Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-10 (section)

=== 10.3.4 Refuelling and Charging Infrastructure ===

<div id="h2-12-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

The transport sector relies on liquid gasoline, and diesel for land-based transport, jet fuel for aviation, and heavy fuel oil for shipping. Extensive infrastructure for refuelling liquid fossil fuels already exists. Ammonia, synthetic fuels, and biofuels have emerged as alternative fuels for powering combustion engines and turbines used in land, shipping, and aviation (Figure 10.2). Synthetic fuels such as e-methanol and Fischer-Tropsch liquids have similar physical properties and could be used with existing fossil fuel infrastructure ( [[#Yugo--2019|Yugo and Soler, 2019]] ). Similarly, biofuels have been used in several countries together with fossil fuels ( [[#Panoutsou--2021|Panoutsou et al. 2021]] ). Ammonia is a liquid, but only under pressure, and therefore will not be compatible with liquid fossil fuel refuelling infrastructure. Ammonia is, however, widely used as a fertiliser and chemical raw material and 10% of annual ammonia production is transported via sea ( [[#Gallucci--2021|Gallucci 2021]] ). As such, a number of port facilities include ammonia storage and transport infrastructure and the shipping industry has experience in handling ammonia ( [[#Gallucci--2021|Gallucci 2021]] ). This infrastructure would likely need to be extended in order to support the use of ammonia as a fuel for shipping and therefore ports are likely to be the primary sites for these new refuelling facilities.

EVs and HFCV require separate infrastructure than liquid fuels. The successful diffusion of new vehicle technologies is dependent on the preceding deployment of infrastructure ( [[#Leibowicz--2018|Leibowicz 2018]] ), so that the deployment of new charging and refuelling infrastructure will be critical for supporting the uptake of emerging transport technologies like EVs and HFCVs, where it makes sense for each to be deployed. As a result, there is likely a need for simultaneous investment in both infrastructure and vehicle technologies to accelerate decarbonisation of the transport sector.

'''Charging infrastructure.''' Charging infrastructure is important for a number of key reasons. From a consumer perspective, robust and reliable charging infrastructure networks are required to build confidence in the technology and overcome the often-cited barrier of ‘range anxiety’ ( [[#She--2017|She et al. 2017]] ). Range anxiety is where consumers do not have confidence that an EV will meet their driving range requirements. For LDVs, the majority of charging (75–90%) has been reported to take place at or near homes ( [[#Figenbaum--2017|Figenbaum 2017]] ; [[#Webb--2019|Webb et al. 2019]] ; [[#Wenig--2019|Wenig et al. 2019]] ). Charging at home is a particularly significant factor in the adoption of EVs as consumers are less willing to purchase an EV without home charging ( [[#Berkeley--2017|Berkeley et al. 2017]] ; [[#Funke--2017|Funke and Plötz 2017]] ; [[#Nicholas--2017|Nicholas et al. 2017]] ). However, home charging may not be an option for all consumers. For example, apartment dwellers may face specific challenges in installing charging infrastructure ( [[#Hall--2020|Hall and Lutsey 2020]] ). Thus, the provision of public charging infrastructure is another avenue for alleviating range anxiety, facilitating longer distance travel in EVs, and in turn, encouraging adoption ( [[#Hall--2017|Hall and Lutsey 2017]] ; [[#Melliger--2018|Melliger et al. 2018]] ; [[#Narassimhan--2018|Narassimhan and Johnson 2018]] ; [[#Melton--2020|Melton et al. 2020]] ). Currently, approximately 10% of charging occurs at public locations, roughly split equally between alternating current (AC) (slower) and direct current (DC) (fast) charging ( [[#Figenbaum--2017|Figenbaum 2017]] ; [[#Webb--2019|Webb et al. 2019]] ; [[#Wenig--2019|Wenig et al. 2019]] ). Deploying charging infrastructure at workplaces and commuter car parks is also important, particularly as vehicles are parked at these locations for many hours. Indeed, around 15–30% of EV charging currently occurs at these locations ( [[#Figenbaum--2017|Figenbaum 2017]] ; [[#Webb--2019|Webb et al. 2019]] ; [[#Wenig--2019|Wenig et al. 2019]] ). It has been suggested that automakers and utilities could provide support for the installation of home charging infrastructure ( [[#Hardman--2018|Hardman et al. 2018]] ), while policymakers can provide support for public charging. Such support could come via supportive planning policy, building regulations, and financial support. Policy support could also incentivise the deployment of charging stations at workplaces and commuter car parks. Charging at these locations would have the added benefit of using excess solar energy generated during the day ( [[#Hardman--2018|Hardman et al. 2018]] ; [[#Webb--2019|Webb et al. 2019]] ).

While charging infrastructure is of high importance for the electrification of light-duty vehicles, arguably it is even more important for heavy-duty vehicles, given the costs of high-power charging infrastructure. It is estimated that the installed cost of fast-charging hardware can vary between approximately USD45,000 to USD200,000 per charger, depending on the charging rate, the number of chargers per site, and other site conditions ( [[#Hall--2019|Hall and Lutsey 2019]] ; [[#Nelder--2019|Nelder and Rogers 2019]] ; [[#Nicholas--2019|Nicholas 2019]] ). Deployment of shared charging infrastructure at key transport hubs, such as bus and truck depots, freight distribution centres, marine shipping ports and airports, can encourage a transition to electric vehicles across the heavy transport segments. Furthermore, if charging infrastructure sites are designed to cater for both light- and heavy-duty vehicles, infrastructure costs could decrease by increasing utilisation across multiple applications and/or fleets ( [[#Nelder--2019|Nelder and Rogers 2019]] ).

There are two types of charging infrastructure for electric vehicles: conductive charging involving a physical connection and wireless/induction charging. The majority of charging infrastructure deployed today for light- and heavy-duty vehicles is conductive. However, wireless charging technologies are beginning to emerge – particularly for applications like bus rapid transit – with vehicles able to charge autonomously while parked and/or in motion ( [[#IRENA--2019|IRENA 2019]] ). For road vehicles, electric road systems, or road electrification, is also emerging as an alternative form of conductive charging infrastructure that replaces a physical plug ( [[#Ainalis--2020|Ainalis et al. 2020]] ; [[#Hill--2020|Hill et al. 2020]] ). This type of charging infrastructure is particularly relevant for road freight where load demand is higher. Road electrification can take the form of a charging rail built into the road pavement, run along the side of the road, through overhead catenary power lines – similar to electrical infrastructure used for rail – or at recharging facilities at stations along the route. This infrastructure can also be used to directly power other electrified powertrains, such as hybrid and HFCV ( [[#Hardman--2018|Hardman et al. 2018]] ; [[#Hill--2020|Hill et al. 2020]] ).

Charging infrastructure also varies in terms of the level of charging power. For light vehicles, charging infrastructure is generally up to 350 kW, which provides approximately 350 kilometres for every 10 minutes of charging. For larger vehicles, like buses and trucks, charging infrastructure is generally up to 600 kW, providing around 50–100 km for every 10 minutes of charging (depending on the size of the vehicle). Finally, even higher-power charging infrastructure is currently being developed at rates greater than 1 MW, particularly for long-haul trucks and for short-haul marine shipping and aviation. For example, one of the largest electric ferries in the world, currently operating in Denmark, uses a 4.4 MW charger ( [[#Heinemann--2020|Heinemann et al. 2020]] ).

Finally, there are several different charging standards, varying across transport segments and across geographical locations. Like electrical appliances, different EV charging connectors and sockets have emerged in different regions, such as CCS2 in Europe ( [[#ECA--2021|ECA 2021]] ), GB/T in China ( [[#Hove--2019|Hove and Sandalow 2019]] ). Achieving interoperability between charging stations is seen as another important issue for policymakers to address to provide transparent data to the market on where EV chargers are located and a consistent approach to paying for charging sessions ( [[#van%20der%20Kam--2020|van der Kam and Bekkers 2020]] ). Interoperability could also play an important role in enabling smart charging infrastructure ( [[#Neaimeh--2020|Neaimeh and Andersen 2020]] ).

'''Smart charging: electric vehicle-grid integration strategies.''' EVs provide several opportunities for supporting electricity grids if appropriately integrated. Conversely, a lack of integration could negatively affect the grid, particularly if several vehicles are charged in parallel at higher charging rates during peak demand periods ( [[#Webb--2019|Webb et al. 2019]] ; [[#Jochem--2021|Jochem et al. 2021]] ). There are three primary approaches to EV charging. In unmanaged charging, EVs are charged ad hoc, whenever connected, regardless of conditions on the broader electricity grid ( [[#Webb--2019|Webb et al. 2019]] ; [[#Jochem--2021|Jochem et al. 2021]] ). Second, in managed charging, EVs are charged during periods beneficial to the grid, e.g., at periods of high renewable generation and/or low demand. Managed charging also allows utilities to regulate the rate of charge and can thus provide frequency and regulation services to the grid ( [[#Weis--2014|Weis et al. 2014]] ). Finally, in bidirectional charging or vehicle-to-grid (V2G), EVs are generally subject to managed charging, but an extension provides the ability to export electricity from the vehicle’s battery back to the building and/or wider electricity grid ( [[#Ercan--2016|Ercan et al. 2016]] ; [[#Noel--2019|Noel et al. 2019]] ; [[#Jochem--2021|Jochem et al. 2021]] ). The term ‘smart charging’ has become an umbrella term to encompass both managed charging (often referred to as V1G) and V2G. For electric utilities, smart charging strategies can provide back-up power, support load balancing, reduce peak loads ( [[#Zhuk--2016|Zhuk et al. 2016]] ; [[#Noel--2019|Noel et al. 2019]] ; [[#Jochem--2021|Jochem et al. 2021]] ), reduce the uncertainty in forecasts of daily and hourly electrical loads ( [[#Peng--2012|Peng et al. 2012]] ), and allow greater utilisation of generation capacity ( [[#Hajimiragha--2010|Hajimiragha et al. 2010]] ; [[#Madzharov--2014|Madzharov et al. 2014]] ).

Smart charging strategies can also enhance the climate benefits of EVs ( [[#Yuan--2021|Yuan et al. 2021]] ). Controlled charging can help avoid high-carbon electricity sources, decarbonisation of the ancillary service markets, or peak shaving of high-carbon electricity sources ( [[#Jochem--2021|Jochem et al. 2021]] ). V2G-capable EVs can result in even lower total emissions, particularly when compared to other alternatives ( [[#Reddy--2016|Reddy et al. 2016]] ). [[#Noel--2019|Noel et al. (2019)]] analysed V2G pathways in Denmark and noted that at a penetration rate of 75% by 2030, USD34 billion in social benefits could be accrued (through things like displaced pollution). These social benefits translate to USD1,200 per vehicle. V2G-capable EVs were found to have the potential to reduce carbon emissions compared to a conventional gasoline vehicle by up to 59%, assuming optimised charging schedules ( [[#Hoehne--2016|Hoehne and Chester 2016]] ).

Projections of energy storage suggest smart charging strategies will come to play a significant role in future energy systems. Assessment of different energy storage technologies for Europe showed that V2G offered the most storage potential compared to other options and could account for 200 GW of installed capacity by 2060, whereas utility-scale batteries and pumped hydro storage could provide 160 GW of storage capacity ( [[#Després--2017|Després et al. 2017]] ). Another study found that EVs with controlled charging could provide similar services to stationary storage but at a far lower cost ( [[#Coignard--2018|Coignard et al. 2018]] ). While most deployments of smart charging strategies are still at the pilot stage, the number of projects continues to expand, with the V2G Hub documenting at least 90 V2G projects across 22 countries in 2021 (Vehicle to Grid 2021). Policymakers have an important role in facilitating collaboration between vehicle manufacturers, electricity utilities, infrastructure providers, and consumers to enable smart charging strategies and ensure EVs can support grid stability and the uptake of renewable energy. This is a critical part of decarbonising transport.

'''Hydrogen infrastructure.''' HFCVs are reliant on the development of widespread and convenient hydrogen refuelling stations ( [[#FCHEA--2019|FCHEA 2019]] ; [[#IEA--2019c|IEA 2019c]] ; [[#BNEF--2020|BNEF 2020]] ). Globally, there are around 540 hydrogen refuelling stations, with the majority located in North America, Europe, Japan, and China ( [[#IEA--2021a|IEA 2021a]] ). Approximately 70% of these refuelling stations are open to the public ( [[#Coignard--2018|Coignard et al. 2018]] ). Typical refuelling stations currently have a refuelling capacity of 100 to 350 kg/day ( [[#CARB--2019|CARB 2019]] ; [[#CARB--2020|CARB 2020]] ; [[#H2%20Tools--2020|H2 Tools 2020]] ; [[#AFDC--2021|AFDC 2021]] ). At most, current hydrogen refuelling stations have daily capacities under 500 kg a day ( [[#Liu--2020b|Liu et al. 2020b]] ).

The design of hydrogen refuelling stations depends on the choice of methods for hydrogen supply and delivery, compression and storage, and the dispensing strategy. Hydrogen supply could happen via on-site production or via transport and delivery of hydrogen produced off-site. At the compression stage, hydrogen is compressed to achieve the pressure needed for economic stationary and vehicle storage. This pressure depends on the storage strategy. Hydrogen can be stored as a liquid or a gas. Hydrogen can also be dispensed to vehicles as a gas or a liquid, depending on the design of the vehicles (though it tests the extremes of temperature range and storage capacity for an industrial product). The technological and economic development of each of these components continues to be researched.

If hydrogen is produced off site in a large centralised plant, it must be stored and delivered to refuelling stations. The cost of hydrogen delivery depends on the amount of hydrogen delivered, the delivery distance, the storage method (compressed gas or cryogenic liquid), and the delivery mode (truck or pipeline). Table 10.6 describes the three primary options for hydrogen delivery. Most hydrogen refuelling stations today are supplied by trucks and, very occasionally, hydrogen pipelines. Gaseous tube trailers could also be used to deliver hydrogen in the near term, or over shorter distances, due to the low fixed cost (although the variable cost is high). Both liquefied truck trailers and pipelines are recognised as options in the medium to long term as they have higher capacities and lower costs over longer distances ( [[#FCHJU--2019|FCHJU 2019]] ; [[#Li--2020|Li et al. 2020]] ; [[#EU--2021|EU 2021]] ). Alternatively, hydrogen can be produced on site using a small-scale on-site electrolyser or steam methane reforming unit combined with CCS. Hydrogen is generally dispensed to vehicles as a compressed gas at pressures 350 or 700 bar, or as liquified hydrogen at –253°C ( [[#Hydrogen%20Council--2020|Hydrogen Council 2020]] ).

'''Table 10.6 | Overview of three transport technologies for hydrogen delivery in the transport sector showing relative differences.''' Source: [[#IEA--2019c|IEA (2019c)]] .

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|
| '''Capacity'''

| '''Delivery distance'''

| '''Energy loss'''

| '''Fixed costs'''

| '''Variable costs'''

| '''Deployment phase'''

|-
| Gaseous tube trailers

| Low

| Low

| Low

| Low

| High

| Near term

|-
| Liquefied truck trailers

| Medium

| High

| High

| Medium

| Medium

| Medium to long term

|-
| Hydrogen pipelines

| High

| High

| Low

| High

| Low

| Medium to long term

|}

The costs for hydrogen refuelling stations vary widely and remain uncertain for the future ( [[#IEA--2019c|IEA 2019c]] ). The IEA reports that the investment cost for one hydrogen refuelling station ranges between USD0.6 million and USD2 million for hydrogen at a pressure of 700 bar and a delivery capacity of 1300 kg per day. The investment cost of hydrogen refuelling stations with lower refuelling capacities (~50 kg H 2 per day) delivered at lower pressure (350 bar) range between USD0.15–1.6 million. A separate estimate by the International Council for Clean Transport suggests that at a capacity of 600 kg of hydrogen per day, the capital cost of a single refuelling station would be approximately USD1.8 million ( [[#ICCT--2017|ICCT 2017]] ). Given the high investment costs for hydrogen refuelling stations, low utilisation can translate into a high price for delivered hydrogen. In Europe, most pumps operate at less than 10% capacity. For small refuelling stations with a capacity of 50 kg H 2 per day, this utilisation rate translates to a high price of around USD15–25 per kg H 2 – in line with current retail prices ( [[#IEA--2019c|IEA 2019c]] ). The dispensed cost of hydrogen is also highly correlated with the cost of electricity, when H 2 is produced using electrolysis, which is required to produce low-carbon hydrogen.

<div id="10.4" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="decarbonisation-of-land-based-transport"></span>