Well-to-Wheels Energy Use, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Criteria Pollutant Emissions

-- Hybrid Electric and Fuel-Cell Vehicles --

Michael WangCenter for Transportation Research

Argonne National Laboratory

2003 SAE Future Transportation Technology ConferenceCosta Mesa, CA, June 23, 2003

Acknowledgments

U.S. Department of Energy• Phil Patterson, Tien Nguyen, Mark Paster, Ed Wall

General Motors Corporation• Norm Brinkman

Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs• David Loos

In-kind Supports• BP• ChevronTexaco• ExxonMobil• Shell• U.S. Department of Agriculture• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

2

Vehicle and Fuel Cycles:Petroleum-Based Fuels

Vehicle Cycle

Fuel Cycle

Well to Pump

Pump to W

heels

3

The GREET (Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation) Model

Includes emissions of greenhouse gases• CO2, CH4, and N2O • VOC, CO, and NOx as optional GHGs

Estimates emissions of five criteria pollutants• Total and urban separately • VOC, CO, NOx, SOx, and PM10

Separates energy use into• All energy sources • Fossil fuels (petroleum, natural gas, and coal)• Petroleum

The GREET model and its documents are available at Argonne’s GREET website at http://greet.anl.gov

4

Calculation Logic for a GivenWTP Production Activity in GREET

InputsEmissionFactors

CombustionTech. Shares

FacilityLocation Shares

Fuel TypeShares

Energy Use byFuel Type

TotalEmissions

UrbanEmissions

Calculations

Energy Efficiencies

5

Calculation Logic for a Given WTP Transportation Activity in GREET

Energy Intensity (Btu/ton-mile)

Energy Intensity (Btu/ton-mile)

Transportation Distance (mile)Transportation Distance (mile)

Energy Consumption (Btu/mmBtu Fuel Transported)

Emission Factors(g/mmBtu Fuel Burned)

Emission Factors(g/mmBtu Fuel Burned)

Share of Process Fuels

Emissions by Mode (g/mmBtu Fuel Transported)

Mode ShareMode Share

Energy Use by Mode (Btu/mmBtu Fuel Transported)

Emissions (g/mmBtu Fuel Transported)

6

WTP Criteria Pollutant Issues Are Addressed Through an On-Going Project with GM

Data for relevant facilities were extracted from EPA’s 1999 National Emissions Inventory databaseTotal emissions for a given facility were divided by its throughput to develop emissions factorsDistribution curves were developed to fit to the developed emission factorsThe curves were further adjusted to account for improved future technologies and emission controls

7

This Study Includes Many Fuel Pathways

CRUDE OIL

• Gasoline• Diesel fuel• LPG

ELECTRICITY- U.S. Mix- Renewable

• Hydrogen Gaseous and liquid

BIOETHANOL- Corn- Cellulose

• Ethanol Pure ethanol and E85

NATURAL GAS- North American- Non North American

• Compressed natural gas• Hydrogen (gaseous and liquid)

Central plantRefueling station

• Fischer-Tropsch diesel• Methanol• LPG

8

Petroleum Refining Is the Key Energy Conversion Step for Gasoline and Diesel

Petroleum Recovery (97%)

Gasoline and Diesel at Refueling Stations

Petroleum Transportationand Storage (99%)

Transportation, Storage, and Distribution of Gasoline (99.5%)

MTBE or EtOH for Gasoline

Petroleum Refining to Gasoline (84.5-86%, Depending on Oxygenates and Reformulation) and Low-S Diesel (87%)

Petroleum Refining to Gasoline (84.5-86%, Depending on Oxygenates and Reformulation) and Low-S Diesel (87%)

NG to MeOH Corn

9

Production and Compression Are Key Steps for G.H2 Production

NA NG Recovery (97.5%)

Compressed G.H2 at Refueling Stations

LNG Gasification in Ports

LNG Production (88.0%)LNG Production (88.0%)

LNG Transport via Ocean Tankers 98.5%)

G.H2 Transport via Pipelines (96.3%)

nNA NG Recovery (97.5%)

Steam or Electricity Export

NA: North American nNA: non-North AmericanNG: natural gas

G.H2 Compression at Refueling Stations (89.5% & 95.0% for NG & Electric)

G.H2 Compression at Refueling Stations (89.5% & 95.0% for NG & Electric)

G.H2 Production (71.5%) G.H2 Production (71.5%)

NA NG Processing (97.5%)

nNA NG Processing 97.5%)

NG Transport via pipelines

10

H2 Liquefaction Has Higher Energy Losses Than H2 Compression

NA NG Recovery (97.5%)

NA NG Processing (97.5%)

L. H2 at Refueling Stations

L.H2 Transport via Ocean Tankers (96.9%)

L.H2 Transport (98.9%)

nNA NG Recovery (97.5%)

nNA NG Processing (97.5%)

H2 Liquefaction (71.0%)

H2 Liquefaction (71.0%)G.H2 Production

(71.5%)G.H2 Production

(71.5%)H2 Liquefaction

(71.0%)H2 Liquefaction

(71.0%)

G.H2 Production (71.5%)

G.H2 Production (71.5%)

11

Resource and Infrastructure OptionsResult in Many Potential H2 Pathways

H2 is produced from natural gas via steam methane reforming (SMR) now, and in the foreseeable futureSMR plant emissions need to be taken into accountRegional or station SMR production• Could reduce or avoid expensive distribution infrastructure • But production emissions are close to urban areas

Central SMR CO2 emissions can be potentially sequesteredElectrolysis’ H2 energy and emissions depend on electricity sourcesGasification for H2 production• Coal: CO2 and criteria pollutant emissions; possible CO2 sequestration• Biomass: criteria pollutant emissions

Nuclear electrolysis or thermal cracking H2 - virtually no air emissions

12

Ethanol WTP Pathways Include Activities from Fertilizer to Ethanol at Stations

Agro-Chemical Production

Corn FarmingCorn Farming

Refueling Stations

Agro-Chemical Transport

Corn Transport

Transport, Storage, and Distribution of Ethanol

Electricity (Cell. Ethanol)

Woody Biomass FarmingWoody Biomass Farming Herbaceous Biomass FarmingHerbaceous Biomass Farming

Woody Biomass Transport Herbaceous Biomass Transport

Animal Feed (Corn Ethanol)

Ethanol ProductionEthanol Production

13

WTP Energy Use Significantly Affects Ranking of Total WTW Energy and GHGs

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Compre

ssed N

GCrud

e Naphtha

LS Dies

elLS

Gaso

lineMeth

anol, N

GNG Nap

htha

Centra

l GH2,

NGStation

GH2, N

GCen

tral L

H2, NG

Cellulo

sic Ethan

ol

Station LH

2, NG

Electro G

H2, U.S. M

ix

Electro L.

H2, U.S. m

ixW

TP E

nerg

y Ef

ficie

ncy

14

GREET Includes More Than 50 Vehicle/Fuel Systems

Conventional Spark-Ignition Vehicles• Conventional gasoline, federal reformulated

gasoline, California reformulated gasoline• Compressed natural gas, liquefied natural

gas, and liquefied petroleum gas• Methanol and ethanol

Compression-Ignition Direct-Injection Hybrid Electric Vehicles: Grid-Independentand Connected• Conventional diesel, low sulfur diesel, dimethyl

ether, Fischer-Tropsch diesel, and biodiesel

Battery-Powered Electric Vehicles• U.S. generation mix• California generation mix• Northeast U.S. generation mix

Fuel Cell Vehicles• Gaseous hydrogen, liquid hydrogen, methanol,

federal reformulated gasoline, California reformulated gasoline, low sulfur diesel, ethanol, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, and naphtha

Spark-Ignition Hybrid Electric Vehicles: Grid-Independent and Connected• Conventional gasoline, federal

reformulated gasoline, California reformulated gasoline, methanol, and ethanol

• Compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, and liquefied petroleum gas

Compression-Ignition Direct-Injection Vehicles• Conventional diesel, low sulfur diesel,

dimethyl ether, Fischer-Tropschdiesel, and biodiesel Spark-Ignition Direct-Injection Vehicles

• Conventional gasoline, federal reformulated gasoline, and California reformulated gasoline

• Methanol and ethanol

15

Vehicle Fuel Economy Is One of the Most Important Factors for WTW Results

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

CNGV LPGV E85 FFV GasolineHybrid

DieselHybrid

GasolineFCV

MeOHFCV

GH2 FCV BP EV

Fuel

Eco

nom

y Ra

tio

MIT 2003 GM 2001 MIT 2000

Fuel economy ratios are relative to improved future gasoline ICE technology

16

Vehicle/Fuel Technologies for WTW Energy and GHG Emission Results

Crude oil-based technologiesRFG ICE LPG ICELS Diesel ICE RFG ICE hybridGasoline FCV LS diesel ICE hybrid

Natural gas-based technologiesFT diesel ICE CNG ICEFT diesel ICE hybrid MeOH FCVG.H2 FCV

Bioethanol and ElectricityCorn E85 ICE FFV Cellulosic EtOH FCVU.S. average electri.-to-G.H2 FCV Renewable electricity-to-G.H2 FCVU.S. average electricity battery-powered EV

17

WTW Total Energy Use of Selected Vehicle/Fuel Systems

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

ICEV: C

rude R

FG

ICEV: C

rude &

NG LPG

ICEV: C

rude L

SD

ICE H

EV: Cru

de R

FG

FCV: Cru

de G

aso.

ICE H

EV: Cru

de LS

DIC

EV: NG FTD

ICEV: C

NGIC

E HEV: N

G FTDFCV: N

G MeO

HFCV: N

G GH2

ICE FFV: C

orn E85

FCV: Cell

ulosic EtO

H

FCV: U.S. k

Wh G

H2

FCV: Ren

ew. K

Wh G

H2EV: U

.S. k

WhB

tu/M

ile

Crude oil feedstock

Natural gas feedstock

Electricity and EtOH

18

WTW Fossil Energy Use of Selected Vehicle/Fuel Systems

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

ICEV: C

rude R

FG

ICEV: C

rude L

SD

ICEV: C

rude &

NG LPG

ICE H

EV: Cru

de R

FG

FCV: Cru

de G

aso.

ICE H

EV: Cru

de LS

DIC

EV: NG FTD

ICEV: C

NGIC

E HEV: N

G FTDFCV: N

G MeO

HFCV: N

G GH2

ICE FFV: C

orn E85

FCV: Cell

ulosic EtO

H

FCV: U.S. k

Wh G

H2

FCV: Ren

ew. K

Wh G

H2EV: U

.S. k

WhB

tu/M

ile

Crude oil feedstock

Natural gas feedstock

Electricity and EtOH

19

WTW GHG Emissions of Selected Vehicle/Fuel Systems

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

ICEV: Crud

e RFG

ICEV: Crud

e LSD

ICEV: Crud

e & NG LPG

ICE HEV: Crude

RFG

FCV: Crude

Gaso.

ICE HEV: Crude

LSD

ICEV: NG FTD

ICEV: CNG

ICE HEV: NG FTD

FCV: NG M

eOH

FCV: NG G

H2

ICE FFV: Corn E85

FCV: Cell

ulosic EtO

H

FCV: U.S. k

Wh GH2

FCV: Ren

ew. K

Wh GH2

EV: U.S. k

Wh

Gram

s/M

ile

Crude oil feedstock Natural gas

feedstock

Electricity and EtOH

20

ANL/GM Study Takes the Following Key Assumptions for PTW Emissions

Propulsion System Assumed Emission PerformanceGasoline ICE Tier 2 Bin 5Diesel and CNG ICE Tier 2 Bin 5, but no evap VOCHydrogen ICE Tier 2 Bin 2, no evap, Bin 5 NOxFuel processor fuel cell Tier 2 Bin 2Hydrogen fuel cell Tier 2 Bin 1 (zero emissions)

2010 MY Vehicle Emissions Targets

Fuel consumption penalties of aftertreatment systems to meet standards were considered in the studyBin 5 diesel has not been demonstratedMY 2010 vehicle in-use emissions in 2016 were modeled using• EPA MOBILE 6.2• ARB EMFAC2002 version 3

21

Vehicle/Fuel Technologies for WTW Criteria Pollutant Emission Results

Crude oil-based technologiesRFG displacement on demand (DOD) SI conventional drive (CD)RFG DI SI CD LS Diesel DI CI CDRFG DOD SI hybrid LS diesel DI CI hybridGasoline fuel-processor (FP) FCV

Natural gas-based technologiesCNG DOD SI CD FT diesel DI CI CDG.H2 SI CD MeOH FP FCVG.H2 FCV L.H2 FCV

Bioethanol and ElectricityCorn E85 DOD SI CD Cellulosic E85 DOD SI CDCellulosic EtOH FP FCV U.S. average electri.-to-G.H2 FCVNG CC electri.-to-G.H2 FCV Renewable electricity-to-G.H2 FCV

22

WTW Urban NOx Emissions of Selected Vehicle/Fuel Systems

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

RFG DOD SI CD

RFG DI SI C

D

LS Diesel D

I CI C

D

RFG DOD SI HEV

LS Diesel D

I HEV

5-ppm

S Gaso. F

P FCV

NA NG CNG DOD SI CD

NNA NG FT Diesel

DI CI C

D

NA NG Central G

H2 ICE

NNA NG MeO

H FP FCV

NA NG Central G

H2 FCV

NA NG Central L

H2 FCV

Corn E85 DOD SI C

D

Cell. E85 D

OD SI CD

Cell. EtOH FP FCV

Electro. G

H2 FCV: U

.S. kWh

Electro.

GH2 FCV: N

A NG CC kWh

Electro. G

H2 FCV: R

enew

. kWh

WTW

Urb

an N

OX E

mis

sion

s, g

/mile

Well to Pump Pump to Wheels

Oil-Based NG-Based Bioethanol and Electricity

23

WTW Urban PM10 Emissions of Selected Vehicle/Fuel Systems

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

RFG DOD SI CD

RFG DI SI C

D

LS Diesel D

I CI C

D

RFG DOD SI HEV

LS Diesel D

I HEV

5-ppm

S Gaso

. FP FCV

NA NG CNG DOD SI CD

NNA NG FT Diesel

DI CI C

D

NA NG Central

GH2 ICE

NNA NG MeO

H FP FCV

NA NG Central

GH2 FCV

NA NG Central

LH2 F

CV

Corn E85 DOD SI C

D

Cell. E85

DOD SI CD

Cell. EtOH FP FCV

Electro.

GH2 FCV: U

.S. kWh

Electro. G

H2 FCV: N

A NG CC kWh

Electro.

GH2 FCV: R

enew

. kWh

WTW

Urb

an P

M10

Em

issi

ons,

g/m

ile

Well to Pump Pump to Wheels

Oil-Based

NG-Based Bioethanol and Electricity

24

ConclusionsWTW analysis becomes necessary when comparing vehicle technologies powered by different fuelsAdvanced vehicle/fuel technologies could significantly reduce energy use and GHG emissionsFor criteria pollutants, as tailpipe emissions continue to decline, WTP emissions could become a significant share of total WTW emissionsFuel pathways need to be carefully examined for achieving intended energy and emission benefits by advanced vehicle/fuel systems

25