IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i6p1646-d517713.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Investigating the Investments Required to Transition New Zealand’s Heavy-Duty Vehicles to Hydrogen

Author

Listed:
  • Rick Kotze

    (Department of Industrial Engineering and the Centre for Renewable and Sustainable Energy Studies, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa)

  • Alan C. Brent

    (Department of Industrial Engineering and the Centre for Renewable and Sustainable Energy Studies, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa
    Sustainable Energy Systems, School of Engineering and Computer Science, Faculty of Engineering, Victoria University of Wellington, P.O. Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand)

  • Josephine Musango

    (School of Public Leadership, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa)

  • Imke de Kock

    (Department of Industrial Engineering and the Centre for Renewable and Sustainable Energy Studies, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa)

  • Leonard A. Malczynski

    (New Mexico Tech, Engineering Science, Socorro, NM 87801, USA)

Abstract

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector is known to be an important contribution to climate change mitigation. Some parts of the transport sector are particularly difficult to decarbonize; this includes the heavy-duty vehicle sector, which is considered one of the “hard-to-abate” sectors of the economy. Transitioning from diesel trucks to hydrogen fuel cell trucks has been identified as a potential way to decarbonize the sector. However, the current and future costs and efficiencies of the enabling technologies remain unclear. In light of these uncertainties, this paper investigates the investments required to decarbonize New Zealand’s heavy-duty vehicle sector with green hydrogen. By combining system dynamics modelling literature and hydrogen transition modelling literature a customized methodology is developed for modelling hydrogen transitions with system dynamics modelling. Results are presented in terms of the investments required to purchase the hydrogen production capacity and the investments required to supply electricity to the hydrogen production systems. Production capacity investments are found to range between 1.59 and 2.58 billion New Zealand Dollars, and marginal electricity investments are found to range between 4.14 and 7.65 billion New Zealand Dollars. These investments represent scenarios in which 71% to 90% of the heavy-duty vehicle fleet are replaced with fuel cell trucks by 2050. The wide range of these findings reflects the large uncertainties in estimates of how hydrogen technologies will develop over the course of the next thirty years. Policy recommendations are drawn from these results, and a clear opportunity for future work is outlined. Most notably, the results from this study should be compared with research investigating the investments required to decarbonize the heavy-duty vehicle sectors with alternative technologies such as battery-electric trucks, biodiesel, and catenary systems. Such a comparison would ensure that the most cost effective decarbonization strategy is employed.

Suggested Citation

  • Rick Kotze & Alan C. Brent & Josephine Musango & Imke de Kock & Leonard A. Malczynski, 2021. "Investigating the Investments Required to Transition New Zealand’s Heavy-Duty Vehicles to Hydrogen," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-22, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:6:p:1646-:d:517713
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/6/1646/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/6/1646/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Béla Nagy & J Doyne Farmer & Quan M Bui & Jessika E Trancik, 2013. "Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(2), pages 1-7, February.
    2. Markard, Jochen & Truffer, Bernhard, 2008. "Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an integrated framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 596-615, May.
    3. Jochen Markard, 2018. "The next phase of the energy transition and its implications for research and policy," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 3(8), pages 628-633, August.
    4. Mark G. Lawrence & Stefan Schäfer & Helene Muri & Vivian Scott & Andreas Oschlies & Naomi E. Vaughan & Olivier Boucher & Hauke Schmidt & Jim Haywood & Jürgen Scheffran, 2018. "Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-19, December.
    5. Markard, Jochen & Raven, Rob & Truffer, Bernhard, 2012. "Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 955-967.
    6. Sibel Eker & Jill Slinger & Els Daalen & Gönenç Yücel, 2014. "Sensitivity analysis of graphical functions," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 30(3), pages 186-205, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Liu, Haifeng & Ampah, Jeffrey Dankwa & Afrane, Sandylove & Adun, Humphrey & Jin, Chao & Yao, Mingfa, 2023. "Deployment of hydrogen in hard-to-abate transport sectors under limited carbon dioxide removal (CDR): Implications on global energy-land-water system," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    2. Diamantis Koutsandreas & Evangelos Spiliotis & Haris Doukas & John Psarras, 2021. "What Is the Macroeconomic Impact of Higher Decarbonization Speeds? The Case of Greece," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-19, April.

    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. Andersen, Allan Dahl & Markard, Jochen, 2020. "Multi-technology interaction in socio-technical transitions: How recent dynamics in HVDC technology can inform transition theories," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    2. Bento, Nuno & Fontes, Margarida, 2019. "Emergence of floating offshore wind energy: Technology and industry," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 66-82.
    3. Markard, Jochen, 2020. "The life cycle of technological innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    4. Singh, Anuraag & Triulzi, Giorgio & Magee, Christopher L., 2021. "Technological improvement rate predictions for all technologies: Use of patent data and an extended domain description," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    5. Jiang, Syuan-Yi, 2022. "Transition and innovation ecosystem – investigating technologies, focal actors, and institution in eHealth innovations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    6. Markard, Jochen & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Analysis of complementarities: Framework and examples from the energy transition," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 63-75.
    7. Rohe, Sebastian & Oltmer, Marie & Wolter, Hendrik & Gmeiner, Nina & Tschersich , Julia, 2022. "Forever Niche: Why do organic vegetable varieties not diffuse?," Papers in Innovation Studies 2022/8, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    8. Karolina Bähr & Alexander Fliaster, 2023. "The twofold transition: Framing digital innovations and incumbents' value propositions for sustainability," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 920-935, February.
    9. Befort, N., 2020. "Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: The contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    10. Nesari, Mohammad & Naghizadeh, Mohammad & Ghazinoori, Soroush & Manteghi, Manoochehr, 2022. "The evolution of socio-technical transition studies: A scientometric analysis," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    11. Kejia Yang & Johan Schot & Bernhard Truffer, 2020. "Shaping the Directionality of Sustainability Transitions: The Diverging Development Patterns of Solar PV in Two Chinese Provinces," SPRU Working Paper Series 2020-14, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    12. Kadia Georges Aka & François Labelle, 2021. "The Collaborative Process of Sustainable Innovations under the Lens of Actor–Network Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-32, September.
    13. Raven, Rob & Walrave, Bob, 2020. "Overcoming transformational failures through policy mixes in the dynamics of technological innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    14. Dehler-Holland, Joris & Okoh, Marvin & Keles, Dogan, 2022. "Assessing technology legitimacy with topic models and sentiment analysis – The case of wind power in Germany," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    15. Vidushini Siva & Thomas Hoppe & Mansi Jain, 2017. "Green Buildings in Singapore; Analyzing a Frontrunner’s Sectoral Innovation System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-23, May.
    16. Ding, H. & Zhou, D.Q. & Liu, G.Q. & Zhou, P., 2020. "Cost reduction or electricity penetration: Government R&D-induced PV development and future policy schemes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    17. Heiberg, Jonas & Truffer, Bernhard & Binz, Christian, 2022. "Assessing transitions through socio-technical configuration analysis – a methodological framework and a case study in the water sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    18. Leitch, Aletta & Haley, Brendan & Hastings-Simon, Sara, 2019. "Can the oil and gas sector enable geothermal technologies? Socio-technical opportunities and complementarity failures in Alberta, Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 384-395.
    19. Kooijman, Marlous & Hekkert, Marko P. & van Meer, Peter J.K. & Moors, Ellen H.M. & Schellekens, Huub, 2017. "How institutional logics hamper innovation: The case of animal testing," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 70-79.
    20. Kieft, Alco & Harmsen, Robert & Hekkert, Marko P., 2020. "Toward ranking interventions for Technological Innovation Systems via the concept of Leverage Points," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).

    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:14:y:2021:i:6:p:1646-:d:517713. 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.