1 System Dynamic Modeling Dave Reichmuth. 2 Objectives Use dynamic models of infrastructure systems...

1

System Dynamic Modeling

Dave Reichmuth

2

Objectives

•Use dynamic models of infrastructure systems to analyze the impacts of widespread deployment of hydrogen technologies

•Identify potential system-wide deficiencies that would otherwise hinder infrastructure evolution, as well as mitigation strategies to avoid collateral effects on supporting systems

•Analyze the feedback effects of competing alternative transportation options

3

We model the dynamics of emergent fuel-vehicle systems

•Our focus is on the feedback and dynamics of future transportation system options.– Primary energy source, fueling infrastructure,

and vehicles need to be considered together– Feedback and competition between

transportation and energy alternatives will effect the evolution of transportation systems

– The differing time scales for change need to be considered

4

Elimination of carbon from the fuel-vehicle system is required to meet CO2 target

1990 2005 2020 2035 2050 20650

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

H2 - zero-carbon source

H2 - SMR

BEV-75%NG 25%Coal

80% reduction

gasoline ICE 46mpg

gasoline ICE 35 mpghistorical

GT/yr CO

2

no change

5






6

Alternative fuel pathways will interact

OilOil

GasolineGasoline

Gasoline ICEGasoline ICE

Natural GasNatural Gas

HydrogenHydrogen

HFCVHFCV

Coal+NGCoal+NG

ElectricityElectricity

BEVBEV

7

Alternative fuel pathways will interact

OilOil

GasolineGasoline

Gasoline ICE

Gasoline ICE

HydrogenHydrogen

HFCVHFCV

CoalCoal

Electricity

Electricity

BEVBEV

PHEVPHEV H2-ICEH2-ICE

BiofuelsBiofuels

Intermittent ZC Intermittent ZC

NuclearNuclearNatural Gas

Natural Gas

BiomassBiomass

8






9

The type of fuel-vehicle system is more important than the speed of implementation

1990 2005 2020 2035 2050 20650

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

H2 from zero carbon

2035 sales midpoint

BEV- 100%NG2020 sales midpoint

80% reduction

gasoline ICE 35mpghistorical

GT/yr CO

2

no change

10

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 20600M

100M

200M

300M

400M

Vehicles

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

new sales rate

new vehicles

new vehicles sales rate (M/yr)

old vehicles

The turnover rate for the installed vehicle fleet is slow

(+) Fueling infrastructure capacity only needs to grow with fleet

(-) Difficult to have serial technology transitions

•50% of sales in 2020 are of “new” type

– Note: The Prius was introduced in the US in 2001. In 2010 the market share of all hybrids is only 2.2%

11

Approach

•System dynamics: Methodology– Choose a region to define the system– Pose detailed questions

• What are the impacts of large-scale H2-fueled vehicle market penetration?

• What is the impact of a carbon tax on alternative vehicle penetration?

• Can stationary FC systems provide distributed H2 production?

•System dynamics: Analysis– Formulate SD models of infrastructure components

and interrelations to a sufficient level of detail to see interactions and dependencies

– Powersim software allows quick generation of code and interfaces and can solve system of ODEs. It allows insight into the dynamic behavior of complex systems.

12

System dynamic models are built on the concept of “stock and flows”

•From simple differential equations and time delays, the model can reproduce complex behavior

13

Grid electricity submodel

Grid electricity submodel

Natural gas submodelNatural gas submodel

VehiclesubmodelVehiclesubmodel

GasolinesubmodelGasolinesubmodel

SFCsubmodelSFCsubmodel

Gasoline demand

Gasoline price

NG price

NG demand

Elect. price,CO2/kWh

EV Elect.demand

NG demand

DisplacedElect. demand

14

Model provides a tool for exploring a range of conditions

•Key model input parameters– Vehicles:

• HFV mileage• HFV and PHEV learning curves• battery vs plug-in• daily charging profile• gasoline mileage improvements (CAFE or advanced ICE)• H2 production alternatives (low-carbon)• sales/discard rates

– NG:• Import capacity• domestic production• demand growth (other than vehicles or electric) • elasticity

– Other: • carbon tax

15

Model provides a tool for exploring a range of conditions

•Key model input parameters– SFC:

• electric efficiency• combined heat/cooling factors• matching of heat, cooling, & electric loads with demand• H2 co-production• fixed & variable costs of electricity & H2

• penetration rate in new & retrofit buildings by type– Grid electricity:

• Baseload, marginal, & new generation• growth in demand• changes in nuclear, coal, NG, & renewable generation

16

Model Demo- Introduction

17

Model Demo- HFV mileage

18

Model demo- Carbon tax

19

Higher price of zero-carbon H2 requires a carbon tax to spur HFV sales

•Contours of HFV quantity on road by 2050 based on 1000 simulations

•Hydrogen supply:– Zero-carbon H2 at $6/kg

– SMR H2 at ~$4/kg before C-tax

•At low penetration of zero-carbon H2, carbon tax has little impact on HFV sales

•Higher carbon tax stimulates increase in zero-carbon hydrogen fueled vehicles

24 M8 M

10 M22 M

12 M

14 M

20 M

16 M

18 M

24 M8 M

10 M22 M

12 M

14 M

20 M

16 M

18 M

24 M8 M

10 M22 M

12 M

14 M

20 M

16 M

18 M

24 M8 M

10 M22 M

12 M

14 M

20 M

16 M

18 M

24 M8 M

10 M22 M

12 M

14 M

20 M

16 M

18 M

24 M8 M

10 M22 M

12 M

14 M

20 M

16 M

18 M

24 M8 M

10 M22 M

12 M

14 M

20 M

16 M

18 M

24 M8 M

10 M22 M

12 M

14 M

20 M

16 M

18 M

24 M8 M

10 M22 M

12 M

14 M

20 M

16 M

18 M

24 M8 M

10 M22 M

12 M

14 M

20 M

16 M

18 M

24 M8 M

10 M22 M

12 M

14 M

20 M

16 M

18 M

24 M8 M

10 M22 M

12 M

14 M

20 M

16 M

18 M

24 M8 M

10 M22 M

12 M

14 M

20 M

16 M

18 M

24 M8 M

10 M22 M

12 M

14 M

20 M

16 M

18 M

24 M8 M

10 M22 M

12 M

14 M

20 M

16 M

18 M

24 M8 M

10 M22 M

12 M

14 M

20 M

16 M

18 M

24 M8 M

10 M22 M

12 M

14 M

20 M

16 M

18 M

24 M8 M

10 M22 M

12 M

14 M

20 M

16 M

18 M

24 M8 M

10 M22 M

12 M

14 M

20 M

16 M

18 M

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $7000%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%HFV on roadby 2050

Percent Zero Carbon H

2

Carbon Tax ($/tonne)

8 M

10 M

12 M

14 M

16 M

18 M

20 M

22 M

24 M

20

Carbon tax does not effect emissions without a zero-carbon option

• Contours of LDV emissions in 2050

• 80% reduction from 1990 goal is 0.019 GT/yr

• H2 Supply:

– Zero-carbon H2 at $6/kg

– SMR H2 at ~$4/kg before C-tax

0.0150.045

0.040

0.035 0.020

0.030 0.025

0.0150.045

0.040

0.035 0.020

0.030 0.025

0.0150.045

0.040

0.035 0.020

0.030 0.025

0.0150.045

0.040

0.035 0.020

0.030 0.025

0.0150.045

0.040

0.035 0.020

0.030 0.025

0.0150.045

0.040

0.035 0.020

0.030 0.025

0.0150.045

0.040

0.035 0.020

0.030 0.025

0.0150.045

0.040

0.035 0.020

0.030 0.025

0.0150.045

0.040

0.035 0.020

0.030 0.025

0.0150.045

0.040

0.035 0.020

0.030 0.025

0.0150.045

0.040

0.035 0.020

0.030 0.025

0.0150.045

0.040

0.035 0.020

0.030 0.025

0.0150.045

0.040

0.035 0.020

0.030 0.025

0.0150.045

0.040

0.035 0.020

0.030 0.025

0.0150.045

0.040

0.035 0.020

0.030 0.025

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700

20%

40%

60%

80%


2

Carbon Tax($/tonne)

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.040

0.045

2050LDV emissionsGT/yr

21

Adding other sources of zero-carbon fuels gives lower emissions

•Add 3-fold higher zero-carbon electricity than CA RPS default case (33GW by 2020)

•Emissions are lower than the default case

•Emissions at large carbon taxes and no zero-carbon H2 rise slightly due to increasing dependence on natural gas for electricity

0.040

0.0150.035

0.020

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.040

0.0150.035

0.020

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.040

0.0150.035

0.020

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.040

0.0150.035

0.020

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.040

0.0150.035

0.020

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.040

0.0150.035

0.020

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.040

0.0150.035

0.020

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.040

0.0150.035

0.020

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.040

0.0150.035

0.020

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.040

0.0150.035

0.020

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.040

0.0150.035

0.020

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.040

0.0150.035

0.020

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.040

0.0150.035

0.020

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.040

0.0150.035

0.020

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.040

0.0150.035

0.020

0.030

0.025

0.020

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700

20%

40%

60%

80%



2


0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.040

0.045

22

Adding other sources of zero-carbon fuels gives lower emissions

•Add 3-fold higher zero-carbon electricity than CA RPS default case (33GW by 2020)

•Hydrogen vehicle sales are higher due to cost of zero-carbon electricity.

8M

20M

10M

22M12M

18M

14M20M

16M

18M

8M

20M

10M

22M12M

18M

14M20M

16M

18M

8M

20M

10M

22M12M

18M

14M20M

16M

18M

8M

20M

10M

22M12M

18M

14M20M

16M

18M

8M

20M

10M

22M12M

18M

14M20M

16M

18M

8M

20M

10M

22M12M

18M

14M20M

16M

18M

8M

20M

10M

22M12M

18M

14M20M

16M

18M

8M

20M

10M

22M12M

18M

14M20M

16M

18M

8M

20M

10M

22M12M

18M

14M20M

16M

18M

8M

20M

10M

22M12M

18M

14M20M

16M

18M

8M

20M

10M

22M12M

18M

14M20M

16M

18M

8M

20M

10M

22M12M

18M

14M20M

16M

18M

8M

20M

10M

22M12M

18M

14M20M

16M

18M

8M

20M

10M

22M12M

18M

14M20M

16M

18M

8M

20M

10M

22M12M

18M

14M20M

16M

18M

8M

20M

10M

22M12M

18M

14M20M

16M

18M

8M

20M

10M

22M12M

18M

14M20M

16M

18M

8M

20M

10M

22M12M

18M

14M20M

16M

18M

8M

20M

10M

22M12M

18M

14M20M

16M

18M

8M

20M

10M

22M12M

18M

14M20M

16M

18M

8M

20M

10M

22M12M

18M

14M20M

16M

18M

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700

20%

40%

60%

80%

Percent zero carbon H

2


8M

10M

12M

14M

16M

18M

20M

22M

HFV in 2050

23

Summary

•H2 Fueled Vehicles can significantly reduce CO2 emissions– Requires large HFV penetration ~50% of CA fleet by 2050– Zero-carbon fuels are needed to meet emissions targets in 2050 and

beyond

•H2 produced from SFC could potentially supply 11% of HFV fleet demand in 2050– Approximately 2 Million vehicles

•Stationary FC systems have a small effect on CA’s CO2 emissions– Effect of SFC systems with a maximum of 35% relative fuel savings is

limited by the potential for CHP systems in CA buildings– An optimistic penetration for SFC is 16% of total electricity generation– Overall reduction in CO2 is ~2%

•Preliminary simulations show that the reduction of CO2 emissions by SFC can be significant when displacing coal generation

24

Supplemental Slides

25

0.020

0.025

0.045

0.030

0.040

0.035

0.020

0.025

0.045

0.030

0.040

0.035

0.020

0.025

0.045

0.030

0.040

0.035

0.020

0.025

0.045

0.030

0.040

0.035

0.020

0.025

0.045

0.030

0.040

0.035

0.020

0.025

0.045

0.030

0.040

0.035

0.020

0.025

0.045

0.030

0.040

0.035

0.020

0.025

0.045

0.030

0.040

0.035

0.020

0.025

0.045

0.030

0.040

0.035

0.020

0.025

0.045

0.030

0.040

0.035

0.020

0.025

0.045

0.030

0.040

0.035

0.020

0.025

0.045

0.030

0.040

0.035

0.020

0.025

0.045

0.030

0.040

0.035

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700

20%

40%

60%

80%


Percent zero-carbon H

2


0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.040

0.045

Very high carbon tax is required to offset coal-fired power

•Using coal in place of natural gas increases emissions

•High carbon tax is required to achieve the emissions of default case

•Achieving a low emissions target is very difficult

26

8M

10M

12M

24M

14M

16M18M

22M

20M

8M

10M

12M

24M

14M

16M18M

22M

20M

8M

10M

12M

24M

14M

16M18M

22M

20M

8M

10M

12M

24M

14M

16M18M

22M

20M

8M

10M

12M

24M

14M

16M18M

22M

20M

8M

10M

12M

24M

14M

16M18M

22M

20M

8M

10M

12M

24M

14M

16M18M

22M

20M

8M

10M

12M

24M

14M

16M18M

22M

20M

8M

10M

12M

24M

14M

16M18M

22M

20M

8M

10M

12M

24M

14M

16M18M

22M

20M

8M

10M

12M

24M

14M

16M18M

22M

20M

8M

10M

12M

24M

14M

16M18M

22M

20M

8M

10M

12M

24M

14M

16M18M

22M

20M

8M

10M

12M

24M

14M

16M18M

22M

20M

8M

10M

12M

24M

14M

16M18M

22M

20M

8M

10M

12M

24M

14M

16M18M

22M

20M

8M

10M

12M

24M

14M

16M18M

22M

20M

8M

10M

12M

24M

14M

16M18M

22M

20M

8M

10M

12M

24M

14M

16M18M

22M

20M$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700

20%

40%

60%

80%

HFV in 2050

Percent zero carbon H

2


8M

10M

12M

14M

16M

18M

20M

22M

Regions with coal electricity and zero-carbon hydrogen are sensitive to carbon pricing

•Hydrogen vehicle penetration is sensitive to carbon tax, especially at high levels of zero-carbon hydrogen

27

Penetration of SFC systems can provide significant H2 for vehicles

H2 from SFC•H2 available:

– Fraction of NG input = 15%• Assume 85% H2 utilization in FC

– Reduced electricity efficiency of FC from 47% to 40%

•SFC provide 11% of H2 demand– Supply 2 Million H2 vehicles

SFC dedicated to EV charging•Cost effectiveness is dependent on SFC capital and maintenance costs•Effect on CO2 emissions is minimal in regions with NG as marginal supply•Caveat: utility distribution concerns are not addressed by model

0

1

2

3

4

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Hydrogen (B-kg/yr)

Year

Total for HFV

H2 from SFC

1 System Dynamic Modeling Dave Reichmuth. 2 Objectives Use dynamic models of infrastructure systems...

Documents

Transcript of 1 System Dynamic Modeling Dave Reichmuth. 2 Objectives Use dynamic models of infrastructure systems...