reductions in the
costs for hydrogen fuel cells. The plug-in fuel cell hybrid is
a great transition technology toward a hydrogen infrastruc-
ture; it is also a sustainable technology in its own right.
Acknowledgements
Kristy Fetterling helped collect data for this paper. Her
assistance is greatly appreciated.
References
[1] Bossel U, Eliasson B. Energy and the hydrogen economy.
8 January 2003. Switzerland. (see http://www.hyweb.de/
NEWS/Bossel-Eliasson 2003 Hydrogen-Economy.pdf).
[2] Rand DAJ, Woods R, Dell, RM. Batteries for electric vehicles.
1998. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
[3] Burns LD, McCormick JB, Boroni-Bird, CE. Vehicle of
change. Sci Am 2002;287(4):64 –73.
[4] US Department of Energy. Fuel cell handbook, 6th ed.
National Energy Technology Laboratory Strategic Center for
National gas, November 2002. Morgantown, W. Va.
[5] Suppes GJ, Igwe GJ. Second topical conference on fuel
cell technology. In: AIChE Proceedings Publication, editor.
AIChE 2003 Spring National Meeting, New Orleans. New
York: AICHE, 2003.
[6] Igwe GJ, Suppes GJ. Topical conference on fuel cell
technology. In: AIChE Proceedings Publication, editor.
AIChE 2002 Spring National Meeting, New Orleans. New
York: AICHE, 2002.
[7] Thomas CE, James BD. Fuel options for fuel cell vehicle:
hydrogen, methanol or gasoline? Int J Hydrogen Energy
2000;25:551–67.
[8] Hinrichs RA, Kleinbach M. Energy its use and the
environment, 3rd ed. London: Brooks Cole; 2002.
[9] http://www.dcec.com/billing rate.html.
[10] Speci6cation of test procedures for traction batteries for
electric vehicles. Joint Research Committee (JRC)—Traction
Battery Working Group, October 1993.
[11] Renyl J, Schuurmans PJ. Policy implications of hybrid electric
vehicles–6nal report to NREL, Report ACB-5-15337-01,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, 22 April
1996 (see www.ott.doe.gov/pdfs/nevcor.pdf).
[12] Anonymous. Your driving costs. American Automobile
Association (based on data from Runzheimer International),
1998 (see http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm82.htm), Canada.