Plug-in Electric and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles
Transcript of Plug-in Electric and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles
Plug-in Electric and Hydrogen Fuel Cell
Electric Vehicles
Amgad Elgowainy
Energy Systems Division
Argonne National Laboratory
GREET User Workshop
October 15-16, 2015
Plug-in vehicles
Upstream
Oil
1%
Gas
20%
Coal
47%
Nuclear
21%
Renewable
11%
2
PHEV
Emissions
CrudeRecovery
CrudeTransportation
FuelTransportation
CrudeRefining
Gasoline
Electricity Generation Mix
Electricity Transmission
and Distribution
Electricity
40%
25%13%
ANL examined three charging choices based on travel
behavior in two distinct utility regions in the U.S.
WECC and IL
3
California
WECC
IL
Long dwell time during the day offers another charging
opportunity at work and at home (figure shown for
vehicles driven to work)
4
PHEVs load profile can vary considerably with charging
scenario (figure shown for U.S. WECC service area)
5
Reach the peak at 7PM
Reach the peak at 6AM
30% higher electricity demand
6
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Wed 12 AM Wed 6 AM Wed Noon Wed 6 PM Thu 12 AM
Ve
hicle
Load
(MW
h)
No
n-V
eh
icle
Lo
ad (M
Wh
)
Typical January Week
Non-Vehicle Load PHEV (Arrival Time Charging) PHEV (Smart Charging)
PHEVs Load is Relatively Small Even at 10% Penetration
in the LDV FLEET (Figure Shown for IL in 2030)
7
State of Illinois – Modeling Approach and Data Sources
Modeled state of Illinois in detail; buses in adjacent states were aggregated.
Agent-based modeling structure simulated operation of the electricity market – EMCAS.
Transmission modeled at bus/line level(1900 buses and 2500 lines).
Load profiles developed from FERC* data and published utility hourly data; projected to2020 using Energy Information Administration
• (EIA) data.
Virtually no hydropower.
Non-dispatchable renewable generation(wind) determined from hourly wind speedand electric generation profile datafrom NREL web site.
Thermal power plants simulated at the unitlevel; unit characteristics derived from EIA data;
supplemented with data from NERC and Illinois Commerce Commission.
Illinois Representation
in EMCAS
*Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Marginal generation mix for charging varies significantly
with charging scenario in IL( figure shown for IL in
2030)
8
9
Alternative Charging Scenarios of PHEVs in WECC (including California)
Fuel Technology
Charging Starts at End of
Trip
Charging Ends Before Time
of Departure
Charging Ends Before Time
of Departure + Opportunity
Charge at Work or Home
Coal Utility Boiler /
IGCC
0% 0% 0
Natural Gas Utility Boiler -0.5% 0.2% 0.9%
Combined Cycle 96.5% 97.2% 92.0%
Combustion
Turbine
3.5% 1.8% 6.5%
Residual Oil Utility Boiler 0% 0% 0%
Nuclear Utility Boiler 0% 0% 0%
Biomass Utility Boiler 0% 0% 0%
Renewable Hydro/Wind/Solar 0.5% 0.8% 0.6%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Marginal mix for charging is dominated by NGCC for All
considered charging choices (table shown for WECC)
WTW GHG emissions of plug-in vehicles* mainly depend on electricity generation mix
*Marginal mix and fuel economy are based on simulations for 2030
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
GH
G E
mis
sio
ns (
rela
tiv
e t
o G
aso
lin
e I
CE
V)
Petroleum Use (relative to Gasoline ICEV)
Regular HEV
Baseline Gasoline ICE Vehicle
IL (least cost charging)
IL (arrival time charging)
WECC (all scenarios)
PHEV40
PHEV10
100% Renewable
BEV (with 100% Coal)
BEV (with 100% NGCC)
IL (least cost charging) 69% coal
IL (arrival time charging) 27% coal
WECC (all scenarios) 99% NG
PHEV10 = 10 mi range, 25% VMT on battery (+ engine)
PHEV40 = 40 mi range,50% VMT on battery alone
BEV = 100 mi range, 100% VMT on battery
BEV (with 100% Renewable)
Elgowainy et al. 2012 (TRR)Elgowainy et al. 2012 (EVS 26)
GREET includes more than 20 pathways for central and
distributed hydrogen production
PetroleumConventional
Oil Sands
Compressed Natural Gas
Liquefied Natural Gas
Liquefied Petroleum Gas
Methanol
Dimethyl Ether
Fischer-Tropsch Diesel
Fischer-Tropsch Jet
Fischer-Tropsch Naphtha
Hydrogen
Natural GasNorth American
Non-North American
Shale gas
Coal
Soybeans
Palm
Rapeseed
Jatropha
Camelina
Algae
Gasoline
Diesel
Jet Fuel
Liquefied Petroleum Gas
Naphtha
Residual Oil
Hydrogen
Fischer-Tropsch Diesel
Fischer-Tropsch Jet
Methanol
Dimethyl Ether
Biodiesel
Renewable Diesel
Renewable Gasoline
Hydroprocessed
Renewable Jet
Sugarcane
Corn
Cellulosic BiomassSwitchgrass
Willow/Poplar
Crop Residues
Forest Residues
Miscanthus
Residual Oil
Coal
Natural Gas
Biomass
Other Renewables
Ethanol
Butanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Hydrogen
Methanol
Dimethyl Ether
Fischer-Tropsch Diesel
Fischer-Tropsch Jet
Pyro Gasoline/Diesel/Jet
Electricity
Renewable Natural GasLandfill Gas
Animal Waste
Waste water treatment
11
Coke Oven Gas
Petroleum Coke
Nuclear EnergyHydrogen
Ce
ntralize
d G
aseo
us
H2
Pro
du
ction
Fueling Station
Geologic Storage
Compressor
Tube-Trailer
Gaseous Terminal
Loading Bays
Storage
Compressor
Storage
CompressorCascade
Dispenser
Gaseous Terminal
Loading Bays
Storage
Compressor
Compressor
Com
pressor Distrib
utio
n P
ipe
line
Transmission Pipeline
Tube-Trailer
Refrigeration
Fuel production and delivery pathways for
compressed gaseous hydrogen
12
Ce
ntralize
d G
aseo
us
H2
Pro
du
ction
Fueling Station
Liquefier
High-Pressure Cryo-Pump
Cryo-Compressed
Dispenser
Liquid Terminal
Loading Bays
CryogenicStorage
Liquid Truck
Pump Pump
Compressed Gas
Dispenser
CryogenicStorage
Vaporizer
Fuel production and delivery pathways for cryo-
compressed hydrogen
13
Hydrogen production today is mainly from SMR, but other
low-carbon pathways exist today
STEAM REFORMER
SHIFT REACTOR Pressure Swing Adsorption
Ambient Air
Steam
Stack Gas
Fuel Gas
Natural Gas H2
At 72% NG to H2 energy efficiency
12 kgCO2e/kgH2
14
Actual North America liquefaction plants GHG emissions are
different from US average mix
15
Liquefaction GHG emissions today may be much less (~40%
less) than based on US average mix
Region GHG Emissions(gCO2e/kWhe)
GHG Emissions(kgCO2e/kgH2)*
Liquefaction Capacity(ton/day)
California 380 4.5 30
Louisiana 610 7.4 70
Indiana 1070 12.8 30
New York 330 4.0 or 0** 40
Alabama 580 7.0 30
Ontario 130 1.6 30
Quebec 20 0.20 27
Total 257
Weighted average 5.7 or 5.0**
If US mix 670 8.0
*Assuming liquefaction energy of 12 kWhe/kg_H2
** Plant in NY uses hydro power
16
GHG emissions of H2 compression are based on US
average mix
Compression process
Pressure lift(bar)
Compression Energy(kWhe/kgH2)
GHG Emissions(kgCO2e/kgH2)*
Pipelinecompression
20 70 0.6 0.40
350 bar dispensing 20 440 3 2.0
700 bar dispensing 20 900 4 2.7
-40oC pre-cooling --- 0.25 0.17
CcH2 station 2 350 0.3 0.20
*Assuming US average generation mix
17
GHG emissions of LH2 truck delivery is smaller than
tube-trailer delivery due to higher payload
4000 kgH2
250 bar, 550 kgH2
100 km (60 mi)
100 km (60 mi)
0.1 kgCO2e/kgH2
0.7 kgCO2e/kgH2
18
Fuel cycle GHG emissions of MOF-5, LH2 and
compressed GH2 pathways
PathwayProduction Transport Compression/
liquefactionTotal
GH2 Pathway (350 bar)
12 0.7 2.0 14.7
GH2 Pathway (700 bar)
12 0.7 2.9 15.6
LH2 Pathway (CcH2) 12 0.1
5.2 or8.2‡
17.3 or20.3‡
MOF-5 Pathway
12 0.7 5.4 18.1
kgCO2e/kgH2
19
‡ Assuming US mix for H2 liquefaction
PathwayOnboard Storage
Balance of Vehicle Cycle
Fuel Cycle (WTW)
Total
GH2 Pathway (350 bar)
14 56 245 315
GH2 Pathway (700 bar)
17 56 257 330
LH2 Pathway(CcH2)
9 56 288350
or 400‡
MOF-5pathway
15 56 302 373
gCO2e/mi*
Onboard storage represents 3-5% of total LCA GHG emissions of compressed GH2, LH2 and MOF-5 pathways
‒ Accomplishment
*Assuming 60 mi/kgH2 fuel economy for FCEVs, and 160,000 lifetime VMT
‡ Assuming US mix for H2 liquefaction20
GHG emissions reduction potential depends on H2 production
and packaging for delivery and onboard storage
GH2 = gaseous hydrogen CcH2 = cryocompressed SMR = steam methane reforming CCS = carbon capture and storageLH2 = liquid hydrogen MOF = metal-organic framework ICEV = internal combustion engine vehicle
Assuming gaseous delivery via pipelines and 700 bar onboard storage
Acronyms
Low/high band: sensitivity to uncertainties associated with projection of fuel economy and fuel pathways
22
GREET Application: WTW GHG Results of a Mid-Size Car (g/mile)
(DOE EERE 2013, Record 13005)
• A GREET WTW results file with most recent GREET version is available at GREET website (http://greet.es.anl.gov/results)
For projected state of technologies in 2035
Acknowledgment
23
Plug-in and fuel cell vehicle analyses have been supported by the Biofuels Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) and Fuel Cell Technologies Office (FCTO) of the U.S. DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Office.
Questions?
24