JEC WTW Study Version 4

Transcription

JEC WTW Study Version 4
Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in
the European context
Overview of Results
A joint study by
JRC / EUCAR / CONCAWE
Presentation Outline
Note
1. Executive Summary
2. 2013 JEC WTW Version 4 Study Overview
•
•
•
Scope and objectives
What’s new in this version
Pathways, fuels and vehicles
3. TTW
•
•
•
•
Scope, Methodology & Vehicle characteristics
Ice-based vehicles
Externally chargeable electric vehicles (xEVs)
Fuel cell vehicles
4. WTT
•
•
•
•
Scope and Methodology, notes on biofuels, electricity and CCS
Crude oil derived fuels, Compressed/liquefied natural gas and biogas
Bio-ethanol, biodiesel and HVO, Synthetic fuels
Power generation, Hydrogen
5. WTW energy use and GHG emissions
•
•
•
ICE-based vehicles, conventional and gaseous fuels
Conventional biofuels (bio-ethanol, biodiesel and HVO)
Ethers, Synthetic fuels
Externally charged vehicles (xEVs)
FCEVs & Hydrogen
6. Alternative uses of energy resources
7. Conclusions
Reproduction permitted
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 2 of 71
Note, Disclaimer and Copyright
Note:
The JEC Well-to-Wheels study is a technical analysis of the energy use and GHG
emissions of possible road fuel and powertrain configurations in the European context
for a time horizon of 2020+. This slide pack gives an overview of the results including
main changes and new features of the study compared to the 2011 version 3c.
It is intended for a technical audience with a prior understanding of the subject matter
For a full description of the study including assumptions, calculations and results,
interested parties should consult the full set of reports and appendices available at
http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/about-jec/downloads
Disclaimer:
This study is not intended to commit the JEC partners to deliver any particular
technology or conclusion that is included in the study.
Copyright Conditions:
The tables and figures presented here can be freely used and reproduced providing
that:
The source is duly acknowledged
The tables and figures, if copied from the original documents, are not altered in any way.
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 3 of 71
Section 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 4 of 71
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
A Well-to-Wheels analysis is the essential basis to assess the impact of
future fuel and powertrain options.
Both fuel production pathway and powertrain efficiency are key to GHG emissions
and energy use.
A common methodology and data-set has been developed which provides a basis
for the evaluation of pathways. It can be updated as technologies evolve.
A shift to renewable/low fossil carbon routes may offer a significant GHG
reductions, but generally requires more total energy. The specific pathway is
critical.
There is a range of options for vehicles designed to use grid electricity. While
electric propulsion on the vehicle is efficient, the overall energy use and GHG
emissions depend critically of the source of the electricity used.
The GHG emissions reduction potential of hydrogen routes is critically
dependent on fuel cell vehicles achieving their expected efficiency.
Transport applications may not maximize the GHG reduction potential of
alternative and renewable energy resources.
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 5 of 71
WTW energy expended and GHG emissions for non-hydrogen pathways (2020+ vehicles)
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 6 of 71
WTW energy expended and GHG emissions for FCEV & Hydrogen pathways (2020+ vehicles)
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 7 of 71
ICE-BASED VEHICLES AND FUELS
Conventional Fuels / Vehicle Technologies
Developments in gasoline / diesel engine and vehicle technologies will continue to
contribute to the reduction of energy use and GHG emissions:
Hybridization of the conventional engine technologies can provide further energy and GHG
emission benefits.
The efficiency gap between SI and CI vehicles is narrowing, especially for hybrid versions.
Methane (CNG, CBG, SNG) and LPG fuels
Today the WTW GHG emissions for CNG lie between gasoline and diesel.
Beyond 2020, greater engine efficiency gains are predicted for CNG vehicles WTW
GHG emissions will approach those of diesel.
WTW energy use will remain higher than for gasoline.
The origin of the natural gas and the supply pathway are critical to the overall WTW
energy and GHG balance.
Biogas, particularly when produced from waste materials, has a very low GHG impact,
whether the biogas is used to fuel cars or produce electricity.
Producing synthetic gas (SNG) from wind electricity and carbon capturing results in low
GHG emissions but needs energy.
LPG provides a small WTW GHG emissions saving compared to gasoline and diesel.
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 8 of 71
ALTERNATIVE LIQUID FUELS
A number of routes are available to produce alternative liquid fuels that can be used in
blends with conventional fuels and, in some cases, neat, in the existing infrastructure
and vehicles.
The fossil energy and GHG savings of conventionally produced biofuels such as
ethanol and bio-diesel are critically dependent on manufacturing processes and the
fate of co-products. The lowest GHG emissions are obtained when co-products are
used for energy production.
The GHG balance is particularly uncertain because of nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture.
Land use change may also have a significant impact on the WTW balance. In this study, we
have modelled only biofuels produced from land already in arable use.
When upgrading a vegetable oil to a road fuel, the trans-esterification and hydrotreating
routes are broadly equivalent in terms of GHG emissions.
The fossil energy savings discussed above should not lead to the conclusion that these
pathways are energy-efficient. Taking into account the energy contained in the biomass
resource, the total energy involved is two to three times higher than the energy
involved in making conventional fuels. These pathways are therefore fundamentally
energy inefficient in the way they use biomass, a limited resource.
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 9 of 71
ALTERNATIVE LIQUID FUELS (continued)
ETBE offers an alternative to direct ethanol blending in gasoline. Fossil energy and
GHG gains are commensurate with the amount of ethanol used.
Processes converting the cellulose of woody biomass or straw into ethanol are being
developed. They have an attractive fossil energy and GHG footprint.
High quality diesel fuel can be produced from natural gas (GTL) and coal (CTL). GHG
emissions from GTL diesel are slightly higher than those of conventional diesel, CTL
diesel produces considerably more GHG.
New processes are being developed to produce synthetic diesel from biomass (BTL),
offering lower overall GHG emissions, although energy use is still high. Such advanced
processes have the potential to save substantially more GHG emissions than current
biofuel options.
DME can be produced from natural gas or biomass with better energy and GHG results
than other GTL or BTL fuels. DME being the sole product, the yield of fuel for use for
Diesel engines is high.
Use of DME as automotive fuel would require modified vehicles and infrastructure
similar to LPG.
The “black liquor” route which is being developed offers higher wood conversion
efficiency compared to direct gasification in those situations where it can be used and
is particularly favourable in the case of DME.
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 10 of 71
EXTERNALLY CHARGEABLE VEHICLES AND FUELS
There is a range of options for vehicles designed to use grid electricity
ranging from battery vehicles (BEV) which use only electric power, to RangeExtender Electric Vehicles (REEV) and Plug-In Hybrids (PHEV) which in turn
provide a greater proportion of their power from the ICE.
While electric propulsion on the vehicle is efficient, the overall energy use and
GHG emissions depend critically of the source of the electricity used.
Where electricity is produced with low GHG emissions, electrified vehicles
give lower GHG emissions than conventional ICEs, with BEVs giving the
lowest emissions.
Where electricity production produces high levels of GHG emissions, the
relative GHG emissions from the various xEV configurations are a complex
function of the type of fuel used and the source of electricity
The differences in performance between PHEV and REEV technologies are
primarily a function of the different assumed electric range (20 km vs. 80 km)
rather than a difference between these technologies per se.
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 11 of 71
FUEL CELL VEHICLES AND HYDROGEN
Many potential hydrogen production routes exist and GHG emissions are critically
dependent on the pathway selected.
Developments in fuel cell system, tank and vehicle technologies in the 2020+
timeframe are expected to increase the efficiency advantage of the hydrogen/fuel-cell
vehicles over conventional vehicles.
If hydrogen is produced from natural gas:
Previous versions of this study showed that WTW GHG emissions savings can only be
achieved if hydrogen is used in fuel cell vehicles.
Hydrogen from NG used in a fuel cell at the 2020+ horizon has the potential to produce half the
GHG emissions of a gasoline vehicle.
Producing hydrogen via electrolysis using EU-mix electricity or electricity from NG
results in GHG emissions two times higher than direct production from NG and cancels
the benefit of the fuel-cell route compared with a gasoline vehicle.
Hydrogen from non-fossil sources (biomass, wind, nuclear) offers low overall GHG
emissions.
For hydrogen as a transportation fuel virtually all GHG emissions occur in the WTT
portion, making it particularly attractive for CO2 Capture & Storage (see WTT section
for more details on CCS).
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 12 of 71
ALTERNATIVE USES OF PRIMARY ENERGY RESOURCES
At the 2020+ horizon:
CNG as transportation fuel only provides small savings because its global
GHG balance is close to that of the gasoline and diesel fuels it would replace.
With the improvements expected in fuel cell vehicle efficiency, production of
hydrogen from NG by reforming and use in a FC vehicle has the potential to
save as much GHG emission as substituting coal by NG in power generation.
Using farmed wood to produce hydrogen for use in a fuel-cell vehicle by
reforming saves as much GHG emission per hectare of land as using the
wood to produce electricity in place of coal and saves more GHG emissions
per hectare than producing conventional or advanced biofuels.
Using wind electricity to produce hydrogen saved less GHG emissions than
substituting NG CCGT electricity and less than half as much as substituting
coal electricity.
Using wind electricity to produce synthetic diesel or methane via methanol
saves very little GHG emissions compared with fossil diesel or CNG.
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 13 of 71
Section 2
2014 JEC WTW STUDY
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 14 of 71
2. JEC Consortium: JEC Studies and Other Work
The JEC research collaboration was initiated in 2000 by:
JRC: Joint Research Centre of the European Commission
EUCAR: European Council for Automotive R&D
CONCAWE: the oil companies' European association for
environment, health and safety in refining and distribution
Collaborative Projects
2000-2014: Projects Completed
Well-to-Wheels (WTW) Studies:
Version 1 (2004)
Version 2a and 2b (2007)
Version 3c (2011)
Version 4 (July, 2013): WTT and TTW Reports and Appendices
Version 4a full set of reports: WTT/TTW/WTW and appendices
Impact of ethanol on vehicle evaporative emissions (SAE 2007-01-1928)
Impact of oxygenates in gasoline on fuel consumption and emissions (2014)
JEC Biofuels Study for a 2020 time horizon (2011)
2014: Projects in Progress
2014 update of the 2011 JEC Biofuels Study
See: http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/about-jec
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 15 of 71
2. WTW Study Objectives
To establish, in a transparent and objective manner, a consensual Well-toWheels evaluation of
energy use and
GHG emissions
for a wide range of automotive fuels and powertrains relevant to Europe in
2020 and beyond.
To have the outcome accepted as a reference by all relevant stakeholders.
Focus on 2020+
Marginal approach for energy supplies
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 16 of 71
2. WTW Scope
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 17 of 71
2. What’s new in this version
General
Base year is 2010 with a time horizon of 2020+;
Costs and biofuel/biomass availability are not included (as in V3c).
Vehicles
Introduction of additional electrified vehicle configurations: Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV),
Range Extended Electric Vehicles (REEV) and Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV);
Vehicle compliance with Euro 5 and Euro 6 emission regulations
Change of vehicle simulation tool: ADVISOR replaced by AVL CRUISE.
Fuels
Minor changes to the conventional fossil fuel pathways (flaring, venting emissions in crude production)
and natural gas pathways,
Addition of a European shale gas pathway;
Inclusion of some new biofuel pathways and deletion of other pathways that no longer seem likely
to be of commercial importance;
Updated biofuel production data based on best available information from biofuel-industry
consultations;
Addition of a globally-applicable analysis of nitrous oxide emissions (N2O) from farming based on
IPCC data;
Updated EU electricity mix based on 2009 statistics in relation to the recharging of hybrid and battery
electric vehicles.
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 18 of 71
2. Well-to-Wheels Pathways
Resource
Fuels
Powertrains
Crude oil
Conventional
Gasoline/Diesel/Naphtha
CNG, CBG, SNG
Spark Ignition:
Gasoline, LPG, CNG,
CBG, SNG, Ethanol
Compression Ignition:
Diesel, DME, Bio-diesel
LPG
Fuel Cell
MTBE/ETBE
xEVs:
Coal
Natural Gas
Shale Gas
Biomass
Wind
Nuclear
Electricity
Synthetic Diesel
Hydrogen
(compressed / cryo-compressed)
HEV, PHEV, REEV, BEV
DME
Ethanol
Bio-diesel (inc. FAEE)
HVO
Electricity
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 19 of 71
(1)
with/without CCS
(2)
Biogas
(3)
Associated with natural gas production
(4)
EU and US sources
(5)
Heavy Fuel Oil
(6)
Heating Oil
with due
acknowledgement
(1)
X
(1)
X
X
X
(1)
X
X
(1)
X
X
X
(1)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(1)
X
X
(6)
(2)
X
(4)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Heat
Electricity
X
X
HVO
Methanol
FAME/FAEE
MT/ETBE
X
X
Ethanol
X
X
DME
X
X
X
(5)
Coal
Natural gasPiped
Remote
Shale gas
(3)
LPG
Remote
Biomass Sugar beet
Wheat
Barley/rye
Maize (Corn)
Wheat straw
Sugar cane
Rapeseed
Sunflower
Soy beans
Palm fruit
Woody waste
Farmed wood
Waste veg oils
Tallow
Organic waste
Black liquor
Wind
Nuclear
Electricity
Synthetic diesel
X
Hydrogen
(comp., liquid)
Crude oil
LPG
Resource
Gasoline, Diesel
(2010 quality)
Fuel
CNG/CBG/SNG
2. Well-to-Tank Matrix: Energy Resources & Fuels combinations
X
X
(2)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WTW V4 2014
Slide 20 of 71
Gasoline
Gasoline E10 (market blend)
Gasoline E20 (high RON)
Diesel
Diesel B7 (market blend)
LPG
CNG
E85
MTBE
ETBE
FAME
DME
Syndiesel
HVO
Electricity
Compressed Hydrogen
Cryo-compressed hydrogen
with due
acknowledgement
REEV80 FC**
FCEV
BEV
REEV80 CI*
PHEV20 DICI
REEV80 SI
PHEV20 DISI
DICI
Hybrid DICI
Fuel
DISI
PISI
Powertrain
Hybird DISI
2. Tank-to-Wheels Matrix: Vehicles & Fuels combinations
All configurations modelled for
both 2010 and 2020+ (except
when stated otherwise)
Colour coding
Modelled in detail with the
vehicle simulation tool
Exceptions:
REEV80 FC** and REEV80 CI* only
modelled for 2020
REEV80 CI* modelled for two
different layouts
Derived from simulations using
the relevant fuel properties
WTW V4 2014
Slide 21 of 71
Section 3
TTW STUDY
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 22 of 71
3. TTW: Scope
Define and characterize reference vehicle & vehicle technologies
Generic C-segment vehicles (e.g. VW Golf, Ford Focus, PSA 307)
Establish performance criteria based on customer expectations
Range, acceleration times, grade ability, top speed, …
All vehicles are based on same reference for comparability
All vehicles share same glider as reference (body & chassis)
Alternative vehicles are defined by virtually removing and adding
specific components
Weight impact of tanks, extra batteries, etc. is covered
Future advanced technologies
The potential impacts of future technologies need to be carefully
assessed
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 23 of 71
3. TTW: Methodology
Generic C-segment vehicles
Conventional “ICE-only” vehicles
Portfolio of electrified vehicles (xEV)
Hybrids, Plug-in Hybrids, Range Extended, Battery and Fuel Cell
Electric Vehicles
Compliance with Euro 5 and Euro 6 emission regulations
New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) & UNECE R101 applied
Fuel consumption & electric energy consumption
GHG emissions: CO2, CH4 & N2O
Comprehensive vehicle simulations with AVL Cruise
Data, calibrations, controls, etc. agreed amongst the EUCAR and AVL
expert team
Timeline: 2010 & 2020+
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 24 of 71
3. TTW: Vehicle Characteristics
C-segment reference vehicle, model year 2010:
1.4L DISI ICE, 6 speed Manual Transmission, Front Wheel Drive.
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 25 of 71
3. Common vehicle minimum performance criteria
As in TTW V3: equal vehicle minimum performance criteria for all powertrains
Top-speed criterion for BEV / REEV reduced to reflect the market reality in
2010
Battery capacity restricts BEV driving range, but increases from 2010 to
2020+
However, acceleration and gradeability criteria are identical.
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 26 of 71
3. HEV and xEV Topologies
The TTW study determines definitions of powertrain topologies and system
architectures, estimates of Hybrid functionalities and operational strategies.
Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) &
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV)
Range Extended Electric Vehicle (REEV)
Battery Electric
Vehicle (BEV)
with due
acknowledgement
Fuel Cell Electric
Vehicle (FCEV)
WTW V4 2014
Slide 27 of 71
3. Drive cycle: NEDC Cycle and UNECE R101
NEDC is used to ensure comparability of results for 2010 and 2020+
It is expected that by 2020+ the Worldwide harmonized Light vehicles Test Procedure
(WLTP) will be used for vehicle fuel consumption, emission testing.
However, during the TTW study work, the WLTP has not been finally defined.
Real world driving may show different results due to a range of impacting
parameters and customer choices like different driving habits, road conditions and
cabin comfort needs.
Fuel consumption of PHEV and REEV is determined by UN ECE R101
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 28 of 71
3. TTW: vehicle results
The results for the various vehicle technologies and fuels span a wide range
in the Energy Consumption – GHG emissions domain
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 29 of 71
Section 4
WTT STUDY
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 30 of 71
4. Well-to-Tank: Scope
Our study is forward-looking and intended to help guide future fuel
choices
To that end we have used best ‘state-of-the-art’ technology, so our
estimates are applicable to new fuel production plants/routes
Existing production plant using older technology may not achieve the
same efficiency
We present energy and GHG figures for each fuel production pathway
In addition, we have shown the total WTT GHG emission figures including
combustion of the fuel
These figures must be interpreted with care, because they make no
reference to the efficiency with which the fuel is used in the vehicle
The WTW figures are the real measure of fuel/vehicle performance
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 31 of 71
4. Well-to-Tank: Methodology
We use an incremental or marginal approach
To guide judgements on the potential benefits of substituting conventional
fuels/vehicles by alternatives
For future fuels, we ask where the additional energy resource would come
from if demand for a new fuel were to increase.
Co-products are important in many fuel pathways
For example, biofuel production may produce material suitable for animal
feed or generate electricity beyond process needs
Wherever possible we have used a ‘substitution’ approach to model the
likely use of co-products and its impact on energy use and GHG emissions
Although allocation methods may be simpler to implement their outcomes
in terms of energy use and GHG emissions burden tend to be less realistic
We recognise the uncertainties in estimating future vehicle and fuel
performance
We have estimated a confidence band for each component of a pathway
and combine these into an overall confidence band for the WTT figures.
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 32 of 71
4. Well-to-Tank: Biofuels
Calculating the energy and GHG emissions impact of producing fuels
from biomass involves many complexities
The fate of the co-products has a big impact on the results
The agricultural process to produce the feedstock is itself complex
Agricultural yields and inputs for cultivation, fertilisers etc. can be
easily calculated, but figures can vary widely across the EU
We present the data in terms of input per MJ of crop produced
N2O emissions from soil are a big contributor to total GHG emissions
We have introduced a new model based on the IPCC “tier 2” approach,
because it requires less detailed input data than tier 3, and so can be
applied equally to crops grown both inside and outside EU
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 33 of 71
4. Well-to-Tank: Land Use Change
Emissions from land use change are potentially significant
When land use changes, the carbon content in the soil changes and it
may take many years or even decades to reach a new equilibrium
During this time carbon is released (or perhaps sequestered from) the
atmosphere
In addition, increased use of land for energy crops could bring other
land into use to replace food crops
Leading to Indirect Land Use Change
The subject of Land Use Change is controversial and we still lack a
consensual methodology and appropriate tools to make reliable
estimates.
For this reason, we have not included these effects in our WTT
calculations
However, we do consider these emissions essential for fully
accounting the climate change effects of biofuels
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 34 of 71
4. Well-to-Tank: Electricity
In previous versions of the study, electricity played a part in many fuel
pathways where electricity was needed for the process or generated
and exported to the grid, but the contribution to the overall WTT
emissions was generally not large.
In this version we have expanded the number of vehicle
configurations involving full or part-time direct electrical power
BEV: Battery Electric Vehicle
PHEV: Plug-on Hybrid Electric Vehicles
REEV: Range Extender Electric Vehicles
so that accurate electricity production data is now more critical.
We have modelled electricity generation from a range of sources
using ‘state-of-the-art’ technology applicable to new production
facilities.
In addition, we have carefully reassessed the current ‘EU-mix’
electricity performance, based on detailed data from individual EU
Member States.
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 35 of 71
4. Well-to-Tank: Carbon Capture and Storage
The concept of isolating the CO2 produced in combustion or
conversion processes and injecting it into suitable geological
formations has been gaining credibility in the last few years.
There are many societal, legal and technological challenges.
As a result progress has so far been slow.
CCS can in principle be applied to a range of fuel processes
Electricity from natural gas and coal (most likely for IGCC configurations)
LNG: CO2 from the power plant associated with the liquefaction plant
Hydrogen from NG and coal: Process CO2 after shift reaction
GTL and CTL diesel: Process CO2 after reforming / partial oxidation
DME from NG: Process CO2 after reforming
The potential GHG savings are naturally highest where the highest
proportion of carbon is rejected in the fuel production process.
We have included a CCS variant for a range of pathways.
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 36 of 71
20
90
16
88
12
86
8
84
4
82
0
80
COD1: Conventional Diesel
COG1: Conventional Gasoline
Production & conditioning at source
Transformation at source
Transportation to market
Transformation near market
Conditioning & distribution
Total GHG inc. combustion (right axis)
Total GHG inc. combustion
(g CO2eq/MJfinal fuel)
WTT GHG emissions (g CO2eq/MJfinal fuel)
4. Well-to-Tank: Crude oil derived fuels
The marginal
source of crude oil
for Europe remains
the Middle East.
Unconventional oil
resources are not
expected to impact
Europe during the
study period.
The energy used / GHG emitted in producing marginal gasoline and diesel
represent 18-20% of the energy content / combustion emissions in the final
fuel
Production energy includes improved estimates of flaring and venting
In Europe, refinery production of diesel is more energy intensive than gasoline,
because of the supply imbalance.
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 37 of 71
30
90
25
85
20
80
15
75
10
70
5
65
0
(g CO2eq/MJfinal fuel)
4. Well-to-Tank: Natural Gas for CNG and LNG
60
Pipeline import,
4000 km
LNG
LNG + CCS
Shale gas in EU
Total GHG inc. combustion (right axis)
The marginal
source of NG for
Europe is 4000km
pipeline or LNG
A pathway for EUmix gas has been
calculated for
reference only, with
updated average
transport distance.
Transporting the gas to market requires significant energy
Reducing pipeline distance from 7000km to 4000km = 40% less energy
Energy required for LNG is about the same as 7000km pipeline
CCS has a limited impact because it only affects the liquefaction process
If shale gas were produced in Europe, it would have favourable energy/GHG
impacts because of the short transport distance.
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 38 of 71
4. Well-to-Tank: Compressed Biogas (CBG)
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
Municipal
waste
Liquid manure Liquid manure
Maize
Barley/maize
Synthetic
(closed storage) (open storage) (whole plant) (double crop) methane from
whole plant renewable elec.
Producing biogas is energy intensive, but makes sense when using waste
irrespective of the final gas use
GHG emissions are low and may even be negative when methane emissions
from farm manure are avoided
When crops are used emissions are uncertain because of N2O emissions
Closed digestate storage is state-of-the-art. Failure to apply this can result in
significantly higher emissions
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 39 of 71
4. Well-to-Tank: Bio-ethanol
100
Fossil gasoline
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
Pulp to
animal feed
slops not
used
Pulp to fuel
slops to
biogas
Sugar beet
Conv. NG
boiler
NG GT+CHP
Lignite CHP
Straw CHP
Sugar cane Farmed wood
(Brazil)
Wheat
DDGS to animal feed
Net GHG emissions from production of bio-ethanol depend critically on
The technology and energy source used
The fate of the co-products
Ethanol from sugar cane or cellulosic materials (wood or straw) produces
lower emissions than ethanol from wheat
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 40 of 71
4. MTBE and ETBE
MTBE from remote natural gas has similar GHG emissions to gasoline
With more favourable blending properties than ethanol, ETBE can provide an
alternative to direct ethanol blending into gasoline. Fossil energy and GHG
gains are commensurate with the amount of ethanol used.
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 41 of 71
4. Well-to-Tank: Bio-diesel (FAME, FAEE and HVO)
90
Fossil diesel
70
50
30
10
-10
-30
Rape
meal as
animal
feed
Rape Sunflower Imported Imported
Meal and meal as
soy oil
palm oil
glycerine animal
good
to biogas
feed
practice
Imported Waste Tallow oil
palm oil cooking oil
standard
practice
FAME
Rape
meal as
animal
feed
HVO
GHG emissions for bio-diesel depend on the feedstock
Waste oils and tallow have the lowest emissions, because emissions from feedstock
production are avoided.
Co-product fate plays a role but less so than with bio-ethanol
Good practice can reduce emissions significantly (as shown for Palm oil)
GHG emissions are similar for FAME or HVO from the same feedstock
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 42 of 71
4. Well-to-Tank: Synthetic Fuels
Total GHG inc. Combustion
250
200
150
Fossil diesel
100
50
0
-50
Remote gas Remote gas EU-mix coal EU-mix coal
(GTL)
+ CCS
(CTL)
+ CCS
Farmed
wood
DME
Methanol
Remote gas Remote gas
Synthetic diesel
GHG emissions from syn-diesel production depend on the feedstock
Highest for coal, lowest for wood
Where the feedstock is NG, emissions are close to those from conventional diesel
CCS is most effective with coal
Syn-diesel, DME or methanol can be produced from NG with similar energy
use and GHG emissions
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 43 of 71
4. Well-to-Tank: Power Generation
GHG emissions (g CO2eq/MJe)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
EU-mix
(2009)
Fuel Oil
Coal
(EU-mix)
(IGCC)
NG
( pipe 4000
km)
(CCGT)
Nuclear
Biogas
(municipal
waste)
Wood
(co-firing in
coal plant)
Wind
Pathways include current EU-mix and a range of ‘state-of-the-art’ options
GHG emissions are highest for coal, lowest for nuclear, wind and biomass to
electricity
GHG emissions for electricity from NG are less than half those from coal
electricity
Today’s EU-mix gives GHG emissions close to state-of-the-art NG
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 44 of 71
4. Well-to-Tank: hydrogen from fossil fuels
WTT GHG emitted (g CO2eq/MJH2)
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
NG
(pipe 4000 km)
on-site reforming
NG
(pipe 4000 km)
central reforming
NG
(pipe 4000 km)
central electrolysis
Coal
(EU-mix)
gasification
Coal
+ CCS
NG
(pipe 4000 km)
Liquefaction
Producing hydrogen from NG creates more GHG emissions than petrol or diesel
(including combustion)
It’s use only makes sense in an efficient fuel cell vehicle (see WTW)
Electrolysis produces much more GHG emissions than thermal routes
CCS can mitigate coal’s very high GHG emissions
Liquid (cryo-compressed) hydrogen has practical advantages, but produces more GHG
emissions than compressed hydrogen
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 45 of 71
4. Well-to-Tank: hydrogen from renewable sources
WTT GHG emitted (g CO2eq/MJH2)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
Wood
large scale gasification
Wood
large scale gasification
electrolysis
Wind
electrolysis
Hydrogen from wood or wind electricity produces very low GHG emissions
The best use of these limited resources is discussed in Section 6
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 46 of 71
Section 5
WTW STUDY
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 47 of 71
5. Well-to-Wheels: General Observations
This is a Well-to-Wheel study
Most of a vehicle’s lifetime energy use comes from fuel consumption
We concentrate on energy use and GHG emissions which are important metrics
for policy decisions
We recognise the value of broader LCA studies where specific pathways need to
be studied in more detail, however
The WTW methodology allows a large number of options to be compared
The Well-to-Wheels analysis combines the results from the WTT and TTW
evaluations to assess the impact of future fuel and powertrain options.
Both fuel production pathway and powertrain efficiency are key to overall GHG
emissions and energy use.
A common methodology and data-set has been developed which provides a basis
for the evaluation of pathways. It can be updated as technologies evolve.
A shift to renewable/low fossil carbon routes may offer a significant GHG
reduction potential but generally requires more total energy. The specific
pathway is critical.
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 48 of 71
5. Well-to-Wheels: ICE Vehicles, Conventional Fuels
200
Gasoline PISI 2010
180
GHG emissions (gCO2eq/km)
Gasoline DISI 2010
160
Diesel DICI 2010
140
Gasoline PISI 2020+
Gasoline DISI 2020+
Gasoline DISIHyb 2010
120
Diesel DICIHyb 2010
Diesel DICI 2020+
100
Gasoline DISIHyb 2020+
80
Diesel DICI Hyb 2020+
60
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
Energy (MJ/100km)
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
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 49 of 71
5. Well-to-Wheels: ICE vehicles, CNG
TTW
WTT
Gasoline DISI
2
0
2
0
Shale gas (EU) PISI
CNG (4000 km)
PISI
Diesel DICI
+
Gasoline PISI
CNG (4000 km)
PISI
2
0
1
0
Diesel DICI
Gasoline PISI
0
50
100
150
200
Today, WTW GHG emissions
for CNG lie between gasoline
and diesel
Beyond 2020, greater engine
efficiency gains are predicted
for CNG vehicles
WTW GHG emissions will
approach those of diesel.
WTW energy use will remain
higher than for gasoline.
The origin of the natural gas
and the supply pathway are
critical to the overall WTW
energy and GHG balance - see
WTT slides
GHG emissions (g CO2eq/km)
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 50 of 71
5. Well-to-Wheels: ICE Vehicles, CBG and SNG
2020+ PISI vehicles
Bars represent the total WTT + TTW emissions
Producing biogas, particularly from
waste, has a low and in some cases
negative net GHG impact
SNG from
renewable electricity
Double
cropping
Benefits accrue whether the biogas
is used to fuel cars or produce
electricity.
Maize
whole plant
CBG
Producing synthetic gas (SNG) from
renewable electricity and CO2 from
flue gases gives in low GHG
emissions but consumes a lot of
energy (see Section 6).
Manure
Municipal
waste
Gasoline PISI
-200
-100
0
100
200
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 51 of 71
5. Well-to-Wheels: ICE Vehicles, LPG
2020+ PISI/DICI vehicles
LPG (remote)
LPG provides a small WTW GHG
emissions saving compared to
gasoline and is on a par with CNG,
but slightly more than diesel
CNG (4000 km)
Transport distance has a
significant impact, representing
about 25% of the WTT energy for
LPG from remote locations (the
marginal case in Europe)
Diesel
Gasoline
0
50
100
150
GHG emissions (g CO2eq /km)
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 52 of 71
5. Well-to-Wheels: Bio-Ethanol from sugar beet and wheat
2020+ DISI vehicle
DDGS as
electricity
W
h
e
a
t
NG CCGT CHP
The fossil energy and
GHG savings of
conventionally produced
bio-ethanol is critically
dependent on the
manufacturing process
and the way co-products
are used
Straw CHP
DDGS
as
animal
Lignite CHP
NG CCGT CHP
Conv. NG boiler
S
u
g
a
r
b
e
e
t
Pulp to fuel
slops to biogas
The lowest GHG
emissions are obtained
when co-products are
used for energy
production
Pulp to animal feed
slops not used
Gasoline
0
50
100
150
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 53 of 71
5. Well-to-Wheels: Bio-Ethanol from other sources
2020+ DISI vehicle
Barley/Rye and
Maize/Corn pathways
show slightly higher GHG
emissions than wheat
with the same processing
assumptions
Ethanol from sugar cane,
wood or straw give much
lower GHG emissions
Straw
Farmed wood
Sugar cane (Brazil)
Corn, US
Maize (EU), NG
CHP, DDGS to
animal feed
Barley/Rye, NG
CHP, DDGS to
animal feed
But can be matched by
the best sugar beet
pathway
Gasoline
0
50
100
150
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 54 of 71
5. Well-to-Wheels: Bio-Diesel (FAME)
2020+ DICI vehicle
FAME is less energyintensive than ethanol
N2O emissions add to the
GHG emissions and
variability
Co-product fate plays a role
but less so than with bioethanol
Bars represent the total WTT + TTW GHG emissions
Tallow
Waste cooking oil
Palm (standard practice)
Palm (good practice)
Soy
Sunflower
Meal to animal feed
Using co-products for
energy produces the
lowest GHG emissions
Rape
Meal to biogas
Rape
Meal to animal feed
Diesel
0
50
100
150
Good practice can reduce
emissions significantly (as
shown for Palm oil)
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 55 of 71
5. Well-to-Wheels: Bio-Diesel (HVO)
2020+ DICI vehicle
Tallow
FAME equivalent
When upgrading a vegetable
oil to a road fuel, the transesterification and
hydrotreating routes are
broadly equivalent in terms
of GHG emissions.
Waste cooking oil
Palm
Soy
Sunflower
meal to animal feed
Rape
meal to animal feed
Diesel
-50
0
50
100
150
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 56 of 71
5. Well-to-Wheels: Syn-Diesel and DME
GHG emissions from GTL diesel
are slightly higher than
conventional diesel, CTL diesel
produces more GHG, even with
CCS
Synthetic diesel from biomass
(BTL) offers lower overall GHG
emissions
Synthetic diesel from electricity
and CO2 from flue gas still needs
research
DME can be produced from
natural gas or biomass with
slightly better energy and GHG
results than other GTL or BTL
fuels. DME being the sole
product, the yield of fuel for use
for Diesel engines is high.
However, DME can only be used
in dedicated vehicles
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 57 of 71
5. Well-to-Wheels: Externally Chargeable Vehicles
There is a range of options for vehicles designed to use grid electricity:
Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) use only electric power;
Range-Extender Electric Vehicles (REEV)
and Plug-In Hybrids (PHEV) which in turn provide a greater proportion of their power
from the ICE.
While electric propulsion on the vehicle is efficient, the overall energy use and
GHG emissions depend critically of the source of the electricity used.
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 58 of 71
Comparison of vehicles using 2010 EU-mix electricity (gasoline DISI 2020+ vehicle)
TTW (from fuel)
WTT (from fuel)
TTW (from electricity)
WTT (from electricity)
TTW
BEV
BEV
REEV
REEV
PHEV
PHEV
HEV
HEV
ICE
ICE
0
50
100
Energy (MJ/100 km)
150
200
0
WTT (from fuel)
50
100
150
Hybrid vehicles are more energy-efficient than conventional ICE vehicles and hence
produce less GHG emissions
Using mains electricity as motive power (PHEV, REEV, BEV) further reduces GHG
emissions, but with 2010 EU-mix electricity the gains are modest.
The differences between PHEV and REEV depends mainly on the assumed electric
range (20 km vs. 80 km) rather than the technologies themselves
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 59 of 71
Effect of electricity source on energy use and GHG emissions (gasoline DISI 2020+ vehicle)
Electricity
from
TTW (from fuel)
TTW (from electricity)
WTT (from fuel)
TTW
BEV
REEV
PHEV
BEV
REEV
PHEV
NG
(4000 km)
BEV
REEV
PHEV
BEV
REEV
PHEV
Coal
(EU-mix)
BEV
REEV
PHEV
BEV
REEV
PHEV
HEV
ICE
HEV
ICE
Wind
0
50
100
Energy (MJ/100 km)
150
200
0
WTT (from fuel)
50
100
150
Where electricity is produced with low GHG emissions, electrified vehicles give lower
GHG emissions than conventional ICEs, with BEVs giving the lowest emissions.
For electricity produced from NG, electrification still provides GHG emission benefits.
For electricity from coal, HEV provide the lowest GHG emissions
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 60 of 71
5. Well-to-Wheels: Fuel Cell Vehicles and Hydrogen
Compared with the V3 report, DISI vehicles have made less progress than
expected, fuel cells have made more progress.
Further developments in fuel cell system, tank and vehicle technologies will
allow fuel-cell vehicles to become more efficient in the 2020+ timeframe and
increase their efficiency advantage over conventional vehicles.
This study considers
Pure fuel cell vehicles (FCEV) and
REEV-FC vehicles where the fuel cell acts as a range extender for a battery
vehicle with a battery range of 80km
Many potential hydrogen production routes exist and the results are critically
dependent on the pathway selected.
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 61 of 71
5. Well-to-Wheels: Fuel Cell Vehicles and Hydrogen
A 2020+ FCEV using compressed
hydrogen from NG reforming has
the potential for GHG emissions
half those of a gasoline vehicle
Wind electricity
Nuclear electricity
The electrolysis route would give
no advantage over conventional
vehicles/fuels
Using liquid hydrogen would
produce slightly more emissions
Farmed wood
Coal + CCS
Coal (EU-mix)
NG (4000 km)
reforming
cryo-compression
If hydrogen is produced from coal,
only the CCS option would result
in emissions savings
Hydrogen from non-fossil sources
(biomass, wind, nuclear) offers
low overall GHG emissions
NG (4000 km)
electrolysis
NG (4000 km)
reforming
Diesel DICI
Gasoline DISI
0
50
100
150
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 62 of 71
5. Well-to-Wheels: FCV versus REEV-FC
GHG emissions (gCO2eq/km)
250
200
FCEV: H2
REEV-FC: H2 & EU mix electr.
150
100
50
0
Hydrogen supplied as
Production process type
Compressed
Compressed
Thermal
Electrolysis
Cryo-Comp'd Cryo-Comp'd
Thermal
Electrolysis
GHG emissions from the REEV-FC depend on both the hydrogen and
electricity pathways.
Where the FCV is powered by hydrogen produced by low GHG pathways
(wood, wind electricity etc), there is no benefit from augmenting this with EU
grid electricity
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 63 of 71
5. Fuel Combinations in PHEV and REEV
140
DISI Vehicle
(using gasoline)
GHG Emissions (g CO2eq/km)
120
DISI Vehicle
(using E10 with SBET1a)
100
DISI PHEV20
(using electr. & gasoline)
80
SI REEV80
(using electr. & gasoline)
60
BEV (using electricity)
40
EU-mix electricity 2009
20
Coal, state-of-the-art
conventional technology
(IGCC)
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Electricity GHG emissions intensity (g CO2eq/kWh)
The GHG emissions for PHEV and REEV can be expressed as fuel GHG emissions and the intensity for
electricity production
Benefits for the use of electric energy are greatest when the electricity production has low GHG intensity
Where electricity production produces high levels of GHG emissions, the relative GHG emissions from the
various xEV configurations are a complex function of the type of fuel used and the source of electricity
The differences in performance between PHEV and REEV technologies are primarily a function of the different
assumed electric range (20 km vs. 80 km) rather than a difference between these technologies per se
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 64 of 71
5. Fuel Combinations REEV-FC
DISI Vehicle
(using gasoline)
140
FCEV
(using H2 from NG:GPCH1b)
GHG Emissions (g CO2eq/km)
120
FCEV
(using H2 from Wind: WDEL1/CH2)
100
BEV (using electricity)
80
REEV-FC
(using H2 from NG: GPCH1b & electr.)
60
REEV-FC
(using H2 from wind electr.:
WDEL1/CH2
& electricity)
EU-mix electricity 2009
40
20
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Coal, state-of-the-art
conventional technology (IGCC)
Electricity GHG emissions intensity (g CO2eq/kWh)
Similar calculations can be made for range extended Fuel-Cell Vehicles (REEV-FC)
which use electricity and hydrogen
Where the FCV starts with lower GHG emissions than the ICE, electrification (as
REEV-FC) only brings benefits where the electricity generation itself has low GHG
emissions intensity
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 65 of 71
Section 6
ALTERNATIVE USES OF
ENERGY RESOURCES
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 66 of 71
6. There are many ways of using natural gas
Potential for CO2 avoidance from 1 MJ remote gas (as LNG)
CNG as transportation fuel only provides small savings compared with gasoline/diesel
With the improvements expected in fuel cell vehicle efficiency, production of hydrogen
from NG by reforming and use in a FC vehicle has the potential to save as much GHG
emission as substituting coal by NG in power generation
Using gas to produce electricity and then hydrogen via electrolysis is an inefficient
process because of the energy consumed both in power generation and electrolysis
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 67 of 71
6. Alternative use of land
Potential for CO2 avoidance from 1 ha of land
Using farmed wood to produce hydrogen or electricity can save as much
GHG emission as using electricity from wood in place of coal
Both save much more GHG emission per hectare than producing
conventional or advanced biofuels.
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 68 of 71
6. There are many ways of using wind power
Potential for CO2 avoidance from 1 MJ wind electricity
Using wind electricity to produce hydrogen saves less GHG emissions than
substituting NG CCGT electricity and less than half as much as substituting
coal electricity.
Using wind electricity to produce synthetic diesel or methane via methanol
saves very little GHG emissions.
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 69 of 71
7. Conclusions
A Well-to-Wheels analysis is the essential basis to assess the impact of
future fuel and powertrain options.
Both fuel production pathway and powertrain efficiency are impacting the
GHG emissions as well as total and fossil energy use.
A common methodology and data-set has been developed providing a basis
for the evaluation of pathways.
The analysis can be updated as technologies evolve.
A shift to renewable/low-carbon routes may offer a significant GHG
reduction potential but generally requires more total energy.
The specific pathway is critical.
An integrated approach across all energy using sectors is essential to reduce energy
consumption and GHG emissions most effectively
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 70 of 71
Well-to-Wheels analysis
of future automotive fuels and powertrains
in the European context
The study report is available on the WEB:
http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/about-jec/downloads
Any questions, enquiries, or requests about JEC activities
and results can be addressed to the centralized email
address:
[email protected]
with due
acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014
Slide 71 of 71

JEC WTW Study Version 4

Transcription

Similar documents

Steam to Hot Water Conversion

Ryan Kenny, Clean Energy

Climate Change - Ev-K2-CNR

Linda Tran Executive Summary

Project Description

2014 valkyrie - Honda Powersports

Project Summary

Jeanette Fitzsimons Green Party Co

The Role of TransportaZon Demand Management in Climate AcZon

Look around you, it couLd save your Life