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 en e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 7 2 6 7e7 2 7 9
Avai lab le a t www.sc iencedi rec t .com
journa l homepage : www.e lsev ier . com/ loca te /he
Market penetration analysis of hydrogen vehiclesin Norwegian passenger transport towards 2050
Eva Rosenberg a,*, Audun Fidje a, Kari Aamodt Espegren a, Christoph Stiller b,Ann Mari Svensson c, Steffen Møller-Holst c
a Institute for Energy Technology, Energy Systems Department, P.O. Box 40, NO-2027 Kjeller, NorwaybDepartment of Energy and Process Engineering, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim, NorwaycDepartment of Energy Conversion and Materials, SINTEF Materials and Chemistry, NO-7465 Trondheim, Norway
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 11 January 2010
Received in revised form
27 April 2010
Accepted 27 April 2010
Keywords:
MARKAL modelling
Energy system
NorWays
Regional
Hydrogen cars
Abbreviations: Boe, barrels of oil equivalevehicle; H2, hydrogen; HFCV, hydrogen fuel cinternal combustion engine; LCA, life cyclemethane reforming; PHEV, plug-in hybrid el* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ47 63806096;E-mail address: [email protected] (E.
0360-3199/$ e see front matter ª 2010 Profedoi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.04.153
a b s t r a c t
The Norwegian energy system is characterized by high dependency on electricity, mainly
hydro power. If the national targets to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases should be
met, a substantial reduction of CO2 emissions has to be obtained from the transport sector.
This paper presents the results of the analyses of three Norwegian regions with the energy
system model MARKAL during the period 2005e2050. The MARKAL models were used in
connection with an infrastructure model H2INVEST. The analyses show that a transition to
a hydrogen fuelled transportation sector could be feasible in the long run, and indicate that
with substantial hydrogen distribution efforts, fuel cell cars can become competitive
compared to other technologies both in urban (2025) and rural areas (2030). In addition, the
result shows the importance of the availability of local energy resources for hydrogen
production, like the advantages of location close to chemical industry or surplus of
renewable electricity.
ª 2010 Professor T. Nejat Veziroglu. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction transition from fossil based fuels to mobility powered by
Hydrogen is foreseen to play an important role in sustainable
energy systems. There are three major drivers towards
a future where hydrogenwill supplement electricity as energy
carrier; the challenge of global warming, the scarcity of fossil
resources and the need for an energy storage medium as the
share of renewable energy is increasing. In this perspective
hydrogen may provide fuel for transportation, supporting the
replacement of the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) by the
more efficient fuel cell technology, and thereby bridging the
nt; CCS, CO2 capture andell vehicle; HICE, hydrogeassessment; MARKAL, Mectric vehiclefax: þ47 63812905.Rosenberg).ssor T. Nejat Veziroglu. P
renewable energy.
In recent years many countries and regions have devel-
oped roadmaps towards a hydrogen-oriented economy,
including the US, Europe, Germany and Japan. A number of
studies have addressed the technological, as well as socio-
economic prerequisites and impacts of introduction of
hydrogen in the energy system. In the US, the STEPS
(Sustainable Transportation Energy Pathways) programme [1]
is currently investigating the introduction of hydrogen, bio
fuels and electricity for transportations, in comparison to
storage; GHG, green house gases; FCHEV, fuel cell hybrid electricn internal combustion engine; Hydrogen cars, HFCV and HICE; ICE,ARKet ALocation (model generator); NG, natural gas; SMR, steam
ublished by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
i n t e rn a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n en e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 7 2 6 7e7 2 7 97268
“business-as-usual” scenarios dominated by fossil fuels, and
also the potential of CO2 capture and storage (CCS). The
research topics focused within the programme are consumer
behaviour, infrastructure, LCA, policy making, in relation to
vehicle technologies. The main message of the programme so
far is that all of these options are needed in order to fulfil the
ambitious long termGHG emission goals. Results indicate that
low-cost bio fuels could be made available to consumers in
several regions in the US in a short timeframe, but that high
volume production will be a challenge. Furthermore, it was
found that Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) with a long
driving range aremost likely to be preferred by the consumers.
For hydrogen cars, the investments required for high volume
introduction are basically related to incentives for entering
a state of mass production of cars.
In 2008, results of several studies of the transition to
hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs) supported by US
Department of Energy (DOE) were published in a report [2].
The Hydrogen Scenario Analysis indicates that with targeted
deployment policies in place during 2012e2025, the HFCVmarket
share could grow to 50% by 2030 and 90% by 2050. This would
lead to a sustainable, competitive market for hydrogen HFCVs
beyond 2025, without a continuing need for policy support.
The success for HFCVs requires that the technical targets are
met (except for on-board hydrogen storageweight and volume
targets). Incentives are, however, required for establishing
a hydrogen refuelling infrastructure and bring down the cost
of HFCVs. The scenario analysis evaluated the cost of alter-
native government policies to support a successful transition
to HFCVs.
Another US study addressed the need for investments in
R&D, demonstrations, skilled people (education), and infra-
structure required for the development of fuel cell technolo-
gies and the transition from petroleum to hydrogen in
a significant percentage of the vehicles sold by 2020 [3]. The
major conclusions from this survey is that a portfolio of
technologies including hydrogen HFCVs, improved efficiency
of conventional vehicles, hybrids, and use of bio fuels e in
conjunction with required new policy drivers e has the
potential to nearly eliminate gasoline use in light-duty vehi-
cles by the middle of this century, while reducing fleet GHG
emissions to less than 20 percent of current levels. This
portfolio approach provides a hedge against potential short-
falls in any one technological approach and improves the
probability that the United States can meet its energy and
environmental goals. It is estimated that the maximum
practicable number of HFCVs that could be on the road by 2020
is around 2 million. Subsequently, this number could grow
rapidly to as many as 60 million by 2035 and more than 200
million by mid century, but such rapid and widespread
deployment will require continued technical success, cost
reductions from volume production, and government policies
to sustain the introduction of Fuel Cell Hybrid Electric Vehicle
(FCHEV) into the market during the transition period needed
for technical progress.
HyWays [4] was an integrated project, co-funded by
research institutes, industry and by the European Commis-
sion (EC) under the 6th Framework Programme. For the
timeframes 2020, 2030 and 2050, the aggregated member state
specific results for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, preferred
hydrogen production and infrastructure technologies, the
build-up of supply infrastructure and end-use technologies
was integrated into a proposal for an EU Hydrogen Energy
Roadmap for the participating countries. The project
commenced in April 2004 andwas finalized after 39months in
June 2007. Norway was one of the 10 European countries
included in the HyWays project.
The HyWays project differs from other road mapping
exercises as it heavily integrates stakeholder preferences,
obtained from multiple member state workshops, with
extensive modelling in an iterative way covering both tech-
nological and socioeconomic aspects. The stakeholder vali-
dation process, which takes into account country specific
conditions, is considered to be a key element of the HyWays
road mapping process.
There are more than 230 MARKAL-TIMES licensed insti-
tutions in 69 countries, (TIMES is a successor of MARKAL)
[5]. Several MARKAL studies have been published simu-
lating the impacts of hydrogen technologies on the energy
system, e.g., [6e11]. The Japan MARKAL model has been
used to validate the technical targets of Japan’s hydrogen
energy roadmap by analyzing the market penetration of
hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles (HFCVs), and evaluating the
effects of a carbon tax [12]. This latter study reveals that
substantial increase in carbon tax is needed to fulfil the
Japanese targets for early market penetration of hydrogen
powered HFCVs.
The work presented here are results from the NorWays
project [13] covering energy system modelling of three
selected regions using MARKAL. The purpose of this paper is
to present the modelling approach, and report on findings
from energy system analysis in regions of distinct character-
istics. This paper includes evaluation of how differences in
available resources, energy demand and population density as
well as carbon tax and restrictions on CO2 emissions and
vehicle costs affect the introduction of hydrogen as fuel for
passenger vehicles. The NorWays project work was following
up on and carried out in close cooperation with the EU
hydrogen roadmap project HyWays [4].
2. Hydrogen’s potential role in Norway
2.1. Norwegian governmental engagement in hydrogen
The Norwegian hydrogen initiative was initially described in
the White Paper ”Hydrogen as the energy carrier of the
future” [14] by the Norwegian Hydrogen Committee. The
Committee set up the following vision for the initiative:
“Sustainable energy technologies will play a significant role
in the consumption of energy and fuels in the future ewhere
use of hydrogen as energy carrier will be pivotal”. The
committee presented the rational in terms of three main
arguments justifying the Norwegian hydrogen initiative:
extensive national resources of natural gas, the environ-
mental arguments and the potential for business develop-
ment. The Government’s response to the Hydrogen
Committee’s report was summarised in the Hydrogen Strategy
[15]. As part of this strategy the national Hydrogen Council
was established and operative from January 2006, to act as
Fig. 1 e Sources of GHG emissions in Norway in 2008 [19].
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 en e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 7 2 6 7e7 2 7 9 7269
an advisory board that will give strategic input to priorities
and further investments in matters related to hydrogen. The
first national Action Plan 2007e2010 for the Norwegian
hydrogen initiative (published December 2006 [16]) provide
detailed recommendations for actions, activities and
measures and pinpoints stakeholders responsible for
implementation.
2.2. The NorWays project providing a national hydrogenroadmap
In the research project NorWays, the overall aim was to
provide decision support for introduction of hydrogen as an
energy carrier in the Norwegian energy system [13].
Important objectives of the NorWays project have been
to develop scenarios, carry out analyses and identify
suitable market segments and regions for introduction of
hydrogen. Furthermore, emphasis was put on identifying
the role of hydrogen in relation to other alternatives and
energy carriers. Active participation of stakeholders has
been an important working methodology of the project in
order to ensure consensus and feedback from industrial
participants related to selection processes, assumptions,
and reliability of results. The NorWays project also
comprised assessments of large scale energy export
options from Norway to continental Europe in the
2020e2030 timeframe [17].
The work presented here supports the main goals of the
NorWays project by developing suitable, regionalized models
for analyzing the introduction of hydrogen as energy carrier in
competition with other alternatives such as natural gas,
electricity, district heating and bio fuels [13]. The work was
carried out in close cooperation with the EU hydrogen road-
map project HyWays [4].
2.3. Most promising market segments for hydrogen inNorway
Norwegian energy production is more than 10 times higher
than the domestic energy consumption [13]. The substantial
oil and gas production is primarily subject to export. Elec-
tricity production in Norway is matching the domestic elec-
tricity demand and is mainly based on renewable energy.
Hydro power currently constitutes around 96% of the total
domestic electricity production capacity [18]. In addition there
is an increasing production of wind power, with an installed
capacity of 385 MW in 2007 (0.9 TWh). The potential for elec-
tricity production from wind is enormous, related to the long
and windy Norwegian coastline especially suited for off-shore
wind installations.
The NorWays study concludes that the potential for
introduction of hydrogen in Norway is high especially in the
transport sector. This is due to the high share of renewable
energy in the stationary energy sector, making the trans-
portation sector take a comparably higher (1/3) share of
Norwegian GHG emissions (Fig. 1) compared to ¼ globally.
Substantial coastal traffic contributes to these high
numbers. Hydrogen may also, to some degree, play a role as
an energy carrier for distributed and remote energy systems
in Norway.
3. Modelling approach
3.1. Model structure
MARKAL (MARKet ALocation model) is a linear partial equi-
librium modelling tool for representing technical economic
aspects of the energy system [20]. In this bottomeup approach
a detailed representation of all energy aspects of the economy
are given, both technically and economically, with resources,
energy carriers and conversion technologies. The model is
demand driven, thus the projected energy demand must be
supplied exogenously to MARKAL and this demand is then
satisfied over the modelling periods at least cost.
MARKAL models can be used for a wide range of applica-
tions such as strategic planning of future energy supply
options, analyses of least cost strategies, the effect of energy
policies andmeasures, examination of the collective potential
of technologies and resources, and evaluation of different
research strategies for energy technologies. In most MARKAL
models, the time period has equal intervals, typically five
years. The analysis period for the three regionalmodels in this
study is from 2010 to 2050 in five years intervals.
The MARKAL model generator provides a framework for
representing a regional energy economy. The reference
energy system (RES) in MARKAL consists of:
e Demand for energy services
e Available energy sources (mining or imports)
e Sinks (exports)
e Technologies
e Commodities
The model boundaries are set by the available sources and
the demand for energy services, as represented by supply and
demand curves, respectively. The available commodities are:
e Energy carriers
e Energy services
e Materials
e Emissions
Technologies are divided into resource, conversion,
process and demand technologies. Resources technologies
i n t e rn a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n en e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 7 2 6 7e7 2 7 97270
handle energy sources and sinks. Conversion technologies
handle conversion of available carriers and resources to
electricity and low temperature heat. Process technologies
handle other conversion between resources and energy
carriers, such as production of high temperature heat or bio
pellets. Demand technologies handle the conversion of
available energy carriers to energy services. The building
blocks of MARKAL, referred to as a Reference Energy System
(RES), is presented in Fig. 2.
As part of the NorWays project a generic regional MARKAL
model was constructed to represent a general region, without
any adaptations or special local conditions. From this generic
model, three regional models were developed. These MARKAL
models have been used to analyse the entire energy system
and compare hydrogen technologies with other options for
transportation applications.
The regional models were divided into urban and rural
areas in order to evaluate different production and distribu-
tion alternatives and demand variations. The model differ-
entiates between a car used in urban and rural areas in order
to take into account the variations in drive cycles. Further,
limitations on options for new technologies in the rural areas
have been set, e.g., hydrogen pipelines to rural areas were not
allowed. Production of hydrogen may occur either at a large
scale plant with distribution to urban and/or rural areas or
locally in smaller scale, see Fig. 3. Hydrogen is modelled as an
energy carrier with dayenight and seasonal storage capacity
adopted from the HyWays project [21]. It is also assumed that
hydrogen would be used mainly in the transportation sector
and therefore the load profile for hydrogen will probably be
uniform on a seasonal basis, but there will be a difference
between the day and night load, hence dayenight storage for
onsite generation was considered.
The regional models take into account different transport
needs in rural and urban areas, as well as local resource
availability. Distributed hydrogen for use in stationary appli-
cation is not included in the current study, because the
demand is expected to be very low, and the necessary infra-
structure investments will be disproportionately high. This is
due to the characteristics of the Norwegian energy system,
Import
-fossil fuels-electricity-bio fuels
Exploitation
-oil-gas
Renewables
-hydro-wind-solar-bio mass
Export
-electricity-oil-gas
Electricity production
Heat production
CHP
Bio mass processing
Hydrogen production
etc.
Ind
-bo-co-fe-en
Tra
-ca-bu-tru-tra
Re
se
-bo-st-el-di-en
Resources
Conversion /
ProcessesDe
Fig. 2 e Simplified structure of the Reference Energy
including the absence of a natural gas distribution grid, low
population density in Norway, in combination with the high
fraction of electricity used for heating solely produced from
hydro power.
Even though hydrogen is not modelled as a possible energy
carrier in the stationary sector, it is still crucial to take into
account both the stationary and the transport sector in an
integrated model, since there is a competition of scare
resources. The infrastructure investments as well as the uti-
lisation of hydrogen production plants are detrimental to the
introduction of hydrogen as an energy carrier. The availability
for e.g., natural gas (NG) in a certain area influences the
selection of energy source for hydrogen production. Thus, any
large scale introduction of hydrogen or electric vehicles will
have a significant impact on the use of energy in stationary
sector.
Liquid H2 was not included as potential energy carrier in
the regional MARKALmodels. This is because the liquefaction
process is a very energy intensive process and requires large
production volumes and large transport distances to become
viable. In a recent study the liquid H2 option was included for
long transport distances and higher supply volumes [22].
These features are, however, not representative for the
Norwegian regions studied here.
3.2. Selection of geographical regions
The rational behind choosing different regions for the anal-
yses in the NorWays project was to assess how the resource
availability and energy end-use demand might influence the
introduction of hydrogen in the energy systemwith respect to
the production and use of hydrogen. To select the three
different regions, a set of criteria characterising the energy
system was identified, such as energy demand, electricity
production, untapped resources, energy infrastructure and
geographical conditions.
In the selection of the three regions, variations in the local
energy resources and energy end-use demand were emphas-
ised, in order to evaluate how these variations influence the
analysis results. For instance, regions with a large potential of
ustry sectors
ilersgenerationed stockergy efficiency etc.
nsport sector
rssescksins etc.
sidential & Service
ctors
ilersovesectric heatingstrict heating ergy efficiency etc.
Heating
Cooling
Power
Transportation
Feed stock
etc.
mand technologiesDemand /
Energy services
System (RES) of the Norwegian MARKAL model.
Bio
NG
NG
NG
H2
H2
pipe
Gas trailer Filling station
Gas storage
Electrolysis
SMR
H2 production
Electrolysis
Bio gasific.
H2
+ el
SMR
SMR CCS
H2
bi-prod
El
Gas trailer Filling station
Gas storage
Electrolysis
SMR
Rural
Urban
Fig. 3 e Modelling of hydrogen in the regional models. Hydrogen production is allowed centrally in large scale units or
locally (onsite) in smaller units.
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 en e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 7 2 6 7e7 2 7 9 7271
wind power, will be able to produce zero-emission hydrogen
based on electricity fromwind power, while areas with access
to natural gas pipeline, as well as possibilities for CCS, can
produce hydrogen fromnatural gas. In other regions hydrogen
is also available as a by-product from industrial processes.
Based on a set of criteria (with available energy sources,
energy demand, population and population density as the
most important), the following three regions were selected, as
illustrated in Fig. 4:
e City Region: The region selected to represent a city area
was Oslo, the capital of Norway with approximately
500 000 inhabitants and no major industry or energy
resources.
e Industry Region: Telemark was selected to represent
a region with heavy chemical industry and sufficient
hydro power but with no potential for wind power or
other renewable energy resources. This region also has
hydrogen available as a by-product from local chemical
industries.
e Energy region: The third region modelled was Rogaland;
a region with significant hydro power and potential for
wind power, a landing of natural gas and the only gas
power plant in Norway.
3.3. Interaction with the infrastructure modelH2INVEST
In addition to the MARKAL model, a hydrogen infrastructure
model calledH2INVESTwas developed in theNorWays project
[13,23]. This infrastructure model optimizes the evolution of
a hydrogen supply infrastructure for a given development in
hydrogen demand. The H2INVEST model has a higher level of
detail for hydrogen technologies and infrastructure, and
includes technical, geographical and economical parameters
in the optimization routine. The models allows for the
screening and analysis of hydrogen supply in the
transportation segment. An example of result from the
H2INVEST model is presented in Fig. 5.
In this study, the MARKAL model for the industry region
(Telemark) was used in connection with the infrastructure
model H2INVEST. As a starting point for the analysis with
H2INVEST it was assumed a gradual increase in hydrogen
penetration to 70% by 2050. To validate and calibrate the
MARKAL assumptions on hydrogen distribution, an iterative
procedure between the infrastructure model H2INVEST and
MARKAL was followed, where the infrastructure model
supplied transport costs and distances to MARKAL and MAR-
KAL returned the hydrogen demand for urban and rural areas
back to the infrastructure model.
The interaction between MARKAL and H2INVEST is
described in the following steps and shown in Fig. 6:
1. Hydrogen technology data from the NorWays database was
implemented in the MARKAL and Infrastructure model
2. A distribution pattern of hydrogen demand to filling
stations (based on results related to penetration rates of
vehicles from the HyWays project) was used as a starting
point for hydrogen demand in the Infrastructure model.
3. Demand for hydrogen by region and type was calculated by
MARKAL (first based on initial assumptions regarding
transport distances) and the resulting hydrogen demand
development was entered into the Infrastructure model.
4. Updated costs and distances for transportation of hydrogen
were calculated by the Infrastructure model and entered
into MARKAL.
5. Four iterations on the revised cost assumptions (3e4) were
completed to obtain a converging solution.
3.3.1. Model calibration resultsAs a starting point for the MARKAL model of Telemark, it was
assumed that H2 is distributed by pipeline (5 km) and trailer
(20 km) in urban areas. In rural areas only trailer distributionwas
anoption,with twodifferent distances and costs (50 and 100 km).
Fig. 4 e Map of Norway showing the three regions analysed in this study e the city region Oslo (blue), the industry region
Telemark (red) and the energy region Rogaland (green) (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the web version of this article).
i n t e rn a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n en e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 7 2 6 7e7 2 7 97272
Results from the H2INVEST model of Telemark, after a few
iterations, gave a total pipeline length in urban areas of
10.2 km, giving a total investment cost of 660 NOK/kW, which
is twice as much as originally assumed. The average distance
for trailer distribution of hydrogen in urban areas was 8.7 km
and the costs and fuel consumption were adjusted corre-
spondingly to 750 NOK/kW and 0.004 kWh diesel/kWh H2. In
rural areas all hydrogen is distributed by trailer and the
average distance was found to be 54 km in 2050. In the MAR-
KAL model this average trailer distance is used (8.7 in urban
and 54 in rural).
The iteration converged to a scenario where the hydrogen
fuel cell vehicles enters the market in 2025 in the urban areas
and in 2030 in the rural areas, and achieves 100% penetration
by 2035 in the urban areas and by 2045 in the rural areas. The
results of the iterations between the MARKAL and H2INVEST
models for Telemark are also used in the MARKAL models for
Rogaland and Oslo.
Another result of the interaction process between the
models was a restriction on the share of hydrogen used in
urban areas that can be transported by pipeline. In Telemark
and Rogaland at least 50% must be locally produced or trans-
ported by trailer and in Oslo the minimum is 5%. The interac-
tions of themodels are used as pre-calculations, completed for
a scenariowithHyWaysassumptions, for the regionTelemark.
4. Assumptions
Key assumptions for the analyses:
� The price of imported and exported electricity is based on
a quota price of 25 V/ton CO2
� The import price of natural gas is a linear interpolation to
2050 when the price is expected to be 100 $/boe [25]
� The crude oil price is expected to be 110 $/barrel in 2050 [25]
� The models includes no possibility to import or export
hydrogen into or out of a region or between regions
� The growth from 2005 to 2050 in the transportation sector is
on average about 40%
Fig. 5 e Example of result from the H2INVEST model for the industry region of Telemark [24].
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 en e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 7 2 6 7e7 2 7 9 7273
The energy demand predictions used in the analyses are
based on the work of the Norwegian Low Emission Commis-
sion [26]. Each major industry was separately handled in the
different regional models. The forecast for energy demand in
the household sector increases according to the population
growth of the middle alternative of Statistics Norway [27] in
each region modelled and with the energy use per capita
assumed to be constant. The expected growth from 2005 to
2050 in the transportation sector is on average about 40%.
The price of imported and exported electricity is based on
a quota price of 25 V/ton CO2. The price of import and export
of electricity fluctuate both by season and by day/night. Prices
are based on forwards in Germany (EEX) and a stakeholder
evaluation within the NorWays project. A fluctuation of 10 V/
MWh over the season for the whole analysis period was
assumed. The day/night fluctuation is assumed to be 25 V/
MWh. The increased price of different biomass products was
based on the same slope as for electricity. The price in 2005
was based on Norwegian statistics.
The natural gas pricewas taken from [25] where the price is
expected to increase to 100 $/boe (18 $/GJ) in 2050. A linear
interpolation of the pricewas usedwith an assumed exchange
rate of 6 NOK/$. All the various petroleum products were
forecasted similar to crude oil in WETO-H2, where the crude
oil price was predicted to be 110 $/barrel (19 $/GJ) in 2050.
The models allow import and export of electricity and bio
energy, however the models do not include the possibility to
import or export hydrogen into or out of a region or between
regions. The existing electricity transmission capacities are
modelled. The bio energy resources of each region are
modelled with possibilities of unlimited import of bio energy
at a higher price.
The regions Telemark and Rogalandmay invest in pipeline
import of natural gas, while Oslo only can choose natural gas
import by ship. The planned pipeline to Sweden, Denmark
and Poland is supposed to be invested in 2010, with
a connection to Telemark. There are no restrictions on
investments in local distribution of natural gas.
Each demand sector has a number of demand technologies
fulfilling the exogenously given demand. Most of the tech-
nology data was based on previous MARKAL models, with
some minor updating [28,29]. Technology data such as
investment cost, operational cost, efficiency, life-time etc. for
most transport technologies as well as production technolo-
gies for hydrogen were gathered in a common spreadsheet
used by all research partners of the NorWays project. The
input to this database was mainly based on the HyWays
project [4], andwhere available, thewidely accepted dataset of
the CONCAWE-EUCAR-JRC [30].
The fuel consumption of internal combustion engine (ICE)
cars is different in urban and rural areas in the MARKAL
analysis. The fuel consumption was based on the manufac-
turer information and the assumption that 70% of the
passenger kilometres are undertaken in cities and 30% at
longer distances (highway) for those living in urban areas. In
rural areas 30% of the travelled distances were assumed to be
in cities and 70% at longer distances. The same shares
between rural and urban travel fuel consumption was
NorWays Interface
MARKAL Infrastructure model
1) Cost/efficiency parameters
4) H2 transport distance/costs/type
Hydrogen demandanalysis
Energy chain calculation
2) H2 demand transport by filling station
3) H2 demand
Fig. 6 e Linking of MARKAL and the H2INVEST models within the NorWays project.
i n t e rn a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n en e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 7 2 6 7e7 2 7 97274
assumed for the natural gas powered ICE car and the
hydrogen combustion car. Fuel consumptions were kept
constant during the whole period.
To calculate the investment cost of H2 vehicles, the pene-
tration rate from HyWays was used. The total number of
hydrogen cars was calculated by the penetration rate, the
projection of population and the projection of number of cars
per inhabitant. The vehicle costs curves have been generated
by individually assessing the cost developments of all major
vehicle components (batteries, motors, tanks, fuel cells, and
power electronics) through learning curves. Most data,
including the progress ratios and the world-wide deployment
volumes come from the HyWays scenario “High policy
support, modest learning” [4]; the basic component costs
come from the CONCAWE-EUCAR-JRC study [30]. The cost of
a hydrogen fuel cell car was gradually decreased from more
than 45 000 V with a cumulative production of 10.000 vehicles
to 25.000 V when the cumulative number of vehicles exceeds
5 millions, as shown in Fig. 7. The cumulative vehicle costs
are combined with the penetration rate to calculate the cost
of hydrogen cars for the analysis period 2010e2050. Table 1
shows the investment and operation and maintenance
costs over time for all cars types as well as the fuel
consumption.
5. Scenario analysis
The rational for developing the regional energy system
models discussed above was to enable robust analyses of how
hydrogen might be introduced in the Norwegian energy
system. These models may be used in conjunction with
various policy scenarios to determine how policy measures
might contribute to an early introduction of hydrogen. To
realize substantial reductions in CO2 emissions in Norway, the
transportation sector must shift from fossil fuels to carbon
free or carbon neutral fuels. The NorWays project included
numerous analyses of which some are presented here. A
series of scenarios were used with the regional models to
determine how taxes, emission constraints and energy prices
may affect the production and use of hydrogen and to identify
the key parameters and conditions to make a profitable
transition to hydrogen powered cars.
5.1. Scenario A e “HyWays”
Scenario A is based on the work of the HyWays project [4]. The
other scenarios below are modifications of this “base case”
scenario. An important input is the deployment of hydrogen
cars at different times and hence the investment cost of
vehicles. Currently, natural gas is exempted from tax in
Norway. No changes in energy policies are assumed, except
that a tax, similar to the gasoline tax, on natural gas for
transportation is included.
5.2. Scenario B e “Neutral taxation”
Scenario B is a No-tax scenario; a pragmatic approach and
a reference for analyzing the effects of taxes on transport
energy. Since less primary energy is used by e.g., electrical
cars than gasoline cars this will not be the same as a revenue
neutral tax system, but it is a simple way to show some of the
effects of taxes on conventional fuels like gasoline, diesel and
natural gas while lowering or removing taxes on alternatives
like hydrogen, bio fuels and electricity.
5.3. Scenario C e “CO2-reduction”
In this scenario a restriction on CO2 emissions starting in 2020
with a 20% reduction compared to 1990 e level was assumed,
followed by a reduction of 66% in 2030 and a linear decrease to
75% reduction in 2050. There were no restrictions on emis-
sions in the period prior to 2020.
5.4. Scenario D e “Fuel prices”
Energy prices may spike significantly, as we have experienced
over the last few years. There are, thus, large uncertainties
related to future fuel prices. The sensitivity of higher prices of
crude oil and natural gas were analysed in different combi-
nations. This assessment reveals that it is the relative changes
in prices between fuel alternatives that are most important in
Fig. 7 e Learning curves adopted from the HyWays project [4].
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 en e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 7 2 6 7e7 2 7 9 7275
these analyses, rather than the absolute price of each energy
carrier. In Scenario D, a sensitivity analysis with a steep
increase of the crude oil price to 200 $/barrel is assessed. The
price of natural gas was assumed to be 70% of the crude oil
price corresponding to 163 $/boe in 2010e2050. The increase
for crude oil was applied for oil products, including the price of
heavy distillate, light distillates, diesel, gasoline and kerosene.
In these analyses the electricity price and the prices of
biomass were kept unchanged.
Table 1 e Investment costs, fuel consumption and fixed opera2030 and 2050.
Investment
NOK/1000 vehicle-km/year
2010 2020 2030 20
H2-ICE 19 196 11 605 11 405 11
H2-ICE Hybrid 25 009 13 607 13 066 12
H2-FC 48 346 12 919 11 824 11
H2-FC Hybrid 52 004 14 208 12 921 12
Gasoline car 11 343 11 343 11 343 11
Gasoline hybrid car 16 927 13 117 12 776 12
Diesel car 12 206 12 206 12 206 12
Diesel hybrid car 17 962 14 151 13 810 13
NG car 12 293 12 293 12 293 12
NG Hybrid car 17 586 13 776 13 434 13
Plug-in Hybrid 24 555 15 821 15 076 14
Battery electric vehicle (Full range) 42 822 20 996 19 180 18
Battery electric vehicle (City) 47 145 24 850 22 985 22
5.5. Scenario E � “Technology costs”
In addition to future energy prices, the future development of
costs of various technologies is difficult to predict. The
assessment included analyses the sensitivity of investment
costs, operation and maintenance (O&M) costs and fuel
consumption of cars. In Scenario E the investment costs of
battery electric vehicles (PHEV), hybrids, and plug-in hybrids
were reduced and the costs of hydrogen powered FC and ICE
tion and maintenance costs of different cars in 2010, 2020,
Consumption Fix O&M
Vehicle-km/MWh NOK/1000 vehicle-km/year
50 2010e2050 2010 2020 2030 2050
299 3830 7365 760 592 429
828 4301 7365 760 592 429
304 2149 571 571 571 571
325 2424 571 571 571 571
343 1895 571 571 571 571
643 2208 571 571 571 571
206 2034 571 571 571 571
677 2465 571 571 571 571
293 1923 571 571 571 571
301 2583 571 571 571 571
786 4267 571 571 571 571
473 6579 286 286 286 286
259 6579 571 571 571 571
i n t e rn a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n en e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 7 2 6 7e7 2 7 97276
cars were increased. The investment cost of PHEV decreased
by 24% in 2010 and approx. 10% in 2020e2050, compared to the
other analyses. In 2010, the investment cost of hybrid cars
decreasedby10%and in 2020e2050by 3%.The investment cost
of HFCV was doubled in 2010 and increased by approx. 10% in
2025e2050. In addition to changes in investment cost, forHFCV
the fuel consumption increased by 30% and the maintenance
cost increased by 133% in 2010, 62% in 2020 and 12% in 2030.
5.6. Reference scenario
In order to quantify the shift in fuels and propulsion tech-
nologies as compared to the transport system of today,
a reference scenario was included, based on the assumptions
of World Energy Outlook [31] assuming that no new transport
technologies are introduced. The baseline of WEO uses 3% bio
fuels, and the rest are petroleum products (roughly equally
shared between gasoline and diesel) converted in ICEs. For
simplicity, equal shares of gasoline and diesel as today were
assumed in the reference scenario of this study.
6. Results and discussion
A series of scenarios have been assessed in the NorWays
project as basis for iterations and discussions in national
workshops and stakeholder validation. A selection of
scenarios (Section 5) and the results thereof are presented
here. In the following the results for each regional model are
presented, seeFig. 8. Thebasecasewith theassumptionsof the
HyWays project (Scenario A) is compared with the alternative
assumptions of scenario BeE. Each region and their charac-
teristics are described in Section 3.2. It should be stressed that
the selected regions were modelled as isolated regions, not
allowing for import or export of hydrogen between regions.
In the following sections the results from each of the three
selected regionsare reviewanddiscussed, followedbysections
evaluating the corresponding changes in primary energy use
(efficiency) as well as preferred energy resources and produc-
tion technologies for hydrogen, respectively (Sections 6.4e6.5).
Finally, the pros and cons of the MARKAL modelling versus
other modelling approaches are elaborated upon.
6.1. City region
This region is characterized by no major industry and limited
availability of energy resources. The modelling results for the
city region (Oslo) show that massive introduction of hydrogen
cars requires strong limitations on CO2 emissions (Scenario C)
or high oil and gas prices (Scenario D). In these scenarios,
hydrogen is produced by gasification of biomass in 2050 and in
2030 local electrolysis is used when the oil and gas prices are
high and central Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) are used in
2030 with limitations on CO2 emissions.
In scenario A (base case) for the city region, bio diesel is
dominating in the mid-term (2030) and in the long term (2050)
plug-in hybrids are preferred. This is due to the high produc-
tion costs of hydrogen, since this region does not produce
electricity and has no major industry to share the cost of
transport of natural gas. If the energy taxes are removed
(Scenario B), natural gas becomes competitive andwill be used
for hydrogen production in 2050.
6.2. Energy region
The surplus of electricity in the energy region (Rogaland)
makes both central and local (onsite) electrolysis most prof-
itable. Somewhat surprisingly, central SMR was the preferred
option for H2 production in 2030 even when NG is subject to
taxation (Scenario A). If the energy taxes are removed
(Scenario B), the use of hydrogen is reduced dramatically and
NG is used in urban areas and gasoline in rural areas. With
strong limitations on CO2 emissions (Scenario C), the use of
hydrogen increases and closely resembles that of Scenario A
(HyWays) for 2030. The taxation of NG and restrictions to CO2
emissions, thus, give significant and similar hydrogen uti-
lisation (ca 60%) whereas neutral taxation (Scenario B) elimi-
nates hydrogen penetration in 2030. In 2030 bio diesel is used
mainly in rural areas while fuel cell cars are in use in urban
areas. In the long term (2050), bio diesel is replaced by
hydrogen and hybrid technologies, but if no taxes are applied
(Scenario B), hydrogen is almost eliminated and NG converted
in ICEs plays a significant role (as a supplement to gasoline
hybrid vehicles) in the energy region of Rogalandwith highNG
availability (at lower cost).
6.3. Industry region
As can be seen from Fig. 8, cars using hydrogen are used in all
scenarios in 2050 in the industry region of Telemark. This is
partly due to the available by-product hydrogen. Conse-
quently, hydrogen powered internal combustion engine cars
are preferred in the middle timeframe (2030) if there are high
limitations on CO2 emissions (Scenario C) or if the car tech-
nology prices are less favourable for fuel cell cars (Scenario E).
The presence of a natural gas pipeline supplying the
chemical industry makes natural gas available at a favourable
price for SMR-plants. As shown in Fig. 8 hydrogen will be
produced in SMR-plants in most scenarios, except with high
natural gas prices (Scenario D). In this case, central electrol-
ysis is used for hydrogen production. With limitations on CO2
emissions, central SMR with CCS of some of the major
industrial emission sources is selected.
6.4. Primary energy use
Compared to the reference scenario (only gasoline and fossil
diesel cars), the reduction in energy use in most scenarios is
substantial (Fig. 8). The exception is the “Neutral taxation”
scenario (B) for which the energy use is somewhat lower for
the City and Industry regions, whereas for the energy region
no significant reduction is seen compared to the reference
case in the 2030 timeframe. Even in the long term (2050) the
reduction in energy use is minor.
Fig. 8 clearly illustrates that the choice of car technology
depends highly on the investment costs. If the cost of
hydrogen cars is higher (Scenario E) than in the base case
battery electric and plug-in hybrids becomemore competitive
and are used in combination with hybrid hydrogen cars and
bio diesel cars in 2050.
Fig. 8 e Snapshot on Energy use, preferred fuels and propulsion technologies (upper diagrams) and production of hydrogen
(lower diagrams) and for the mid-term (2030) and long term (2050) for the city, energy and industry regions, respectively (PJ/
year). The results for Rural and Urban areas are pooled together in the figure, but are commented on in the results and
discussion section.
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 en e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 7 2 6 7e7 2 7 9 7277
6.5. Hydrogen production
The preferred source for hydrogen and hydrogen production
technology vary widely from region to region and between
scenarios (Fig. 8). The studies of the three different types of
regionspoint out the importance of the conditions of hydrogen
production. In case of industry using large amounts of natural
gas, SMR-plants will be able to produce hydrogen at a reason-
able price and with strong limitations on CO2 emissions even
CCSwill be used. On the other hand, if excess/cheap electricity
is available, electrolysis would be the technology selected for
hydrogen production. In a city region with few energy
resources, the more energy efficient electrical cars are
preferred since hydrogen only can be produced at high cost.
In all analyses, high tax differences between fossil fuels
and other fuels (hydrogen, electricity and bio fuels) must be
implemented for new propulsion technologies to be compet-
itive in the mid-term. With limitations on CO2 emissions
hydrogen cars would be used earlier and to a higher extent.
Higher oil and gas prices decrease the use of hydrogen in 2020
and 2030 due to more expensive hydrogen production (elec-
trolysis instead of SMR).
6.6. The pros and cons of MARKAL modelling
Amainadvantageof energy systemmodels suchasMARKAL is
the ability to analyse the total energy system without any
assumptions on penetration rates for specific technologies.
The best technology with respect to economics is obtained
with the MARKAL model. On the other hand, models that are
more detailed in selected areas require the input of expected
penetration ratesandvolumesat specified times.Oneexample
is the H2INVESTmodel, which requires an exogenous demand
of hydrogen and then calculates the most economical way to
produce and distribute the fuel. In contrast, the MARKAL
model endogenously calculates the need for hydrogen based
on demand of transportation and other energy resources. The
H2INVEST model, however, model the different parts of
a hydrogen system in more spatial detail than the MARKAL
model. Consequently, each hydrogen filling station and
transport corridor is modelled in the H2INVESTmodel and the
entire country is modelled with the exchange of hydrogen
between all regions. Models of this type are therefore better
suited to analyse the early introduction of hydrogen than
models like MARKAL. Hence the two models benefit from
exchanging results with each other, and by iteration, more
robust and valid results are achieved. This was the rational for
including both modelling tools (MARKAL and Infrastructure
analysis (H2INVEST)) in the NorWays project [13].
A feature of the MARKAL modelling effort is that the share
of various fuels and propulsion technologies as well as
hydrogen production technologies is individually selected for
each region on a pure economic basis, irrespective of results
from the other regions. So, while e.g., hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles may be the most economic favourable option in one
region, another region may favour other propulsion technol-
ogies (e.g., ICE or battery electric vehicles), and hydrogen
powered vehicles may be completely absent. This is not
i n t e rn a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n en e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 7 2 6 7e7 2 7 97278
a robust solution because certain vehicles can only be used in
some regions and not in others, and this will severely reduce
the customer’s freedom to use the vehicle. Moreover, a refu-
elling infrastructure for hydrogen will either be nationwide or
limited to some regions for fleet vehicle applications (buses,
postal and municipal services etc.).
The present MARKAL studies would be improved if the
exchange of hydrogen and other energy sources between the
regions were allowed. Further, this type of model is not suited
to analyse nichemarkets (except themarket for fleet vehicles)
or the realistic pace of introduction of new technologies, since
100% penetration of the most profitable technology choice is
adopted as quickly as theoretically possible if no limitations
are added. This neglects first of all the fact that production
facilities and supply chains cannot be shifted without causing
time lags, and secondly that consumer behaviour is not only
oriented on costs. Other factors influencing customers when
purchasing a vehicle include societal aspects, like image,
customer convenience and comfort. The higher the
purchasing power, the more the selection of a private vehicle
differs from the most economic option. The technology
development and hence the vehicle performance e.g., vehicle
driving range as well as the availability of a fuelling network
also plays a crucial role. Despite the technology being avail-
able and all other obstacles removed, customer scepticism
towards new, novel technologies, may delay the market
penetration severely. To account for this, one approach would
be agent based modelling [32].
For the modelling work presented here, the only plug-in
alternative vehicle was a hybrid gasoline vehicle. This was
done to limit the possibilities and the analyses would be
improved if several types of plug-in cars were included, since
this technology appears to be one of the greatest competitors
to hydrogen cars.
7. Conclusions
The analyses carried out in this work show that a transition to
a hydrogen fuelled transportation sector could be feasible in
the long run. The iteration between MARKAL and H2INVEST
modelling tools was found to strengthen the robustness of the
results. Under the HyWays assumptions for the Industry
region results converged to a scenario where the HFCVs enter
the market in 2025 in the urban areas and in 2030 in the rural
areas. Full (100%) penetration rate was reached within
a decade, i.e., by 2035 for the urban areas and by 2045 in the
rural areas. These results indicate that with substantial
hydrogen distribution efforts, HFCV can become competitive
compared to other technologies both in urban and rural areas.
However, the deployment will require continued technolog-
ical progress, cost reductions from volume production, and
policies to support the introduction of HFCVs into the market.
The analysis shows the importance of the availability of local
energy resources for hydrogen production, like the advan-
tages of location close to chemical industry or surplus of
renewable electricity.
The results of the MARKAL analysis for the City region,
with no major industry or energy resources, show that the
introduction of HFCV requires strong limitations on CO2
emissions or high oil and gas prices. This is in line with the
results from the corresponding study for Japan by Endo [12]
where HFCV are not competitive before 2050. HFCV become
competitive when fuel prices increase, due to the higher effi-
ciency of HFCV compared to the internal combustion engine,
or with strong CO2-emmission constraints, limiting the use of
all carbon containing fossil fuels.
Both in the Industry and Energy region there is a faster intro-
duction of HFCV then in the city region. In the energy region the
surplus of electricity makes both centralised and onsite water
electrolysis for hydrogen production profitable. The available by-
product in the Industry region at a relatively low-cost makes
hydrogen cars profitable, in 2020 HICEV and in 2025 HFCVs.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the contributions from the
project team, particularly Dr. Ulrich Bunger, at NTNU/LBST,
for his vast knowledge and experience in this research area.
We also appreciate our industrial partners Statoil, Hydro,
Statkraft and Hexagon for supplying the necessary feedback
and the helpful discussions during the project period. The
work presented here has been carried out with financial
support from the Research Council of Norway and the indus-
trial partners, and the support is gratefully acknowledged.
r e f e r e n c e s
[1] STEPS e Sustainable energy transportation pathways, http://steps.ucdavis.edu/.
[2] David L. Greene, Paul N. Leiby, Brian James, Julie Perez,Margo Melendes, Angelia Milbrandt, Stephan Unash,Matthew Hooks, Shawna Mcqueen. In: Sigmund Gronich, dir,editors. “Analysis of transition to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles& the potential hydrogen energy infrastructurerequirements”, ORNL/TM-2008/30.
[3] Transitions to alternative transportation technologies:a focus on hydrogen. Committee on Assessment of ResourceNeeds for Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12222.html.
[4] Hydrogen energy in Europe, integrated project under the 6thFP of the European Commission, www.hyways.de;2004e2007.
[5] IEA-ETSAP Global energy systems and common analyses,final report of Annex X (2005e2008); June 2008.
[6] Energy technology perspectives 2008: scenarios andstrategies to 2050. IEA; 2008.
[7] IEA Energy Technology Analyses series. Prospects forhydrogen and fuel cells. OECD/IEA; 2005.
[8] Tseng P, Lee J, Friley P. A hydrogen economy: opportunitiesand challenges. Energy 2005;30:2703e20.
[9] Contaldi M, Gracceva F, Mattucci A. Hydrogen perspectives inItaly: analysis of possible deployment scenarios.International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2008;33:1630e42.
[10] Contreras A, Guervos E, Posso F. Market penetration analysisof the use of hydrogen in the road transport sector of theMadrid region, using MARKAL. International Journal ofHydrogen Energy 2009;34:13e20.
[11] Krzyzanowski DA, Kypreos S, Barreto L. Supporting hydrogenbased transportation: case studies with Global MARKALmodel. CMS 2008;5:207e2311.
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 en e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 7 2 6 7e7 2 7 9 7279
[12] Endo E. Market penetration analysis of fuel cell vehicles inJapan by using the energy system model MARKAL.International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2007;32:1347e54.
[13] Recommendations to the Norwegian Government for theimplementation of hydrogen as a transportation fuel inNorway Core Message and Executive summary from theNorWays project; May 2009.
[14] Hydrogen as the future energy carrier, vol. 11. NOU; June2004 [in Norwegian].
[15] Hydrogen strategy by the ministry of petroleum and energyand the ministry of transport and communications; August2005.
[16] The Norwegian hydrogen initiative, action plan 2007e2010,Available online at: http://www.forskningsradet.no/servlet/Satellite?c=Nyhet&pagename=hydrogen%2FHovedsidemal&cid=1236265876947&p=1232959058092.
[17] Stiller C, Svensson AM, Møller-Holst S, Bunger U,Espegren KA, Holm ØB, et al. Options for CO2-lean hydrogenexport from Norway to Germany. Energy 2008;33:1623e33.
[18] Fact 2008-energy and water resources in Norway. Ministry ofPetroleum and Energy; September 2008.
[19] StatisticsNorway. Emissions of greenhouse gases, http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/01/04/10/klimagassn_en/; 1990e2008.
[20] Loulou R, Goldstein G, Noble K. Documentation of theMARKAL family of models, Energy Technology SystemsAnalysis Program (ETSAP); October 2004.
[21] Martinus GH, Smekens KEL, Rosler H. Modelling thetransition towards a hydrogen economy. In: ECN report ECN-RXd05-197, presented at 5ht BIEE Academic conference,Oxford, UK, 22e23 September 2005.
[22] Strachan N, Balta-Ozkan N, Joffe D, McGeevor K, Hughes N.Soft-linking energy systems and GIS models to investigate
spatial hydrogen infrastructure development in a low-carbon UK energy system. International Journal of HydrogenEnergy 2009;34:642e57.
[23] Stiller C, Bunger U, Møller-Holst S, Svensson AM,Espegren KA, Nowak M. Pathways to a hydrogen fuelinfrastructure in Norway. International Journal of HydrogenEnergy 2010;35:2597e601.
[24] H2INVEST e the hydrogen infrastructure venture supporttool, www.h2invest.com.
[25] World energy technology outlook e 2050-WETO e H2. EUR22038;, ISBN 92-79-01636-9; 2006. ISSN 1018-5593 Belgium.
[26] NOU 2006:18. A climate friendly Norway; October 2006 [inNorwegian].
[27] Statistics Norway. Population growth, http://www.ssb.no/emner/02/03/folkfram/.
[28] Ettestøl A. Assessing regional low and zero emissionstrategies e a case study of Telemark using the MARKAL,Energy Policy Optimisation Tool, Master Thesis at Energi ogMiljø, NTNU, Kjeller; June 2006.
[29] Rosenberg E, Espegren KA, Finden P, Hagman R, Stenersen D.Reduced GHG emissions 2050: input to the lowemission commission IFE/KR/E-2006/002, Kjeller; 2006[in Norwegian].
[30] Concawe, Eucar, JRC. : Well-to-wheels analysis of futureautomotive fuels and power trains in the European context.Study for the European research branches of the oil andautomobile sectors, http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/wtw.html.
[31] IEA. World energy outlook; 2008.[32] Argonne National Laboratory. Section for decision and
information sciences. Multi-agent simulation of hydrogentransition issues, http://www.dis.anl.gov/news/HydrogenTransitionModeling.html.
Top Related