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. Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 3 of 71
Section 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 4 of 71
1. Executive Summary 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.
Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 5 of 71
1. Executive Summary WTW energy expended and GHG emissions for non-hydrogen pathways (2020+ vehicles)
Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 6 of 71
1. Executive Summary WTW energy expended and GHG emissions for FCEV & Hydrogen pathways (2020+ vehicles)
Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 7 of 71
1. Executive Summary 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. Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 8 of 71
1. Executive Summary 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.
Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 9 of 71
1. Executive Summary 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. Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 10 of 71
1. Executive Summary 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.
Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 11 of 71
1. Executive Summary 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).
Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 12 of 71
1. Executive Summary 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.
Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 13 of 71
Section 2
2014 JEC WTW STUDY
Reproduction permitted 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 Reproduction permitted 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
Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 16 of 71
2. WTW Scope
Reproduction permitted 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.
Reproduction permitted 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
Reproduction permitted 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
Reproduction permitted 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
Reproduction permitted 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
Reproduction permitted 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
Reproduction permitted 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+
Reproduction permitted 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.
Reproduction permitted 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.
Reproduction permitted 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)
Reproduction permitted 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
Reproduction permitted 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 Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 29 of 71
Section 4
WTT STUDY
Reproduction permitted 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
Reproduction permitted 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.
Reproduction permitted 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
Reproduction permitted 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
Reproduction permitted 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. Reproduction permitted 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.
Reproduction permitted 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. Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 37 of 71
30
90
25
85
20
80
15
75
10
70
5
65
0
Total GHG inc. combustion (g CO2eq/MJfinal fuel)
WTT GHG emissions (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
Production & conditioning at source
Transformation at source
Transportation to market
Transformation near market
Conditioning & distribution
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. Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 38 of 71
WTT GHG emissions (g CO2eq/MJfinal fuel)
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. Production & conditioning at source Transformation at source Transportation to market Transformation near market Conditioning & distribution Total GHG inc. combustion
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 Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 39 of 71
WTT GHG emissions (g CO2eq/MJfinal fuel)
4. Well-to-Tank: Bio-ethanol Production & conditioning at source Transformation at source Transportation to market Transformation near market Conditioning & distribution Total GHG inc. combustion
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 Reproduction permitted 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.
Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 41 of 71
WTT GHG emissions (g CO2eq/MJfinal fuel)
4. Well-to-Tank: Bio-diesel (FAME, FAEE and HVO) 90
Fossil diesel
Production & conditioning at source Transportation to market Conditioning & distribution
Transformation at source Transformation near market Total GHG inc. combustion
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 Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 42 of 71
WTT GHG emissions (g CO2eq/MJfinal fuel)
4. Well-to-Tank: Synthetic Fuels Production & conditioning at source Transformation at source Transportation to market Transformation near market Conditioning & distribution 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 Reproduction permitted 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 Reproduction permitted 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
Production & conditioning at source
Transformation at source
Transportation to market
Transformation near market
Conditioning & distribution
Total GHG inc. Combustion
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 Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 45 of 71
4. Well-to-Tank: hydrogen from renewable sources WTT GHG emitted (g CO2eq/MJH2)
Production & conditioning at source Transportation to market Conditioning & distribution
Transformation at source Transformation near market Total GHG inc. Combustion
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
Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 46 of 71
Section 5
WTW STUDY
Reproduction permitted 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. Transport applications may not maximize the GHG reduction potential of alternative and renewable energy resources.
Reproduction permitted 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 Reproduction permitted 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)
Reproduction permitted 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
GHG emissions (g CO2eq/km)
Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 51 of 71
5. Well-to-Wheels: ICE Vehicles, LPG 2020+ PISI/DICI vehicles Bars represent the total WTT + TTW emissions
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)
Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 52 of 71
5. Well-to-Wheels: Bio-Ethanol from sugar beet and wheat 2020+ DISI vehicle Bars represent the total WTT + TTW emissions
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
GHG emissions (g CO2eq/km)
Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 53 of 71
5. Well-to-Wheels: Bio-Ethanol from other sources 2020+ DISI vehicle Bars represent the total WTT + TTW emissions
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
GHG emissions (g CO2eq/km)
Reproduction permitted 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)
GHG emissions (g CO2eq/km)
Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 55 of 71
5. Well-to-Wheels: Bio-Diesel (HVO) 2020+ DICI vehicle Bars represent the total WTT + TTW emissions
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
GHG emissions (g CO2eq/km)
Reproduction permitted 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
Reproduction permitted 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.
Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 58 of 71
5. Well-to-Wheels: Externally Chargeable Vehicles 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
WTT (from electricity)
100
150
GHG emissions (g CO2eq/km)
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 Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 59 of 71
5. Well-to-Wheels: Externally Chargeable Vehicles 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) WTT (from electricity)
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
WTT (from electricity)
100
150
GHG emissions (g CO2eq/km)
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 Reproduction permitted 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.
Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 61 of 71
5. Well-to-Wheels: Fuel Cell Vehicles and Hydrogen Bars represent the total WTT + TTW emissions
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
GHG emissions (g CO2eq/km)
Reproduction permitted 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 Reproduction permitted 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 Reproduction permitted 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 Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 65 of 71
Section 6
ALTERNATIVE USES OF ENERGY RESOURCES Reproduction permitted 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 Reproduction permitted 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. Reproduction permitted 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. Reproduction permitted 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.
Transport applications may not maximize the GHG reduction potential of alternative and renewable energy resources. An integrated approach across all energy using sectors is essential to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions most effectively
Reproduction permitted 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: infoJEC@jrc.ec.europa.eu
Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement
WTW V4 2014 Slide 71 of 71