IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v17y2024i5p1151-d1347926.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Techno-Economic Comparison of Low-Carbon Energy Carriers Based on Electricity for Air Mobility

Author

Listed:
  • Jean-Baptiste Jarin

    (Universite de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour, E2S UPPA, CNRS, TREE, 64000 Pau, France)

  • Stéphane Beddok

    (Safran Helicopter Engines, 64510 Bordes, France)

  • Carole Haritchabalet

    (Universite de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour, E2S UPPA, CNRS, TREE, 64000 Pau, France)

Abstract

The decarbonization of air mobility requires the decarbonization of its energy. While biofuels will play an important role, other low-carbon energy carriers based on electricity are considered, such as battery electrification and liquid hydrogen (LH 2 ) or eFuel, a hydrogen-based energy carrier. Each energy carrier has its own conversion steps and losses and its own integration effects with aircraft. These combinations lead to different energy requirements and must be understood in order to compare their cost and CO 2 emissions. Since they are all electricity-based, this study compares these energy carriers using the well-to-rotor methodology when applied to a standard vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) air mobility mission. This novel approach allows one to understand that the choice of energy carrier dictates the propulsive system architecture, leading to integration effects with aircraft, which can significantly change the energy required for the same mission, increasing it from 400 to 2665 kWh. These deviations led to significant differences in CO 2 emissions and costs. Battery electrification is impacted by battery manufacturing but has the lowest electricity consumption. This is an optimum solution, but only until the battery weight can be lifted. In all scenarios, eFuel is more efficient than LH 2 . We conclude that using the most efficient molecule in an aircraft can compensate for the extra energy cost spent on the ground. Finally, we found that, for each of these energy carriers, it is the electricity carbon intensity and price which will dictate the cost and CO 2 emissions of an air mobility mission.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean-Baptiste Jarin & Stéphane Beddok & Carole Haritchabalet, 2024. "Techno-Economic Comparison of Low-Carbon Energy Carriers Based on Electricity for Air Mobility," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-16, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:5:p:1151-:d:1347926
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/5/1151/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/5/1151/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Park, Sung-Won & Son, Sung-Yong, 2023. "Techno-economic analysis for the electric vehicle battery aging management of charge point operator," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    2. Connolly, D. & Mathiesen, B.V. & Ridjan, I., 2014. "A comparison between renewable transport fuels that can supplement or replace biofuels in a 100% renewable energy system," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 110-125.
    3. Jakovljević, Ivan & Mijailović, Radomir & Mirosavljević, Petar, 2018. "Carbon dioxide emission during the life cycle of turbofan aircraft," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 866-875.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Stergios Statharas & Yannis Moysoglou & Pelopidas Siskos & Pantelis Capros, 2021. "Simulating the Evolution of Business Models for Electricity Recharging Infrastructure Development by 2030: A Case Study for Greece," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-24, April.
    2. Olabi, A.G. & Wilberforce, Tabbi & Abdelkareem, Mohammad Ali, 2021. "Fuel cell application in the automotive industry and future perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    3. Sperling, K. & Arler, F., 2020. "Local government innovation in the energy sector: A study of key actors’ strategies and arguments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    4. Mathiesen, B.V. & Lund, H. & Connolly, D. & Wenzel, H. & Østergaard, P.A. & Möller, B. & Nielsen, S. & Ridjan, I. & Karnøe, P. & Sperling, K. & Hvelplund, F.K., 2015. "Smart Energy Systems for coherent 100% renewable energy and transport solutions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 139-154.
    5. Connolly, D. & Lund, H. & Mathiesen, B.V., 2016. "Smart Energy Europe: The technical and economic impact of one potential 100% renewable energy scenario for the European Union," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 1634-1653.
    6. Ajanovic, Amela & Haas, Reinhard, 2016. "Dissemination of electric vehicles in urban areas: Major factors for success," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(P2), pages 1451-1458.
    7. Bellocchi, Sara & De Falco, Marcello & Gambini, Marco & Manno, Michele & Stilo, Tommaso & Vellini, Michela, 2019. "Opportunities for power-to-Gas and Power-to-liquid in CO2-reduced energy scenarios: The Italian case," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 847-861.
    8. Brynolf, Selma & Taljegard, Maria & Grahn, Maria & Hansson, Julia, 2018. "Electrofuels for the transport sector: A review of production costs," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P2), pages 1887-1905.
    9. Shafiei, Ehsan & Davidsdottir, Brynhildur & Leaver, Jonathan & Stefansson, Hlynur & Asgeirsson, Eyjolfur Ingi, 2015. "Comparative analysis of hydrogen, biofuels and electricity transitional pathways to sustainable transport in a renewable-based energy system," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 614-627.
    10. Nguyen, Truong & Gustavsson, Leif, 2020. "Production of district heat, electricity and/or biomotor fuels in renewable-based energy systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    11. Tom Brown & Mirko Schäfer & Martin Greiner, 2019. "Sectoral Interactions as Carbon Dioxide Emissions Approach Zero in a Highly-Renewable European Energy System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-16, March.
    12. Cabrera, Pedro & Lund, Henrik & Carta, José A., 2018. "Smart renewable energy penetration strategies on islands: The case of Gran Canaria," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 421-443.
    13. Gustavsson, Leif & Truong, Nguyen Le, 2016. "Bioenergy pathways for cars: Effects on primary energy use, climate change and energy system integration," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(P3), pages 1779-1789.
    14. David Maya-Drysdale & Louise Krog Jensen & Brian Vad Mathiesen, 2020. "Energy Vision Strategies for the EU Green New Deal: A Case Study of European Cities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, May.
    15. Pinchasik, Daniel Ruben & Hovi, Inger Beate, 2017. "A CO2-fund for the transport industry: The case of Norway," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 186-195.
    16. Eyko Medeiros Rios & Danielle Rodrigues Moraes & Gisele Maria Ribeiro Vieira & Bárbara Noronha Gonçalves & Ronney Arismel Mancebo Boloy, 2022. "Dual-fuel compression-ignition engines fuelled with biofuels. A bibliometric review," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 8-25, March.
    17. Claudiu Vasile Kifor & Alexandru Olteanu & Mihai Zerbes, 2023. "Key Performance Indicators for Smart Energy Systems in Sustainable Universities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-19, January.
    18. Siskos, Pelopidas & Zazias, Georgios & Petropoulos, Apostolos & Evangelopoulou, Stavroula & Capros, Pantelis, 2018. "Implications of delaying transport decarbonisation in the EU: A systems analysis using the PRIMES model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 48-60.
    19. Hagos, Dejene Assefa & Gebremedhin, Alemayehu & Bolkesjø, Torjus Folsland, 2017. "The prospects of bioenergy in the future energy system of Inland Norway," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 78-91.
    20. Deger Saygin & Ruud Kempener & Nicholas Wagner & Maria Ayuso & Dolf Gielen, 2015. "The Implications for Renewable Energy Innovation of Doubling the Share of Renewables in the Global Energy Mix between 2010 and 2030," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-38, June.

    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:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:5:p:1151-:d:1347926. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.