DAVID KIM · RESEARCH
Student research resource · For policymakers

Clean transportation
decisions & environmental justice

A student research resource for legislators examining battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, their environmental tradeoffs, and the questions that matter to communities.

Prepared by David KimFocus Evidence for reviewLens Environment & care
POLICY GUIDE ↘EXPLORE THE ANALYSIS ↘
POLICY RESOURCE
01 / REVIEW LENS

Start with the whole pathway—and the people affected.

This paper compares vehicle systems, environmental impacts, infrastructure, costs, performance, and safety. The diagrams below make the upstream steps visible; the questions invite local review beyond what the paper itself measures.

A systems view from the paper BEV pathway HFCV pathway
Two routes from energy source to vehicleThe BEV path runs from electricity generation through grid delivery, battery storage, and an electric motor. The HFCV path runs from hydrogen production through storage and transport, a fuel cell, and an electric motor. Upstream energy and production steps affect environmental impacts.BEVElectricitygeneration & gridBatteryenergy storageElectric motorpower conversionVehicleno tailpipe exhaustHFCVHydrogenproduction & deliveryStoragehigh-pressure tankFuel cellelectricity from H₂Motor & vehiclewater at vehicle

Illustrative pathways based on the paper’s system descriptions. They do not quantify community-level exposure or impacts. Environmental outcomes depend in part on how electricity and hydrogen are produced.

01 · Upstream impacts

Where is the energy produced?

How do electricity generation, hydrogen production, and vehicle materials affect emissions and resources across the full lifecycle?

02 · Access & infrastructure

Who can reach the infrastructure?

Where would charging or hydrogen facilities be built, who can use them, and how do construction and access costs shape the options?

03 · Cost & daily use

Who carries the costs?

How might fuel, vehicle, and lifecycle costs affect households, public fleets, and access to lower-emission transportation?

04 · Safety & care

What risks need planning?

How should assessments account for hydrogen storage and leakage, battery hazards, facility safety, and emergency response?

Scope noteThe original paper compares technologies and summarizes cited research. It does not measure local pollution exposure, map infrastructure burdens, or represent the experiences of specific communities. These are questions for additional local evidence and community input.
02 / Research question

Which pathway is more viable?

Which technology offers the more viable pathway toward sustainable transportation: battery electric vehicles or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles?

The paper compares BEVs and HFCVs across environmental impact, energy transport, infrastructure, performance, economics, and safety. It also considers whether solid-state batteries could change the outlook for battery electric vehicles.

03 / SYSTEMS

Two routes to electric drive

Both vehicle types use electric motors. Their key difference is where the electricity comes from and how the vehicle stores energy.

01 · Battery electric vehicle

BEV

Grid
electricity→Battery
pack→Power
controller→Electric
motor→Wheels

An onboard charger converts incoming AC to DC to charge the traction battery. The controller directs electricity to the motor; regenerative braking can return energy to the battery.

02 · Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle

HFCV

Hydrogen
tank→PEM fuel
cell→Electricity
+ water→Electric
motor→Wheels

Hydrogen reacts electrochemically with oxygen in a polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell. A battery commonly captures braking energy and supplements power demand.

Simplified system diagrams based on the paper’s “Basic Mechanics of BEVs and HFCVs” section.

04 / COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Where each system has an advantage

The paper’s conclusion is comparative rather than absolute: BEVs lead on several practical and economic dimensions, while HFCVs retain meaningful performance strengths.

BEV advantages identified

Electricity on the grid

Broader charging access and a more mature transmission network; lower fuel cost in several sources reviewed; lower purchase and lifecycle costs in the paper’s synthesis; and generally stronger environmental performance across the cited assessment categories.

HFCV advantages identified

Hydrogen in the tank

Faster refueling and longer driving range are recurring advantages in the paper. The literature also discusses low-temperature operation and possible suitability for long-distance or heavy-duty use.

Environmental impact in one cited assessment

Bartolozzi et al.’s Tuscany life-cycle case study, reproduced as Table 1 in the paper, reports impacts across eleven categories. These paired values show where the BEV scenario is lower or higher in that assessment; they are not universal vehicle ratings.

BEV scenarioHFCV scenarioEach pair scaled to its own higher value

Source: Bartolozzi et al., Table 5, as reproduced in the paper’s Table 1. Units and reported values are preserved from the paper. Bar lengths compare the two values within each category only; categories use different units and should not be compared to one another.

Other dimensions discussed in the paper
Infrastructure & energy transport

Access and delivery

The paper finds a general consensus that BEVs have more extensive fueling infrastructure and lower facility construction costs. Scholars disagree on hydrogen versus electricity transport efficiency: hydrogen can be efficient in transit, while grid electricity avoids an intermediate conversion and uses more mature infrastructure.

Economics & life cycle

Costs depend on the measure

Fuel cost comparisons vary among sources and depend on assumptions such as energy prices and the basis of comparison. The paper’s overall synthesis finds electricity cheaper as a fuel, alongside lower BEV purchase and lifecycle costs and a wider model selection.

Safety

Different risk profiles

The paper discusses high-pressure hydrogen storage, leakage, and ignition risks alongside battery thermal runaway, electrical hazards, and vehicle crash considerations. Its conclusion describes BEVs as tending to be safer, while recognizing distinct hazards in both systems.

Everyday use

Operating conditions matter

Battery life can be affected by charging practices, long storage, and temperature extremes. The paper also notes fuel-cell dynamic response and durability concerns under rapid acceleration and frequent start-stop driving.

05 / ENVIRONMENT

Tailpipe is only part of the story

The paper separates vehicle exhaust, fuel production, and the materials used in vehicle components. Its comparison cautions that upstream emissions depend on how electricity and hydrogen are produced.

Electricity & battery materials

BEVs have no tailpipe exhaust, but electricity generation can still produce emissions. The paper notes concerns about lithium-ion battery materials such as lithium, nickel, and cobalt and their resource impacts.

Hydrogen production & fuel cells

HFCVs emit water at the vehicle, but hydrogen must be produced and transported. Fossil-powered production can generate pollutants; electrolysis depends on its electricity source and incurs conversion losses. Fuel cells use platinum catalysts.

“Green” outcomes depend on the energy pathway upstream. The paper’s review finds that renewable inputs are central to reducing emissions for either technology.

06 / LITERATURE

Where the literature disagrees

Rather than flattening mixed findings into a single score, the paper preserves several differences in what researchers measure and conclude.

01 · Environmental assessment

Which impact matters?

Some cited assessments favor BEVs for global warming, acidification, and resource depletion. HFCV scenarios perform better in selected toxicity and aquatic ecotoxicity categories in the Tuscany study.

02 · Energy delivery

Transport efficiency

One view emphasizes hydrogen’s efficiency in long-distance distribution; another favors electricity because grid delivery is mature and skips hydrogen production, storage, and transport steps.

03 · Fuel economics

Price per tank or mile?

One study cited argues hydrogen can cost less per full refuel; other sources compare cost per mile and favor BEVs. Different units and assumptions produce different conclusions.

These disagreements are part of the research question: results depend on system boundaries, energy sources, infrastructure assumptions, and the metric being compared.
07 / FUTURE RESEARCH

Solid-state batteries: promise with open questions

The paper reviews solid-state batteries as a potential improvement on today’s lithium-ion batteries, then weighs those possible benefits against technical and manufacturing barriers.

Potential advantages discussed

Why researchers are interested

  • Higher energy density and potentially longer range
  • Faster charge and discharge
  • Longer service life
  • Possible improvement in safety by reducing flammable liquid electrolyte
Challenges discussed

What remains unresolved

  • Ion transport and resistance at material interfaces
  • Dendrite growth, cracking, void formation, and mechanical stability
  • Safety is not yet unequivocally established
  • Manufacturing precision, scale, cost, recycling, and material consistency

The paper’s assessment: SSBs could improve BEV performance across several parameters, but technical feasibility and economical large-scale production remain unresolved.

08 / CONCLUSION
The paper’s conclusion

BEVs hold the broader advantage in this comparison.

The paper concludes that HFCVs refuel faster and tend to offer greater range, while BEVs generally perform better on environmental impact, infrastructure availability, fuel cost, vehicle choice, purchase and lifecycle cost, and safety. That conclusion is qualified by the literature’s disagreements and by the dependence of environmental outcomes on energy sources.

Solid-state batteries may strengthen the BEV pathway, but their potential depends on solving significant safety, materials, and manufacturing challenges.

09 / SOURCES

Research trail

Claims and evidence presented here are drawn from David Kim’s research paper and its cited sources. The paper contains the complete discussion, figures, and Works Cited.

Primary source · Full paper

Comparative Analysis of Battery Electric Vehicles and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles

David Kim · Original research paper

READ THE FULL PAPER ↗DOWNLOAD THE FULL PAPER ↓
Works Cited · 35 sources

Bibliographic entries reproduced from the paper’s Works Cited section.

  1. Ahmad, Zeeshan, et al. “Chemomechanics: friend or foe of the ‘AND problem’ of solid-state batteries?” Current Opinion in Solid State and Materials Science, vol. 26, no. 4, Aug. 2022, pp. 101,002-101,051, ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cossms.2022.101002.
  2. Ajanovic, Amela, and Reinhard Haas. “Economic and Environmental Prospects for Battery Electric‐ and Fuel Cell Vehicles: A Review.” Fuel Cells, vol. 19, no. 5, July 2019, pp. 515–29, Wiley, https://doi.org/10.1002/fuce.201800171.
  3. Ajanovic, Amela, and Reinhard Haas. “Prospects and Impediments for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicles in the Transport Sector.” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 46, no. 16, Apr. 2020, pp. 10049-10058, Tuwiern.ac.at (Vienna University of Technology), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.03.122.
  4. Bartolozzi, Irene, et al. “Comparison between Hydrogen and Electric Vehicles by Life Cycle Assessment: A Case Study in Tuscany, Italy.” Applied Energy, vol. 101, (no no. avail) Jan. 2013, pp. 103–11, academia.edu, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.03.021.
  5. Bates, Alex M., et al. “Are solid-state batteries safer than lithium-ion batteries?” Joule, vol. 6, no, 4, Cell Press, April 2022, Cambridge, MA 02139, pp. 742-755, ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2022.02.007.
  6. Bindra, Ashok. “Electric Vehicle Batteries Eye Solid-State Technology: Prototypes Promise Lower Cost, Faster Charging, and Greater Safety.” IEEE Power Electronics Magazine, vol. 7, no. 1, Mar. 2020, pp. 16-19, (no second container), https://doi.org/10.1109/MPEL.2019.2961203.
  7. Boaretto, Nicola, et al. “Lithium solid-state batteries: State-of-the-art and challenges for materials, interfaces and processing.” Journal of Power Sources, vol. 502, (no no.), Aug. 2021, pp. 1-34, ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2021.229919.
  8. Boz, Bucket, et al. “Review—Electrolyte and Electrode Designs for Enhanced Ion Transport Properties to Enable High Performance Lithium Batteries.” Journal of The Electrochemical Society, vol. 168, no. 9, Sep. 2021, pp. 90501-90526, IOPscience, https://doi.org/ 10.1149/1945-7111/ac1cc3.
  9. Cheng, Xin-Bing, et al. “Dendrite-Free Lithium Deposition Induced by Uniformly Distributed Lithium-Ions for Efficient Lithium Metal Batteries.” Advanced Materials, vol.28, no. 15, 2016, pp. 2888-2895, Wiley, https://doi.org/ 10.1002/adma.20150612.
  10. Doğan Üçok, Mehmet. “Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles.” IICEC (Istanbul International Center for Energy and Climate), Aug. 2019, pp. 1-40, (no second container available) iicec.sabanciuniv.edu/sites/iicec.sabanciuniv.edu/files/2020-11/iicecenergyandclimatepaperhfvcdoganucok_0.pdf
  11. Eaves, Stephen, and James Eaves. “A Cost Comparison of Fuel-Cell and Battery Electric Vehicles.” Journal of Power Sources, vol. 130, nos. 1-2, May 2004, pp. 208–12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2003.12.016.
  12. Faraz, Ahmad, et al. “Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs).” Electric Vehicles. Green Energy and Technology, Patel, Nilay, et al., editors, 26 November 2020, pp. 137-160, Springer, Singapore, ResearchGate, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9251-5_8
  13. Giliomee, Johan H., et al. “Swappable green hydrogen trailers as an additional energy source to electric minibus taxis.” African Transport Studies, vol. 1, [no no.] 2023, pp. 100,001-100,009, ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aftran.2023.100001
  14. Guarnieri, Massimo. "Looking Back to Electric Cars." Third IEEE HISTory of ELectro-technology CONference (HISTELCON), (no vol. or no.), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2012, (no pages), ResearchGate, https://doi.org/10.1109/HISTELCON.2012.6487583
  15. Hatzell, Kelsey, and Yanjie Zheng. “Prospects on large-scale manufacturing of solid-state batteries.” MRS Energy & Sustainability, vol. 8, (no no.), Mar. 2021, pp. 33–39, Springer, https://doi.org/10.1557/s43581-021-00004-w.
  16. Janek, Jürgen, and Wolfgang G. Zeier. “Challenges in Speeding up Solid Sate battery Development.” Nature Energy, vol. 8, no. 3, Feb. 2023, pp. 1-21, ResearchGate, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01208-9
  17. Jiang, Kangrui, et al. “Towards sustainable mobility: A systematic review of hydrogen refueling station security assessment and risk prevention.” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2025, vol.105, January 2025, pp. 1266–1280, ScienceDirect, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036031992500391X?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-8&rr=920705aceaa842fc
  18. Kim, Joo Gon, et al. “A Review of Lithium and Non-Lithium Based Solid State Batteries.” Journal of Power Sources, vol. 282, (no no.), May 2015, pp. 299–322, SienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2015.02.054.
  19. Kjosevski, Stevan, et al. “Risks and Safety Issues Related to Use of Electric and Hybrid Vehicles.” Trans Motauto World, vol. 2, no. 1, 2017, pp. 37–40, stumejournals.com/journals/tm/2017/1/37.
  20. Li, Yanfei, and Farhad Taghizadeh-Hesary. “The Economic Feasibility of Green Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles for Road Transport in China.” Energy Policy, vol. 160, [no no.], Jan. 2022, pp. 112,703-112,746, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112703.
  21. Lindqvist, Hjalmar, and Petter Overby. “A Literature Review of Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engines: An evaluation of recent developments and challenges surrounding the use of hydrogen as fuel in internal combustion engines.” 2024, Master’s thesis in Mobility Engineering, Department of Mechanical and Maritime Sciences Division of Combustion and Propulsion Systems, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, pp. 1-42, pdf.chalmers.se, https://odr.chalmers.se/server/api/core/bitstreams/0c6a0b22-42e4-49cf-a7e2-8d84343f0746/content
  22. Machín, Abniel, et al. “Advancements and Challenges in Solid-State Battery Technology: An In-Depth Review of Solid Electrolytes and Anode Innovations.” Batteries, vol. 10, no. 1, Jan. 2024, pp. 1-36, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, https://doi.org/10.3390/batteries10010029.
  23. Manoharan, Yogesh, et al. “Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles; Current Status and Future Prospect[s].” Appl. Sci., vol.9, no. 11, 2019, article no. 2296 [according to publisher, this journal uses article numbers and not page numbers) [no pages], MDPI, https://doi.org/10.3390/app9112296
  24. Offer, Gregory J., et al. “Comparative Analysis of Battery Electric, Hydrogen Fuel Cell and Hybrid Vehicles in a Future Sustainable Road Transport System.” Energy Policy, vol. 38, no. 1, Jan. 2010, pp. 24–29, ox.ac.uk (Oxford University Press), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.040.
  25. Robinson, Arthur L., and Jürgen Janek. “Solid-State Batteries Enter EV Fray.” Energy Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 12, Dec. 2014, pp. 1046–47, Springer/MRS Bulletin, https://doi.org/10.1557/mrs.2014.285.
  26. Rubaiyat Reza Habib, A. K. M., and Karyssa Butler. “Environmental and Economic Comparison of Hydrogen Fuel Cell and Battery Electric Vehicles.” Future Technology, vol. 1, no. 2, Aug. 2022, pp. 25–33, fupubco, https://doi.org/10.55670/fpll.futech.1.2.3.
  27. Santini, Danilo J. Electric Vehicle Waves of History: Lessons Learned about Market Deployment of Electric Vehicles. Intech, Sep. 2011, (is a book – No pages required) 20file.org, https://doi.org/10.5772/22411. (only use page number if use above quotation)
  28. Sharma,Vikas, et al. “A review on the transition from conventional to bipolar designs of anode-less all-solid-state batteries.” Royal Society of Chemistry, vol. 2024, no. 3, May 2024, pp. 1222-1237, rsc.org, https://doi.org/ 10.1039/D4YA00138A
  29. Sun, Huaihu, et al. “Lithium dendrites in all-solid-state batteries: From formation to suppression.” Battery Energy, vol. 3, no.3, Jan. 2024, (no pp.), Wiley, https://doi.org/10.1002/bte2.20230062.
  30. Thomas, Felix, et al. “Technological Advances and Market Developments of Solid-State Batteries: A Review.” Materials, vol. 17, no. 1, Jan. 2024, pp. 1-29, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17010239.
  31. Ulvestad, Andrew. “A Brief Review of Current Lithium-Ion Battery Technology and Potential Solid-State Battery Technologies.” arXiv, 1803.04317, Mar. 2018, (no pages available) Top of Formhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1803.04317.
  32. United States, United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Smog — Who Does It Hurt? What You Need to Know About Ozone and Your Health.” EPA-452, July 1999, K-99-001, www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-06/documents/smog.pdf.
  33. Yu, Pengli, et al. “Fuel Cell Hybrid Electric Vehicles: A Review of Topologies and Energy Management Strategies.” World Electric Vehicle Journal, vol. 13, no. 9, Sept. 2022, pp. 172-191, MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute), https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj13090172.
  34. Yu, Xiqian, et al. “Battery Safety: From Lithium-Ion to Solid-State Batteries.” Engineering, vol. 21, (no no.), Aug. 2022, pp. 9–14, ScienceDirect,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2022.06.022.
  35. Zhang, Wenyue, et al. “The Alternative Path for Fossil Oil: Electric Vehicles or Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles?” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 341, Sept. 2023, pp. 118,019-118,030, ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118019.