% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Bongartz:838179,
      author       = {Bongartz, Dominik and Doré, Larissa and Eichler, Katharina
                      and Grube, Thomas and Heuser, Benedikt and Hombach, Laura E.
                      and Robinius, Martin and Pischinger, Stefan and Stolten,
                      Detlef and Walther, Grit and Mitsos, Alexander},
      title        = {{C}omparison of light-duty transportation fuels produced
                      from renewable hydrogen and green carbon dioxide},
      journal      = {Applied energy},
      volume       = {231},
      issn         = {0306-2619},
      address      = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Elsevier Science},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2017-06853},
      pages        = {757 - 767},
      year         = {2018},
      abstract     = {Hydrogen (H2) production through water electrolysis is
                      widely discussed as a means of storing renewable electricity
                      in chemical bonds. Hydrogen can be used for transportation
                      in fuel cell vehicles, but it can also be reacted with
                      carbon dioxide (CO2) to form other fuels. While many
                      concepts have been proposed, detailed comparisons of
                      different pathways are still scarce. Herein, we present a
                      technical, environmental, and economic comparison of direct
                      H2 use in fuel cells, and production of methane, methanol,
                      and dimethyl ether (DME) for use in internal combustion
                      engines for light-duty vehicle applications. The scenario
                      considered uses renewable electricity for water
                      electrolysis, and CO2 which is supplied continuously from
                      biogas upgrading. All four fuels enable significant
                      reductions $(79–93\%)$ in well-to-wheel greenhouse gas
                      emissions as well as pollutant formation compared to fossil
                      fuels, but they require very cheap H2 to be competitive to
                      fossil fuels, confirming intuitive expectations. While
                      direct use of H2 has obvious advantages (no conversion
                      losses, high efficiency of fuel cells compared to internal
                      combustion engines) in terms of overall electricity
                      consumption, emissions, and fuel cost, its drawbacks
                      compared to the other fuels are the need for an H2
                      infrastructure, the high fueling pressure, and lower driving
                      range. Among the three combustion engine fuels, DME has the
                      lowest fuel cost and electricity consumption per distance
                      driven because of the more efficient use of H2 in its
                      production, as well as the highest volumetric energy
                      density, while methane has slightly lower greenhouse gas
                      emissions. Cost and energy demand are dominated by H2
                      supply, meaning that integrated solutions could be more
                      attractive than separate electrolysis and fuel production.},
      cin          = {IEK-3 / JARA-ENERGY / IEK-10},
      ddc          = {620},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-3-20101013 / $I:(DE-82)080011_20140620$ /
                      I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-10-20170217},
      pnm          = {134 - Electrolysis and Hydrogen (POF3-134)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-134},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000452345400057},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.09.106},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/838179},
}