Impact of a future H <sub>2</sub> -based road transportation sector on the composition and chemistry of the atmosphere – Part 2: Stratospheric ozone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The prospective future adoption of molecular hydrogen (H2) to power the road transportation sector could greatly improve tropospheric air quality but also raises the question of whether the adoption would have adverse effects on the stratospheric ozone. The possibility of undesirable impacts must be fully evaluated to guide future policy decisions. Here we evaluate the possible impact of a future (2050) H2-based road transportation sector on stratospheric composition and chemistry, especially on the stratospheric ozone, with the MOZART (Model for OZone And Related chemical Tracers) model. Since future growth is highly uncertain, we evaluate the impact of two world evolution scenarios, one based on an IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) high-emitting scenario (A1FI) and the other on an IPCC low-emitting scenario (B1), as well as two technological options: H2 fuel cells and H2 internal combustion engines. We assume a H2 leakage rate of 2.5% and a complete market penetration of H2 vehicles in 2050. The model simulations show that a H2-based road transportation sector would reduce stratospheric ozone concentrations as a result of perturbed catalytic ozone destruction cycles. The magnitude of the impact depends on which growth scenario evolves and which H2 technology option is applied. For the evolution growth scenario, stratospheric ozone decreases more in the H2 fuel cell scenarios than in the H2 internal combustion engine scenarios because of the NOx emissions in the latter case. If the same technological option is applied, the impact is larger in the A1FI emission scenario. The largest impact, a 0.54% decrease in annual average global mean stratospheric column ozone, is found with a H2 fuel cell type road transportation sector in the A1FI scenario; whereas the smallest impact, a 0.04% increase in stratospheric ozone, is found with applications of H2 internal combustion engine vehicles in the B1 scenario. The impacts of the other two scenarios fall between the above two boundary scenarios. However, the magnitude of these changes is much smaller than the increases in 2050 stratospheric ozone projected, as stratospheric ozone is expected to recover due to the limits in ozone depleting substance emissions imposed in the Montreal Protocol.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".