← 論文一覧に戻る

中国道路貨物輸送における水素対バッテリー電気パワートレインのコスト・炭素二重評価：水素経路コストと地域電力炭素強度の結合

Cost–Carbon Dual Assessment of Hydrogen Versus Battery-Electric Powertrains for Chinese Road Freight: Coupling Hydrogen Pathway Costs with Regional Grid Carbon Intensity (原題)

Shunping Li

Vehicles📚 査読済 / ジャーナル2026-10-24#エネルギー転換Origin: CN経営インパクト: コスト削減対象セクター: transport
DOI: 10.3390/vehicles8110276
原典: https://doi.org/10.3390/vehicles8110276

🤖 gxceed AI 要約

日本語

中国の道路貨物向けに、水素供給経路別の届渡コストと地域別電力炭素強度を車両レベルで結合評価した研究。49t長距離ではBEVがディーゼル比でkm当たり11.5%低コストだが、積載比の影響でトンキロ当たりでは約4%高くなる。再生可能水素FCVは49.1%高コストで、WTW炭素強度は198〜3578 gCO2e/kmと幅広い。損益分岐炭素価格は681.7〜2936.4元/tCO2と現行市場価格の最大28倍に達し、現行価格ではパリティ確率はほぼゼロ。政策は車両購入補助ではなく燃料炭素強度と認証済み再エネ水素の立地に連動すべきと結論づける。

English

This study jointly evaluates delivered hydrogen pathway costs and regional grid carbon intensity for Chinese road freight across six hydrogen pathways, seven grid settings, and three powertrains. For 49t long-haul, battery-electric trucks are 11.5% cheaper per km than diesel but ~4% costlier per tonne-km due to payload ratio; renewable-hydrogen fuel-cell trucks cost 49.1% more. WTW carbon intensity spans 198–3578 gCO2e/km, and critical carbon prices of 681.7–2936.4 CNY/tCO2 (up to ~28x the 2024 market band) imply near-zero parity at current prices. Policy should target fuel carbon intensity and certified renewable-hydrogen siting rather than vehicle purchases alone.

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters

日本のGX文脈において

日本でもFCトラック・BEVトラックの導入議論が進む中、燃料炭素強度と地域電力の組み合わせで損益分岐炭素価格を示す手法は、補助金設計やGX推進の政策議論に示唆を与える。

In the global GX context

As global freight decarbonization debates battery-electric versus hydrogen pathways, this coupling of delivered fuel cost with grid carbon intensity offers a transferable framework for evaluating critical carbon prices and aligning subsidies with fuel-chain CI under emerging carbon pricing regimes.

👥 読者別の含意

🔬研究者:燃料経路コストと地域電力CIを結合したTCO・炭素評価のパラメトリック手法と臨界炭素価格の導出が参考になる。

🏢実務担当者:トラック調達や物流脱炭素計画で、車両コストだけでなく燃料炭素強度と積載効率を考慮した判断材料になる。

🏛政策担当者:車両購入補助ではなく燃料CI基準や再エネ水素立地の認証に政策支援を紐づける根拠を提供する。

📄 Abstract（原文）

Choosing between battery-electric and hydrogen fuel-cell trucks to decarbonize Chinese road freight hinges on two upstream quantities rarely assessed jointly: delivered hydrogen cost and regional grid carbon intensity. This study couples pathway-resolved delivered hydrogen costs with charging-region grid carbon intensity in one vehicle-level cost–carbon evaluation. A literature-anchored parametric simulation links six hydrogen pathways, seven regional grid settings, two truck classes, and three powertrains. It evaluates total cost of ownership (TCO), fuel-chain well-to-wheel carbon intensity (CI, vehicle manufacturing excluded), Pareto fronts, and the critical carbon price p*, with one-at-a-time sensitivity and a 10,000-draw Monte Carlo analysis. Renewable electricity is purchased at 0.25 CNY/kWh (zero-purchase supply retained as a labelled scenario), placing delivered hydrogen at 33.0–54.3 CNY/kg. For 49 t long-haul duty, TCO is 5.31 CNY/km (diesel), 4.70 (battery-electric; 11.5% lower per kilometre yet about 4% higher per tonne-kilometre, governed by the payload capacity ratio), and 7.92 (renewable-hydrogen fuel-cell; 49.1% higher). Across the same option space, WTW carbon intensity ranges from 198 to 3578 gCO2e/km. Eight finite critical carbon prices span 681.7–2936.4 CNY/tCO2, up to roughly 28 times the 2024 market band of 60–105 CNY/tCO2; parity probabilities remain near zero at current prices. Policy support should follow fuel carbon intensity and certified renewable-hydrogen siting, not vehicle purchases alone.

🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース

🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。

gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。