JEC WTW study 12/2005. HyCARE Symposium Slide 1 Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels...

JEC WTW study 12/2005. HyCARE SymposiumSlide 1

Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains

in the European context

A joint study by EUCAR / JRC / CONCAWE

Overview of Results

JEC WTW study 12/2005. HyCARE Symposium Slide 2

Outline

WTW study objectives and scope

Critical vehicle assumptions

Hydrogen Pathways Hydrogen vehicles (ICE and FC)

Hydrogen from natural gas

Liquid v. Compressed

Hydrogen from biomass

Hydrogen via electrolysis

Costs

Potential hydrogen production from biomass

Hydrogen v. other alternative fuels CNG

Biomass-derived fuels

Cost comparison

Alternative uses of biomass


Study Objectives

Establish, in a transparent and objective manner, a consensual well-to-wheels energy use and GHG emissions assessment of a wide range of automotive fuels and powertrains relevant to Europe in 2010 and beyond.

Consider the viability of each fuel pathway and estimate the associated macro-economic costs.

Have the outcome accepted as a reference by all relevant stakeholders.

Focus on 2010+

Marginal approach for energy supplies


Tank-to-Wheels Matrix

Powertrains PISI DISI DICI HybridPISI

HybridDISI

HybridDICI

FC HybridFC

Ref. +hyb. FC

FuelsGasoline 2002

2010+2002

2010+2010+ 2010+ 2010+

Diesel fuel 20022010+

2010+ 2010+

LPG 2002 2010+

CNG Bi-Fuel 20022010+

CNG (dedicated) 20022010+

2010+

Diesel/Bio-diesel blend95/5

20022010+

2010+

Gasoline/Ethanol blend95/5

20022010+

20022010+

2010+

Bio-diesel 20022010+

20022010+

MTBE/ETBE 20022010+

20022010+

20022010+

20022010+

DME 20022010+

2010+

Synthetic diesel fuel 20022010+

2010+

Methanol 2010+

Naphtha 2010+

Compressed hydrogen 2010+ 2010+ 2010+ 2010+

Liquid hydrogen 2010+ 2010+ 2010+ 2010+


Well-to-Tank Matrix

Ga

solin

e, D

iese

l, N

aph

tha

(20

10 q

ualit

y)

CN

G

LPG

Hyd

rog

en(c

om

p.,

liqui

d)

Syn

the

tic d

iese

l (F

isch

er-

Tro

psch

)

DM

E

Eth

ano

l

MT

/ET

BE

FA

ME

/FA

EE

Me

tha

nol

Ele

ctric

ity

Crude oil X

Coal X(1) X(1) X X X

Natural gas Piped X X(1) X X X X

Remote X(1) X X(1) X(1) X X X

LPG Remote X X

Biomass Sugar beet X

Wheat X X

Wheat straw X

Sugar cane X

Rapeseed X

Sunflower X

Woody waste X X X X X

Farmed wood X X X X X X

Organic waste X(2) X

Black liquor X X X X X

Wind X

Nuclear X

Electricity X(1) with/without CO2 capture and sequestration

(2) Biogas

Fuel

Resource


Vehicle Assumptions

Simulation of GHG emissions and energy use calculated for a model vehicle Representing the European C-segment (4-seater Sedan) Not fully representative of EU average fleet New European Driving Cycle (NEDC)

For each fuel, the vehicle platform was adapted to meet minimum performance criteria Speed, acceleration, gradeability etc Criteria reflect European customer expectations

Compliance with Euro 3/4 was ensured for the 2002 / 2010 case

No assumptions were made with respect to availability and market share of the vehicle technology options proposed for 2010+

Heavy duty vehicles (truck and buses) not considered in this study


Common vehicle minimum performance criteria

All technologies fulfil at least minimal customer performance criteria

“Vehicle / Fuel” combinations comply with emissions regulations The 2002 vehicles comply with Euro III The 2010+ vehicles comply with Euro IV

Acceleration

Time lag

0-100 km/h

Time lag

0-50 km/h

Time lag

80-120 km/h

in 4th gear

Range

Gradeability

at 1 km/h

Top speed

< 4 s > 4.0 m/s2

> 30 %

< 13 s

< 13 s > 180 km/h

> 600 km


HYDROGEN PATHWAYS


Characteristics of hydrogen ICE vehicles

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

as gasoline

Gasoline C-H2 L-H2

PowertrainDisplacement l 1.6 1.3 1.3Powertrain kW 77 77 77Engine mass kg 120 120 120Gearbox mass kg 50 50 50Storage SystemTank pressure MPa 0.1 35/70 Atmo.Tank net capacity kg 31.5 9 9Tank mass empty kg 15 120 109Tank mass increase including 90% fuel

kg 0 85 74

VehicleReference mass kg 1181 1181 1181Vehicle mass kg 1181 1266 1255Cycle test mass kg 1250 1360 1360Performance mass kg 1321 1406 1395

PISIPISI


Characteristics of hydrogen FC vehicles

Drive

train

Electric

motor

Fuel

cell

Power

controller

Or

Hydrogen tank

(compressed or liquid)

Liquid fuelGasoline

Methanol

Naphtha

Diesel

Reformer

Optional battery

(hybrid)

Drive

train

Drive

train

Electric

motor

Electric

motor

Fuel

cell

Fuel

cell

Power

controller

Power

controller

Or

Hydrogen tank

(compressed or liquid)

Liquid fuelGasoline

Methanol

Naphtha

Diesel

Reformer

Optional battery

(hybrid)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

% Net power

H2 FCGasoline FCMethanol FC

Fuel cell powertrain efficiency


Characteristics of hydrogen FC vehicles

C-H2 L-H2 C-H2 L-H2 Gasoline(1) Methanol

Powertrain mass substitutionEngine mass kg -120 -120 -120 -120 -120 -120Gearbox mass kg -50 -50 -50 -50 -50 -50Fuel CellFuel cell stack mass kg 150 150 150 150 150 150Reformer mass kg 0 0 0 0 90 90Cooling system additional mass kg 50 50 50 50 50 50Electric partsBattery mass kg 0 0 20 20 40 40Electric motor+electronics mass kg 73 73 73 73 73 73Storage SystemTank netto capacity kg 4.7 4.7 4.2 4.2 23 45Tank mass empty kg 69 57 56 51 15 15Tank mass increase including 90% fuel

kg 30 18 16 11 -8 12

VehicleEnlarged vehicle additional mass kg 50 50 50 50 50 50Reference mass kg 1181 1181 1181 1181 1181 1181Vehicle mass kg 1364 1352 1370 1365 1456 1476Cycle test mass kg 1470 1470 1470 1470 1590 1590(1) also valid for naphtha and diesel

Hybrid+reformerNon Hybrid Hybrid


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Total WTW energy (MJ / 100 km)

WT

W G

HG

em

iss

ion

s (

g C

O 2eq /

km

Gasoline

Diesel fuel

C-H2 ex NG, ICE

C-H2 ex NG, FC

C-H2 ex coal, ICE

C-H2 ex coal, FC

C-H2 ex wood, ICE

C-H2 ex wood, FC

C-H2 ex NG+ely, ICE

C-H2 ex NG+ely, FC

C-H2 ex coal+ely, ICE

C-H2 ex coal+ely, FC

C-H2 ex wood+ely, ICE

C-H2ex wood+ely, FC

C-H2 ex nuclear elec, ICE

C-H2 ex nuclear elec, FC

C-H2 ex wind elec, ICE

C-H2 ex wind elec, FC

C-H2 ex EU-mix elec, ICE

C-H2 ex EU-mix elec, FC

L-H2 ex NG, ICE

L-H2 ex NG, FC

L-H2 ex wood, ICE

L-H2 ex wood, FC

L-H2 ex EU-mix elec, ICE

L-H2 ex EU-mix elec, FC

L-H2 ex NG+ely, ICE

L-H2 ex NG+ely, FC

L-H2 ex coal+ely, ICE

L-H2 ex coal+ely, FC

Overall picture: GHG versus total energyHydrogen

Most hydrogen pathways

are energy-intensive

2010+ vehicles


WTW GHG

0 50 100 150 200 250

C-H2 PISI

L-H2 PISI

C-H2 PISI hyb.

C-H2 FC

C-H2 FC hyb.

g CO2eq / km

WTW energy

0 100 200 300 400

C-H2 PISI

L-H2 PISI

C-H2 PISI hyb.

C-H2 FC

C-H2 FC hyb.

MJ / 100 km

TTW

WTT

ICE v. Fuel Cell, Liquid v. Compressed

Fuel cells have the potential to deliver a large efficiency gain Liquid hydrogen is less energy-efficient than compressed hydrogen

2010+ vehicles

Hydrogen from natural gas


WTW GHG

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

NG 4000 km,on-site ref

NG 4000 km,central ref, pipe

LNG, central ref,pipe

Coal EU-mix,central ref, pipe

Wood, on-sitegasifier

Wood , centralgasifier, pipe

Wood , blackliquor

g CO2eq / km

WTW energy

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

NG 4000 km, on-site ref

NG 4000 km,central ref, pipe

LNG, central ref,pipe

Coal EU-mix,central ref, pipe

Wood, on-sitegasifier

Wood , centralgasifier, pipe

Wood , blackliquor

MJ / 100 km

TTW

WTT

Impact of hydrogen production route

Source: WTW Report, Figures 8.4.2-1a/b

Direct hydrogen production via reforming

Hydrogen from renewables gives low GHGBut comparison with other uses is required

Figures for 2010+

non-hybrid FC vehicles


WTW energy

0 200 400 600 800


NG 4000 km, CCGT, on-site ely

NG 4000 km, CCGT, central ely,pipe

Wood, on-site gasifier+ely

Elec EU-mix, on-site ely

Elec coal EU-mix, on-site ely

Elec nuclear, on-site ely

Wind, central ely, pipe

MJ / 100 km

TTW

WTT

WTW GHG

0 200 400 600


NG 4000 km, CCGT, on-site ely

NG 4000 km, CCGT, central ely,pipe

Wood, on-site gasifier+ely

Elec EU-mix, on-site ely

Elec coal EU-mix, on-site ely

Elec nuclear, on-site ely

Wind, central ely, pipe

g CO2eq / km

Impact of hydrogen production routeHydrogen production via electrolysis

Electrolysis is less energy efficient than direct hydrogen production

Figures for 2010+

non-hybrid FC vehicles

Ely=electrolysis


WTW energy

0 100 200 300 400

C-H2 ex NG (4000km), PISI

C-H2 ex NG (4000km), FC

C-H2 ex wood,FC

Gasoline

Naphtha

MeOH ex NG(4000 km)

MeOH ex Coal(EU-mix)

MeOH ex Wood

MJ / 100 km

TTW

WTT

Reformer + FC

Directhydrogen

WTW GHG

0 100 200 300 400

C-H2 ex NG (4000km), PISI

C-H2 ex NG (4000km), FC

C-H2 ex wood,FC

Gasoline

Naphtha

MeOH ex NG(4000 km)

MeOH ex Coal(EU-mix)

MeOH ex Wood

g CO2eq / km

TTW

WTT

Total GHG

Reformer+ FC

Directhydrogen

Impact of hydrogen production route: on-board reformers

On-board reforming of gasoline/naphtha is better than direct use in an ICE but not as good as direct fuel cell

Could provide supply flexibility during fuel cell introduction

2010+ vehicles


CO2 capture and storage (CC&S)

The concept of isolating CO2 produced in combustion or conversion processes and injecting it into suitable geological formations has been gaining credibility in the last few years

There is considerable scope for storage in various types of geological formations

CO2 capture and transport technologies are available Easier when CO2 is produced in nearly pure form Transport in supercritical state (compressed) by pipeline or ship

The main issues are Long-term integrity and safety of storage Legal aspects Cost

The complete technological packages are under development CO2 removal potential given here is only indicative

Preliminary assessment based on data from the IEA greenhouse gas group and other literature sources

Cost data not included as available info not considered sufficiently reliable and consistent


WTW energy

0 100 200 300 400

CNG: LNG,Dedicated

Syn-diesel, RemGTL

Syn-diesel, Coal(CTL)

DME: Rem

C-H2, NG 4000km, Cen Ref, ICE

C-H2, NG 4000km, Cen Ref, FC

MJ / 100 km

With CCS

Standard processes

WTW GHG

0 100 200 300 400

CNG: LNG,Dedicated

Syn-diesel,Rem GTL

Syn-diesel,Coal (CTL)

DME: Rem

C-H2, NG 4000km, Cen Ref,

ICE

C-H2, NG 4000km, Cen Ref,

FC

g CO2eq/ km

With CCS

Standard processes

CO2 capture and storage (CC&S)

CC&S requires some additional energy (mainly for CO2 compression)

It is most attractive for Processes that use large amounts of high-carbon energy (CTL) Processes that “decarbonise” the fuels (hydrogen)


Cost of fossil fuels substitution and CO2 avoided

Some cost elements are dependent on scale (e.g. distribution infrastructure, number of alternative vehicles etc)

As a common calculation basis we assumed that 5% of the relevant vehicle fleet (SI, CI or both) converts to the alternative fuel This is not a forecast, simply a way of comparing each fuel option under

the same conditions If this portion of the EU transportation demand were to be replaced by

alternative fuels and powertrain technologies, the GHG savings vs. incremental costs would be as indicated

Costs of CO2 avoided are calculated from incremental capital and operating costs for fuel production and distribution, and for the vehicle

The costs, as calculated, are valid for a steady-state situation where 5% of the relevant conventional fuels have been replaced by an alternative. Additional costs are likely to be incurred during the transition period, especially where a new distribution infrastructure is required.


Costing basis

We considered the cost from a macro-economic point of view (cost to “EU inc.”) The cost of internationally traded commodities is the market price

whether imported or produced within Europe (unless the production cost in Europe is higher)

The 12% capital charge excludes the tax element (internal)

Cost elements considered For fuels produced within Europe

Raw material cost Production cost (capital charge + fixed operating costs + energy/chemicals

costs)

For imported fuels: market price Distribution and retail costs Additional cost of alternative vehicles (compared to state-of-the-art

gasoline PISI)


Costing basis: oil price

Oil price is important because It sets the cost of fossil fuels It influences the cost of virtually all other materials and services

We have considered two oil price scenarios 25 €/bbl (30 $/bbl) 50 €/bbl (60 $/bbl)

All other cost elements are adjusted according to an “Oil Cost Factor” (OCF) representing the fraction of the cost element that will follow the oil price


Additional cost of alternative 2010+ vehicles

Base: Gasoline PISI

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

DISI G

asoli

ne

PISI C

NG (bi-f

uel)

PISI C

NG (dedic

ated

)

PISI L

PG (bi-fu

el)

DICI D

iesel

DICI +

DPF D

iesel

DICI D

ME

PISI C

-H2 70

MPa

PISI L

-H2

DISI H

yb. G

asolin

e

PISI H

yb. C

NG

DICI H

yb. D

iese

l

DICI H

yb. +

DPF D

iesel

PISI H

yb. C

-H2

70 M

Pa

PISI H

yb. L

-H2

FC C-H

2 70

MPa

FC L-H

2

FC Hyb

. C-H

2 70 M

Pa

FC Hyb

. L-H

2

Ref+FC H

yb. G

asolin

e

Ref+FC H

yb. M

etha

nol

ICEs FCsHybrids


Cost v. potential for CO2 avoidance

Oil price scenario: 50 €/bbl Hydrogen

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

€/t CO2 avoided

% C

O2

av

oid

ed

co

mp

are

d t

o c

on

ve

nti

on

al f

ue

l ca

se

H2 NG (FC)

H2 wood (ICE)

H2 wood (FC)

H2 (wood/MeOH+ref+FC)

H2 nuclear (ICE)

H2 nuclear (FC)

H2 wind (ICE)

H2 wind (FC)


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

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

€/t CO2 avoided

€ s

pe

nt

/ t f

os

sil f

ue

l su

bst

itu

ted

H2 NG (FC)

H2 wood (ICE)

H2 wood (FC)


H2 nuclear (ICE)

H2 nuclear (FC)

H2 wind (ICE)

H2 wind (FC)


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

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

-500% -400% -300% -200% -100% 0% 100% 200%

% CO2 avoided compared to conventional fuel case

€ s

pe

nt

/ t f

os

sil

fue

l su

bs

titu

ted

H2 NG (ICE)

H2 NG (FC)

H2 coal (ICE)

H2 coal (FC)

H2 wood (ICE)

H2 wood (FC)

H2 NG+ely (ICE)

H2 NG+ely (FC)

H2 coal+ely (ICE)

H2 coal+ely (FC)

H2 nuclear (ICE)

H2 nuclear (FC)

H2 wind (ICE)

H2 wind (FC)

H2 (Gasoline+ref+FC)

H2 (NG/MeOH+ref+FC)

H2 (Coal/MeOH+ref+FC)



Hydrogen production potential from biomass

Max hydrogen scenario Woody biomass from all available land to hydrogen (used in a fuel cell vehicle) Surplus sugar beet and wheat straw to ethanol Organic waste to biogas

2012 projections including:Set-asidesSugar beet surplusAgricultural yield improvementsWheat straw surplusUnused wood wasteOrganic waste to biogas

But excludingCurrently not cultivated landPastures

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Max hydrogen (ICE) Max hydrogen (FC)

Fraction of total road fuels marketreplaced (for constant distance driven)

Fraction of WTW fossil energy avoided

Diesel EU-25 road fuel marketin 2015: 297 Mt/a


HYDROGEN v. OTHER ALTERNATIVE FUELS


Conventional fuels from crude oil

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

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

150 170 190 210 230 250 270

WTW energy (MJ / 100 km)

WT

W G

HG

(g

CO

2e

q /

km)

Gasoline 2002

Gasoline2010 hyb.

Gasoline 2010

Conv. Diesel 2002

Conv. Diesel 2010

PISI

DISI

DPF

no DPF

Conv. Diesel 2010 hyb.


WTW GHG

0 50 100 150 200

Gasoline PISI

Conv. DieselDICI+DPF

CNG (4000 km) PISI

CNG PISI hyb.

C-H2 PISI

C-H2 PISI hyb.

C-H2 FC

C-H2 FC hyb.

g CO2eq / km

TTW

WTT

ICE

FC

WTW energy

0 100 200 300 400

Gasoline PISI

Conv. DieselDICI+DPF

CNG (4000 km)PISI

CNG PISI hyb.

C-H2 PISI

C-H2 PISI hyb.

C-H2 FC

C-H2 FC hyb.

MJ / 100 km

TTW

WTT

ICE

FC

Hydrogen v. CNG

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

2010+ vehicles


WTW GHG

0 50 100 150 200 250

Gasoline

Pulp to animal feed

Pulp to heat

Conv. Boiler

NG GT+CHP

Lignite CHP

Straw CHP

Conv. Boiler

NG GT+CHP

Lignite CHP

Straw CHP

Wheat straw

Farmed wood

Sugar cane

g CO2eq / km

Sugar beet

Wheat

DDGS as animal feed

DDGS as fuel

TTW WTT

WTW fossil energy

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250

Gasoline

Pulp to animal feed

Pulp to heat

Conv. Boiler

NG GT+CHP

Lignite CHP

Straw CHP

Conv. Boiler

NG GT+CHP

Lignite CHP

Straw CHP

Wheat straw

Farmed wood

Sugar cane

MJfo / 100 km

Sugar beet

Wheat

TTW WTT

DDGS as animal feed

DDGS as fuel

Ethanol

All figures for

2010+ PISI vehicles

Conventional production of ethanol as practiced in Europe gives modest fossil energy/GHG savings compared with gasoline Existing European pathways can be improved by use of co-generation and/or use of by-

products for heat Choice of crop and field N2O emissions play a critical part Advanced processes (from wood or straw) can give much higher savings


WTW GHG

0 50 100 150 200

Conv. Diesel

RME: glycerineas chemical

RME: glycerineas animal feed

REE: glycerineas chemical

REE: glycerineas animal feed

SME: glycerineas chemical

SME: glycerineas animal feed

g CO2eq / km

TTW WTT

WTW fossil energy

0 50 100 150 200 250

Conv. Diesel

RME: glycerine aschemical

RME: glycerine asanimal feed

REE: glycerine aschemical

REE: glycerine asanimal feed

SME: glycerine aschemical

SME: glycerine asanimal feed

MJfo / 100 km

TTW WTT

Bio-diesel

Bio-diesel saves fossil energy and GHG compared to conventional diesel Field N2O emissions play a big part in the GHG balance and are responsible for the large

uncertainty Use of glycerine has a relatively small impact Sunflower is more favourable than rape

All figures for

2010+ DICI+DPF vehicle


WTW GHG

0 100 200 300 400

Conv. diesel DICI+DPF

CNG bi-fuel (LNG)

NG Remote (GTL)

Coal (CTL)

Farmed wood (BTL)

Waste wood via BL (BTL)

Remote NG

Coal

Farmed wood

Waste wood via BL

g CO2eq / km

Syn-dieselDICI+DPF

DMEDICI

WTW energy

0 100 200 300 400 500

Conv. diesel DICI+DPF

CNG bi-fuel (LNG)

NG Remote (GTL)

Coal (CTL)

Farmed wood (BTL)

Waste wood via BL (BTL)

Remote NG

Coal

Farmed wood

Waste wood via BL

MJ / 100 km

TTW

WTT

Syn-dieselDICI+DPF

DMEDICI

Syn-diesel and DME

Diesel synthesis requires more energy than conventional diesel refining from crude oil

Syn-diesel from NG (GTL) is nearly GHG neutral compared to conventional diesel, syn-diesel from coal (CTL) produces considerably more GHG

The use of biomass (BTL processes) involves very little fossil energy and therefore produces little GHG emissions because the synthesis processes are fuelled by the biomass itself

2010+ vehicles


Hydrogen remains considerably more expensive than other routes

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

€/t CO2 avoided

€ s

pe

nt

/ t f

os

sil

fue

l su

bs

titu

ted

CNG PISI (BF)

CNG hybrid

Syn-diesel w ood

DME w ood

DME w ood BL

EtOH sugar beet

EtOH w heat

EtOH straw or w ood

Bio-diesel

H2 NG (FC)

H2 w ood (ICE)

H2 w ood (FC)

Syn-diesel w ood BL

H2 nuclear (ICE/FC)

H2 w ind (ICE/FC)

H2 (w ood/MeOH+ref+FC)

CBG PISI (BF)

CNG PISI (ded.)

Oil price scenario: 50 €/bbl


The potential of biomass in Europe: overview

2012 projections including:Set-asidesSugar beet surplusAgricultural yield improvementsWheat straw surplusUnused wood wasteOrganic waste to biogas

But excludingCurrently not cultivated landPastures

Conventional Biofuels: Wheat and sugar beet to ethanol, oilseeds to bio-diesel, wheat straw not used

All other scenarios: Surplus sugar beet and wheat straw to ethanolOrganic waste to biogas

Max ethanol: Woody biomass from all available land to ethanol

Max syn-diesel: Woody biomass from all available land to syn-dieselAlso produces naphtha

Max DME: Woody biomass from all available land to DME

Max Hydrogen: Woody biomass from all available land to hydrogen (used in a fuel cell vehicle)

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

ConventionalBiofuels

Max ethanol Max syn-diesel Max DME Max hydrogen(ICE)

Max hydrogen(FC)

Fraction of total road fuels market replaced (for constant distance driven)

Fraction of WTW fossil energy avoided

+ 1.8% for naphtha co-production


There are many ways of using gas

Potential for CO2 avoidance from 1 MJ remote gas (as LNG)

Substitution of marginal electricity is likely to be the most CO2 efficient

Only fuel cell vehicles can come close

-20 0 20 40 60 80

Electricity ex LNG (vsCoal, state-of-the-art)

CNG ex LNG

Syn-diesel (GTL)

CH2 ex LNG, on sitereforming, FC

C-H2 ex LNG, centralreforming, FC

C-H2 ex LNG, centralreforming, ICE

g CO2 avoided / MJ natural gas

Reference case:

2010 ICE with

conventional fuel


There are many ways of using wind power

Potential for CO2 avoidance from 1 MJ wind electricity

Substitution of marginal electricity is likely to be the most CO2 efficient

Only fuel cell vehicles can come close Issues related to energy storage must also be taken into account

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Electricity (vs NG,CCGT)

Electricity (vs Coal,state-of-the-art)

C-H2, centralelectrolysis, FC

C-H2, centralelectrolysis, ICE

g CO2 avoided / MJ wind electricity

Reference case:

2010 ICE with

conventional fuel


0 5 10 15 20 25

ELEC (wood gasification v. NG CCGT)

ELEC (wood gasification v. coal state-of-the-art conventional)

ETHANOL (sugar beet, pulp to animal feed)

ETHANOL (wheat grain, DDGs to animal feed, NG GT + CHP)

ETHANOL (wheat grain, DDGs to heat & power, straw CHP)

ETHANOL (wood)

RME (rape seeds, glycerine as chemical)

SYN-DIESEL (wood gasification)

DME (wood gasification)

HYDROGEN + ICE (wood gasification)

HYDROGEN + FC (wood gasification)

SYN-DIESEL (wood gasification via black liquor)

DME (wood gasification via black liquor)

HYDROGEN + ICE (wood gasification via black liquor)

HYDROGEN + FC (wood gasification via black liquor)

Mt CO2 avoided / ha / a

Naphtha

Alternative use of primary energy resources - Biomass

Wood gasification or direct use of biomass for heat and power offers greatest GHG savings

Potential for CO2 avoidance from 1 ha of land

Reference case for road fuels:

2010 ICE with conventional fuel


The study report will be available on the WEB:http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/WTW

For questions / inquiries / requests / notes

to the consortium,

please use the centralised mail address:

[email protected]

Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains

in the European context

JEC WTW study 12/2005. HyCARE Symposium Slide 1 Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels...

Documents

Transcript of JEC WTW study 12/2005. HyCARE Symposium Slide 1 Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels...