hass

Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrainsin the European context: 

Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context A joint study by EUCAR / JRC / CONCAWE Overview of Results

Outline: 

Outline WTW study objectives and scope Critical vehicle assumptions Hydrogen Pathways Hydrogen vehicles (ICE and FC) Hydrogen from natural gas Liquid v. Compressed Hydrogen from biomass Hydrogen via electrolysis Costs Potential hydrogen production from biomass Hydrogen v. other alternative fuels CNG Biomass-derived fuels Cost comparison Alternative uses of biomass

Study Objectives: 

Study Objectives Establish, in a transparent and objective manner, a consensual well-to-wheels energy use and GHG emissions assessment of a wide range of automotive fuels and powertrains relevant to Europe in 2010 and beyond. Consider the viability of each fuel pathway and estimate the associated macro-economic costs. Have the outcome accepted as a reference by all relevant stakeholders.  Focus on 2010+  Marginal approach for energy supplies

Tank-to-Wheels Matrix: 

Tank-to-Wheels Matrix

Well-to-Tank Matrix: 

Well-to-Tank Matrix

Vehicle Assumptions: 

Vehicle Assumptions Simulation of GHG emissions and energy use calculated for a model vehicle Representing the European C-segment (4-seater Sedan) Not fully representative of EU average fleet New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) For each fuel, the vehicle platform was adapted to meet minimum performance criteria Speed, acceleration, gradeability etc Criteria reflect European customer expectations Compliance with Euro 3/4 was ensured for the 2002 / 2010 case No assumptions were made with respect to availability and market share of the vehicle technology options proposed for 2010+ Heavy duty vehicles (truck and buses) not considered in this study

Vehicle Assumptions: 

Vehicle Assumptions

Common vehicle minimum performance criteria: 

Common vehicle minimum performance criteria All technologies fulfil at least minimal customer performance criteria “Vehicle / Fuel” combinations comply with emissions regulations The 2002 vehicles comply with Euro III The 2010+ vehicles comply with Euro IV

Slide9: 

HYDROGEN PATHWAYS

Characteristics of hydrogen ICE vehicles: 

Characteristics of hydrogen ICE vehicles 1.3 l downsized turbocharged engine Engine map derived from test bench data Same energy efficiency map for both compressed and liquid hydrogen Lean-burn mode and high rate of turbo charging gives same torque curve as gasoline

Characteristics of hydrogen FC vehicles: 

Characteristics of hydrogen FC vehicles Fuel cell powertrain efficiency

Characteristics of hydrogen FC vehicles: 

Characteristics of hydrogen FC vehicles

Overall picture: GHG versus total energy: 

Overall picture: GHG versus total energy Hydrogen Most hydrogen pathways are energy-intensive 2010+ vehicles

ICE v. Fuel Cell, Liquid v. Compressed: 

ICE v. Fuel Cell, Liquid v. Compressed Fuel cells have the potential to deliver a large efficiency gain Liquid hydrogen is less energy-efficient than compressed hydrogen 2010+ vehicles Hydrogen from natural gas

Impact of hydrogen production route: 

Impact of hydrogen production route Source: WTW Report, Figures 8.4.2-1a/b Direct hydrogen production via reforming Hydrogen from renewables gives low GHG But comparison with other uses is required Figures for 2010+ non-hybrid FC vehicles

Impact of hydrogen production route: 

Impact of hydrogen production route Hydrogen production via electrolysis Electrolysis is less energy efficient than direct hydrogen production Figures for 2010+ non-hybrid FC vehicles Ely=electrolysis

Impact of hydrogen production route: on-board reformers: 

Impact of hydrogen production route: on-board reformers On-board reforming of gasoline/naphtha is better than direct use in an ICE but not as good as direct fuel cell Could provide supply flexibility during fuel cell introduction 2010+ vehicles

CO2 capture and storage (CC&S): 

CO2 capture and storage (CC&S) The concept of isolating CO2 produced in combustion or conversion processes and injecting it into suitable geological formations has been gaining credibility in the last few years There is considerable scope for storage in various types of geological formations CO2 capture and transport technologies are available Easier when CO2 is produced in nearly pure form Transport in supercritical state (compressed) by pipeline or ship The main issues are Long-term integrity and safety of storage Legal aspects Cost The complete technological packages are under development CO2 removal potential given here is only indicative Preliminary assessment based on data from the IEA greenhouse gas group and other literature sources Cost data not included as available info not considered sufficiently reliable and consistent

CO2 capture and storage (CC&S): 

CO2 capture and storage (CC&S) CC&S requires some additional energy (mainly for CO2 compression) It is most attractive for Processes that use large amounts of high-carbon energy (CTL) Processes that “decarbonise” the fuels (hydrogen)

Cost of fossil fuels substitution and CO2 avoided: 

Cost of fossil fuels substitution and CO2 avoided Some cost elements are dependent on scale (e.g. distribution infrastructure, number of alternative vehicles etc) As a common calculation basis we assumed that 5% of the relevant vehicle fleet (SI, CI or both) converts to the alternative fuel This is not a forecast, simply a way of comparing each fuel option under the same conditions If this portion of the EU transportation demand were to be replaced by alternative fuels and powertrain technologies, the GHG savings vs. incremental costs would be as indicated Costs of CO2 avoided are calculated from incremental capital and operating costs for fuel production and distribution, and for the vehicle The costs, as calculated, are valid for a steady-state situation where 5% of the relevant conventional fuels have been replaced by an alternative. Additional costs are likely to be incurred during the transition period, especially where a new distribution infrastructure is required.

Costing basis: 

Costing basis We considered the cost from a macro-economic point of view (cost to “EU inc.”) The cost of internationally traded commodities is the market price whether imported or produced within Europe (unless the production cost in Europe is higher) The 12% capital charge excludes the tax element (internal) Cost elements considered For fuels produced within Europe Raw material cost Production cost (capital charge + fixed operating costs + energy/chemicals costs) For imported fuels: market price Distribution and retail costs Additional cost of alternative vehicles (compared to state-of-the-art gasoline PISI)

Costing basis: oil price: 

Costing basis: oil price Oil price is important because It sets the cost of fossil fuels It influences the cost of virtually all other materials and services We have considered two oil price scenarios 25 €/bbl (30 $/bbl) 50 €/bbl (60 $/bbl) All other cost elements are adjusted according to an “Oil Cost Factor” (OCF) representing the fraction of the cost element that will follow the oil price

Additional cost of alternative 2010+ vehicles: 

Additional cost of alternative 2010+ vehicles Base: Gasoline PISI

Cost v. potential for CO2 avoidance: 

Cost v. potential for CO2 avoidance Oil price scenario: 50 €/bbl Hydrogen

Cost of CO2 avoidance v. cost of substitution: 

Cost of CO2 avoidance v. cost of substitution Oil price scenario: 50 €/bbl Hydrogen

Cost of substitution v. CO2 avoidance: 

Cost of substitution v. CO2 avoidance Oil price scenario: 50 €/bbl Hydrogen

Hydrogen production potential from biomass: 

Hydrogen production potential from biomass Max hydrogen scenario Woody biomass from all available land to hydrogen (used in a fuel cell vehicle) Surplus sugar beet and wheat straw to ethanol Organic waste to biogas 2012 projections including: Set-asides Sugar beet surplus Agricultural yield improvements Wheat straw surplus Unused wood waste Organic waste to biogas But excluding Currently not cultivated land Pastures

Slide28: 

HYDROGEN v. OTHER ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Conventional fuels from crude oil: 

Conventional fuels from crude oil Continued developments in engine and vehicle technologies will reduce energy use and GHG emissions Spark ignition engines have more potential for improvement than diesel Hybridization can provide further GHG and energy use benefits

Hydrogen v. CNG: 

Hydrogen v. CNG If hydrogen is produced from NG, GHG emissions savings compared to direct use as CNG are only achieved with fuel cell vehicles 2010+ vehicles

Ethanol: 

Ethanol All figures for 2010+ PISI vehicles Conventional production of ethanol as practiced in Europe gives modest fossil energy/GHG savings compared with gasoline Existing European pathways can be improved by use of co-generation and/or use of by-products for heat Choice of crop and field N2O emissions play a critical part Advanced processes (from wood or straw) can give much higher savings

Bio-diesel: 

Bio-diesel Bio-diesel saves fossil energy and GHG compared to conventional diesel Field N2O emissions play a big part in the GHG balance and are responsible for the large uncertainty Use of glycerine has a relatively small impact Sunflower is more favourable than rape All figures for 2010+ DICI+DPF vehicle

Syn-diesel and DME: 

Syn-diesel and DME Diesel synthesis requires more energy than conventional diesel refining from crude oil Syn-diesel from NG (GTL) is nearly GHG neutral compared to conventional diesel, syn-diesel from coal (CTL) produces considerably more GHG The use of biomass (BTL processes) involves very little fossil energy and therefore produces little GHG emissions because the synthesis processes are fuelled by the biomass itself 2010+ vehicles

Hydrogen remains considerably more expensive than other routes: 

Hydrogen remains considerably more expensive than other routes Oil price scenario: 50 €/bbl

The potential of biomass in Europe: overview: 

The potential of biomass in Europe: overview 2012 projections including: Set-asides Sugar beet surplus Agricultural yield improvements Wheat straw surplus Unused wood waste Organic waste to biogas But excluding Currently not cultivated land Pastures Conventional Biofuels: Wheat and sugar beet to ethanol, oilseeds to bio-diesel, wheat straw not used All other scenarios: Surplus sugar beet and wheat straw to ethanol Organic waste to biogas Max ethanol: Woody biomass from all available land to ethanol Max syn-diesel: Woody biomass from all available land to syn-diesel Also produces naphtha Max DME: Woody biomass from all available land to DME Max Hydrogen: Woody biomass from all available land to hydrogen (used in a fuel cell vehicle)

There are many ways of using gas: 

There are many ways of using gas Potential for CO2 avoidance from 1 MJ remote gas (as LNG) Substitution of marginal electricity is likely to be the most CO2 efficient Only fuel cell vehicles can come close

There are many ways of using wind power: 

There are many ways of using wind power Potential for CO2 avoidance from 1 MJ wind electricity Substitution of marginal electricity is likely to be the most CO2 efficient Only fuel cell vehicles can come close Issues related to energy storage must also be taken into account

Slide38: 

Alternative use of primary energy resources - Biomass Wood gasification or direct use of biomass for heat and power offers greatest GHG savings Potential for CO2 avoidance from 1 ha of land Reference case for road fuels: 2010 ICE with conventional fuel

Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrainsin the European context: 

The study report will be available on the WEB: http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/WTW For questions / inquiries / requests / notes to the consortium, please use the centralised mail address: infoWTW@jrc.it Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context