Delivered Cost and Production-Stage Emissions of Nuclear-Produced Hydrogen for Fuel Cell Vehicles: A Model-Based Case Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66173/jenmas.2026.283Keywords:
Fuel cell vehicles (FCV), Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV),, Nuclear hydrogen production, Well-to-wheel emissions, Techno-economic analysisAbstract
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) offer a low-emission alternative to petroleum-based transport, and nuclear energy has been proposed as a low-carbon, continuous-supply feedstock capable of meeting projected hydrogen demand growth. Existing literature addresses nuclear hydrogen production and FCV performance largely from either a production-side or vehicle-side perspective; while some studies extend past the plant gate into transport or full-chain emissions, the studies identified in this review do not jointly harmonize cost and environmental accounting for a matched reactor–vehicle configuration. This paper presents an integrated techno-economic and environmental case study of nuclear-produced hydrogen for FCVs, using a light water reactor-integrated high-temperature steam electrolysis (HTSE) plant paired with a passenger FCV as a representative configuration, informed by a review of the existing techno-economic and environmental literature on nuclear hydrogen production and FCVs. Harmonized to a common reference year, plant-gate production cost is $2.40/kg, rising to $13.76–22.22/kg delivered (40% station utilization base case) once transportation, storage, and station dispensing, the dominant cost driver, calculated using Argonne's HRSAM model, are included. Well-to-gate emissions, calculated using Argonne's 45VH2-GREET 2023 model, are 0.10 kg CO₂-eq/kg H₂, corresponding to production-stage emissions of 1.4 g CO₂-eq/mile. For comparison, using GREET 2023 fuel-cycle electricity emission factors, the representative BEV produces 105.5 g CO₂-eq/mile on the U.S. average electricity mix and 0.66 g CO₂-eq/mile under the LWR nuclear-electricity scenario. These results demonstrate the strong influence of electricity supply on BEV emissions; however, the FCV and BEV values represent different stages of the respective energy pathways and should not be interpreted as a fully harmonized vehicle-level life-cycle comparison. Within this specific configuration, nuclear-coupled hydrogen has a substantially lower estimated delivered cost than the most recent available retail benchmark, while dispensing infrastructure and policy conditions remain important determinants of its economic competitiveness. These findings are illustrative of one representative case and should not be generalized across reactor types, delivery configurations, or vehicle segments; harmonized data across additional configurations remain a priority for future work.
References
[1] International Energy Agency. (2022). Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector. Paris: IEA. https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 (accessed September 28, 2026).
[2] International Atomic Energy Agency. (2024). Assessing Technical and Economic Aspects of Nuclear Hydrogen Production for Near Term Deployment (IAEA TECDOC-2075). Vienna: IAEA. https://doi.org/10.61092/iaea.8uf6-pfqz
[3] World Nuclear Association. ((2024, May 17). Hydrogen Production and Uses. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/hydrogen-production-and-uses (accessed September 28, 2026).
[4] International Atomic Energy Agency. (2020, September). More Than Just a Power Source. IAEA Bulletin, 61(3). https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/more-than-just-a-power-source (accessed September 28, 2026).
[5] International Atomic Energy Agency. (n.d.). Nuclear Hydrogen Production. IAEA Topics. https://www.iaea.org/topics/non-electric-applications/nuclear-hydrogen-production (accessed September 28, 2026).
[6] U.S. Department of Energy. (2024). Hydrogen Shot: Water Electrolysis Technology Assessment. Washington, DC: DOE. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/hydrogen-shot-water-electrolysis-technology-assessment.pdf (accessed September 28, 2026).
[7] Wendt, D. S., Knighton, L. T., & Boardman, R. D. (2022). High-Temperature Steam Electrolysis Process Performance and Cost Estimates (INL/RPT-22-66117, Revision 0). Idaho National Laboratory. https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/content/uploads/50/2026/04/Sort_60759.pdf (accessed September 28, 2026).
[8] Nemitallah, M., Alnazha, A. A., Ahmed, U., El-Adawy, M., & Habib, M. A. (2024). Review on technoeconomics of hydrogen production using current and emerging processes: Status and perspectives. Results in Engineering, 21, Article 101890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2024.101890
[9] Halder, P., Babaie, M., Salek, F., Shah, K., Stevanovic, S., Bodisco, T., & Zare, A. (2024). Performance, emissions and economic analyses of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 199, Article 114543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114543
[10] Mohideen, M. M., Subramanian, B., Sun, J., Ge, J., Guo, H., Radhamani, A. V., Ramakrishna, S., & Liu, Y. (2023). Techno-economic analysis of different shades of renewable and non-renewable energy-based hydrogen for fuel cell electric vehicles. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 174, Article 113153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113153
[11] Lyu, R., Wang, Z., & Zhang, Z. (2025). Life Cycle Assessment Based on Whole Industry Chain Assessment of FCEVs. Sustainability, 17(12), 5431. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17125431
[12] Li, Z., Huang, S., Liu, X., & Wu, H. (2024). "Energy-environment" life cycle assessment and comparison of a nuclear-based hydrogen production system. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.11.274
[13] Rocha, F., Georgiadis, C., Van Droogenbroek, K., Delmelle, R., Pinon, X., Pyka, G., Kerckhofs, G., Egert, F., Razmjooei, F., Ansar, S., Mitsushima, S., & Proost, J. (2024). Proton exchange membrane-like alkaline water electrolysis using flow-engineered three-dimensional electrodes. Nature Communications, 15, Article 7444. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-51704-z
[14] Liu, L. H., Khan, M., & Hsiao, B. S. (2024). Recent Advances and Challenges in Anion Exchange Membranes Development/Application for Water Electrolysis: A Review. Membranes, 14(4), 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes14040085
[15] Zubair, M., & Sajna, M. S. (2026). Integration of electrolytic hydrogen production with the Barakah APR1400 nuclear power facility. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 254, 156323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2026.156323
[16] Wang, T., Cao, X., & Jiao, L. (2022). PEM water electrolysis for hydrogen production: fundamentals, advances, and prospects. Carbon Neutrality, 1, Article 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43979-022-00022-8
[17] Xi, B., Feng, T., & Zhang, T. (2025). Hydrogen Energy: Hydrogen Production through Water Electrolysis Technology. Frontiers in Sustainable Development, 5(2), 83-87. https://doi.org/10.54691/sw3j3m37
[18] An, L., Wei, C., Lu, M., Liu, H., Chen, Y., Scherer, G., Fisher, A., Xi, P., Xu, Z. J., & Yan, C. (2021). Recent Development of Oxygen Evolution Electrocatalysts in Acidic Environment. Advanced Materials, 33(20), Article 2006328. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202006328
[19] Wang, J., Yang, J., Feng, Y., Hua, J., Chen, Z., Liao, M., Zhang, J., & Qin, J. (2025). Comparative experimental study of alkaline and proton exchange membrane water electrolysis for green hydrogen production. Applied Energy, 379, Article 124936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124936
[20] Azam, A. M. I. N., Li, N. K., Zulkefli, N. N., Masdar, M. S., Majlan, E., Baharuddin, N. A., Zainoodin, A. M., Yunus, R. M., Shamsul, N. S., Husaini, T., & Shaffee, S. N. A. (2023). Parametric Study and Electrocatalyst of Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) Electrolysis Performance. Polymers, 15(3), 560. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15030560
[21] Wang, X., Star, A., & Ahluwalia, R. (2023). Performance of Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Water Electrolysis Systems: Configuration, Stack Materials, Turndown and Efficiency. Energies, 16(13), 4964. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16134964
[22] Alabbadi, A. A., & Alzahrani, A. A. (2024). Nuclear hydrogen production using PEM electrolysis integrated with APR1400 power plant. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 60, 241-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.02.133
[23] Chen, Z., Su, C., Zhan, H., Chen, L., Wang, W., Zhang, H., Chen, X., Sun, C., Kong, Y., Yang, L., Du, X., & Zhang, N. (2024). Thermodynamic and economic analyses of nuclear power plant integrating with seawater desalination and hydrogen production for peak shaving. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 82, 1372-1388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.08.055
[24] Vostakola, F. M., Ozcan, H., El-Emam, R., & Horri, B. A. (2023). Recent Advances in High-Temperature Steam Electrolysis with Solid Oxide Electrolysers for Green Hydrogen Production. Energies, 16(8), 3327. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16083327
[25] Yuan, J., Li, Z., Yuan, B., Xiao, G., Li, T., & Wang, J.-Q. (2023). Optimization of High-Temperature Electrolysis System for Hydrogen Production Considering High-Temperature Degradation. Energies, 16(6), 2616. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16062616
[26] Safari, F., & Dincer, I. (2020). A review and comparative evaluation of thermochemical water splitting cycles for hydrogen production. Energy Conversion and Management, 205, Article 112182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112182
[27] Hercog, J., Kupecki, J., Świątkowski, B., Kowalik, P., Boettcher, A., Malesa, J., Skrzypek, E., Skrzypek, M., Muszyński, D., & Tchorek, G. (2023). Advancing production of hydrogen using nuclear cycles - integration of high temperature gas-cooled reactors with thermochemical water splitting cycles. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 52, 1070-1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.06.333
[28] Zhang, J., He, Y., Zeng, J., Song, W., Weng, W., & Wang, Z. (2025). Updating and 24 H Testing of State Key Laboratory of Clean Energy Utilization's Thermochemical Iodine-Sulfur Cycle Water-Splitting Hydrogen Production System. Applied Sciences, 15(9), 5183. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15095183
[29] Ni, H., Qu, X., Zhao, G., Zhang, P., & Peng, W. (2024). Research on two novel hydrogen-electricity-heat polygeneration systems using very-high-temperature gas-cooled reactor and hybrid-sulfur cycle. Energy, 290, Article 130187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.130187
[30] Ghorbani, B., Zendehboudi, S., Zhang, Y., Zarrin, H., & Chatzis, I. (2023). Thermochemical watersplitting structures for hydrogen production: Thermodynamic, economic, and environmental impacts. Energy Conversion and Management, 297, Article 117599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.117599
[31] Corgnale, C., Gorensek, M., & Summers, W. (2020). Review of Sulfuric Acid Decomposition Processes for Sulfur-Based Thermochemical Hydrogen Production Cycles. Processes, 8(11), 1383. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr8111383
[32] Delgado, H. E., Cappello, V., Zang, G., Sun, P., Ng, C., Vyawahare, P., Elgowainy, A., Wendt, D., Boardman, R., & Marcinkoski, J. (2023). Techno-economic analysis and life cycle analysis of e-fuel production using nuclear energy. Journal of CO2 Utilization, 72, Article 102481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2023.102481
[33] Mendrela, P., Stanek, W., & Simla, T. (2023). Sustainability assessment of hydrogen production based on nuclear energy. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 49, 729-744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.07.156
[34] Aydin, M., & Dincer, I. (2022). An assessment study on various clean hydrogen production methods. Energy, 245, Article 123090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.123090
[35] Karaca, A., Dincer, I., & Gu, J. (2020). Life cycle assessment study on nuclear based sustainable hydrogen production options. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 45, 22148-22159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.06.030
[36] Ji, M., Shi, M., & Wang, J. (2023). Life cycle assessment of nuclear hydrogen production processes based on high temperature gas-cooled reactor. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 48, 22302-22318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.03.140
[37] Halder, P., Babaie, M., Salek, F., Haque, N., Savage, R., Stevanovic, S., Bodisco, T., & Zare, A. (2023). Advancements in hydrogen production, storage, distribution and refuelling for a sustainable transport sector: Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 52, 973-1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.07.204
[38] Reddi, K., Elgowainy, A., Rustagi, N., & Gupta, E. (2017). Impact of Hydrogen Refueling Configurations and Market Parameters on the Refueling Cost of Hydrogen. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 42(36), 21855-21865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.05.122
[39] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): All Items in U.S. City Average, Not Seasonally Adjusted (Series CUUR0000SA0). U.S. Department of Labor. https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SA0 (accessed September 28, 2026).
[40] Graves, F., Figueroa, J., Sreenath, R., Sala, L., Grove, J., & Thumb, S. (2024). Emerging Economics of Hydrogen Production and Delivery. The Brattle Group, commissioned by Environmental Defense Fund. https://www.brattle.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Emerging-Economics-of-Hydrogen-Production-and-Delivery-2-2024.pdf (accessed September 2, 2026)
[41] Argonne National Laboratory. (n.d.). Hydrogen Refueling Station Analysis Model (HRSAM), Version 2.0 [Computer software]. Hydrogen Delivery Infrastructure Analysis, U.S. Department of Energy. https://hdsam.es.anl.gov/index.php?content=hrsam (accessed September 28, 2026)
[42] U.S. Department of Energy & U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2026). 2026 Toyota Mirai [Fuel economy data]. FuelEconomy.gov. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=50311 (accessed September 28, 2026).
[43] Argonne National Laboratory. (2023). 45VH2-GREET (Rev. December 2023) [Computer software]. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. https://www.energy.gov/eere/greet (accessed September 28, 2026).
[44] U.S. Department of Energy & U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2026). 2026 Tesla Model 3 Standard RWD [Fuel economy data]. FuelEconomy.gov. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/50251.shtml (accessed September 28, 2026).
[45] Hydrogen Central. (2024, October 2). California hydrogen pump prices for light-duty vehicles reach new highs. https://hydrogen-central.com/california-hydrogen-pump-prices-for-light-duty-vehicles-reach-new-highs/ (accessed September 28, 2026).
[46] Letsios, K., Charisiou, N. D., Skodras, G. S., Goula, M. A., & Douvartzides, S. L. (2026). Hydrogen Compression Choices for Tomorrow's Refueling Stations: Review of Recent Advances and Selection Guide. Hydrogen, 7(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrogen7010025
[47] Serin, C., Glückler, M., Pasquet, M., & Vaglio-Gaudard, C. (2025). Outcomes of three Euratom projects on cogeneration of electricity, heat and hydrogen. EPJ Nuclear Sciences & Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1051/epjn/2025007
Downloads
Published
Data Availability Statement
Data will be available on request
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ahmad Rayyan, Malalai Kiwan (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open access article published by the Journal of Energy, Materials & Sustainability (JENMAS) and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are properly credited.
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
