Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Fuel Cycle
Pump to Wheels
Well to Pump
100
200
300
400
500
600
ol in e Ve hi cl e
C or n E8 5 Ve h ic l e
N at u ra l G as Ve hi c le
G as ol in e Fu el C el lV eh i cl e lC el le c tri c H
M et ha n ol Fu e
Pump to Wheels
Ee
lV eh Ve 2 Fu el hi c
ic l le , C el lV H 2
US
M ix eh i FC V
Well to Pump
cl e (E le
(N G ct ro ly s
is )
WTW Analysis for Vehicle/Fuel Systems Has Been Evolved in the Past 20 Years
Historically, evaluation of vehicle/fuel systems from wells to wheels (WTW) was called fuel-cycle analysis Pioneer transportation WTW analyses began in 1980s
Early studies were motivated primarily by EVs Current studies are motivated primarily by FCVs
For transportation technologies, especially internal combustion engine technologies, the significant energy and emissions effects occur in the fuel usage stage first and fuel production stage second Consequently, efforts have been in addressing energy use and emissions of vehicle operations and fuel production Since 1995, the U.S. Department of Energy has been supporting the GREET model development at Argonne National Laboratory
The GREET (Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation) Model
GREET includes emissions of greenhouse gases
CO2, CH4, and N2O VOC, CO, and NOx as optional GHGs
The GREET Model and Its Documents Are Available at: http://greet.anl.gov
At Present, There Are More Than 790 GREET Registered Users Worldwide
Industries, universities, and governmental agencies are major GREET users
Inputs
Emission Factors Combustion Tech. Shares Energy Efficiencies Fuel Type Shares Facility Location Shares
Calculations
Total Emissions
Urban Emissions
Emission Factors Emission Factors (g/mmBtu fuel burned) (g/mmBtu fuel burned)
Fuel Production
Fuel Production
Fuel Production
Vehicle Operation
n=3
n=2
n=1
Coal gasification to produce hydrogen Hydrogen production from ethanol and methanol at refueling stations Nuclear thermal cracking of water for hydrogen production Sodium borohydride (NaBH4) H2 production and storage Metal hydride hydrogen storage
Petroleum Refining to Gasoline (84.5-86%, Petroleum Refining to Gasoline (84.5-86%, Depending on Oxygenates and Reformulation) Depending on Oxygenates and Reformulation) Transport, Storage, and Distribution of Gasoline (99.5%) WTP Overall Efficiency: 80% Gasoline at Refueling Stations
Production and Compression Are Key Steps for Centralized G.H2 Pathways
NA NG Recovery (97.5%) WTP Overall Efficiency: NA NG: 58% nNA NG: 55% nNA NG Recovery (97.5%) nNA NG Processing 97.5%) LNG Production (88.0%) LNG Production (88.0%) LNG Transport via Ocean Tankers 98.5%) G.H2 Production (71.5%) G.H2 Production (71.5%) Steam or Electricity Export
NA: North American nNA: non-North American NG: natural gas
NA NG Processing (97.5%)
G.H2 Transport via Pipelines (96.3%) G.H2 Compression at Refueling Stations G.H2 Compression at Refueling Stations (89.5% & 95.0% for NG & Electric) (89.5% & 95.0% for NG & Electric) Compressed G.H2 at Refueling Stations
Some amount of central SMR CO2 emissions can be potentially sequestered Energy and emission effects of electrolysis H2 depend on electricity sources Gasification for H2 production
Coal: CO2 and criteria pollutant emissions, but CO2 can be potentially sequestered Biomass: criteria pollutant emissions
Nuclear H2 has zero air emissions, but nuclear waste will continue to be an issue
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0%
pr es se C d ru N G de N ap ht ha LS Di es LS el G as ol M in et e ha no l, N N G G N C ap en ht t ra ha lG H St 2, at NG io n G H2 C en ,N t ra G lL C H el 2, lu N lo G si c Et St ha at no io El n l ec LH tro 2, G NG El H2 ec ,U tro .S L. .M H 2, ix U .S .m ix
WTP Energy Losses Could Significantly Affect Efficiencies and GHG Emissions
MIT 2003
GM 2001
MIT 2000
LPGV
Diesel Hybrid
Gasoline FCV
MeOH FCV
GH2 FCV BP EV
NMOG CO NOxc 0.156/0.230 4.2/6.4 0.6 0.090/0.180 4.2 0.3 0.125/0.156 4.2 0.20 0.090 4.2 0.15 0.090 4.2 0.10
Bin 5
Bin 4 Bin 3
0.090
0.070 0.055
4.2
2.1 2.1
0.07
0.04 0.03
0.01
0.01 0.01
0.018
0.011 0.011
Bin 2
Bin 1
a b
0.010
0.000
2.1
0.0
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.004
0.000
The high values apply to HLDTs. The low values applied to cars and LLDTs. Bins 10 and 9 will be eliminated at the end of 2006 model year for cars and LLDTs and at the end of 2008 model years for HLDTs. c Corporate average NOx standard will be 0.07 g/mi. and will be fully in place by 2009.
SOx emissions for each vehicle type are calculated from sulfur contained in fuels CO2 emissions for each vehicle type are estimated from carbon balance N2O emissions are based on limited testing results; CARB and EPA efforts here will greatly reduce tailpipe N2O uncertainties
Btu/Mile
IC IC
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
EV
EV :C
:C ru de R FG LP G LS D R FG & N G EV :C ru de ru de G as o. LS D FT D N G V: N FC IC E FF G M V: N G G V: N FT D eO H E V: C IC
ru de
IC E H V: C E V: C IC EV :N G EV :C IC IC E H E FC ru de ru de
FC IC E H
FC
V: C FC FC
V: C el lu V: U
G or n lo si c
2 E8 5
Et O .S H .k V: W R en h G ew H 2 .K W h G EV H 2 :U .S .k W h
Btu/Mile
IC EV
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
:C
IC IC EV :C ru de & N G LP G R FG LS D E V: C ru de H ru de IC E :C EV R FG
ru de
FC IC E H E V: C IC EV :N G FT D N G FC V: N FC IC FC E FF V: C G M V: N V: C G or n G V: N FT :C IC IC E H E EV D ru de LS G as o. V: C ru de
D eO H G H
2 el E8 lu 5 lo FC si c V: Et U O FC .S H .k V: W R h en G ew H 2 .K W h G EV H 2 :U .S .k W h
Btu/Mile
IC EV
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
500
:C ru de IC EV R IC FG :C EV ru :C de ru LS de D & IC N E G H E LP V: G C ru FC de V: R C FG ru IC de E H G E as V: o. C ru de LS IC D EV :N G FT D IC EV IC :C E N H G E V: N G FC FT V: D N G M eO FC H V: IC N E G FF G H V: FC 2 C V: or C n el E8 lu 5 lo FC si c V: Et U FC O .S H V: .k W R en h G ew H .K 2 W h G H EV 2 :U .S .k W h
Grams/Mile
IC EV
100
200
300
400
500
600
:C ru de IC EV R FG IC :C EV ru :C de ru LS de D & IC N E G H E LP V: G C ru FC de V: R C FG ru IC de E G H as E V: o. C ru de LS IC D EV :N G FT D IC EV IC :C E N H G E V: N G FC FT V: D N G M eO FC H V: IC N G E G FF H V: 2 FC C V: or C n el E8 lu 5 lo FC si c V: Et U O FC .S H .k V: W R h en G ew H 2 .K W h G H EV 2 :U .S .k W h
0.20
PTW
WTP
Grams/Mile
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00 ICEV: Crude RFG ICEV: ICEV: CNG Crude & NG LPG ICE FFV: Corn E85 ICEV: ICEV: ICE Crude NG FTD HEV: LSD Crude RFG ICE ICE EV: U.S. FCV: FCV: HEV: HEV: kWh NG GH2 NG Crude NG FTD MeOH LSD FCV: Crude Gaso.
0.10
PTW
WTP
0.08
Grams/Mile
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00 ICEV: Crude RFG ICEV: ICEV: CNG Crude & NG LPG ICE FFV: Corn E85 ICEV: ICEV: ICE Crude NG FTD HEV: LSD Crude RFG ICE ICE EV: U.S. FCV: FCV: HEV: HEV: kWh NG GH2 NG Crude NG FTD MeOH LSD FCV: Crude Gaso.
-60%
10% 0% WTW GHG Change -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% -60% -70%
GM 2001 Wang 2002 MIT 2000 MIT 2003 Rousseau 2003
Conclusions
WTW analysis becomes necessary when comparing vehicle technologies powered by different fuels Advanced vehicle/fuel technologies could significantly reduce energy use and GHG emissions Fuel pathways need to be carefully examined for achieving intended energy and emission benefits by advanced vehicle/fuel systems For criteria pollutants
As vehicle tailpipe emissions continue to decline, WTP emissions could become a significant share of total WTW emissions To reduce vehicle-induced WTP emissions, fuel producers will need to be actively engaged
Trade-offs of impacts WTW results are better for identifying problems than for giving the answers
On-Going GREET Efforts Adding new fuel pathways Integrating GREET into EPAs MOVES model Assisting DOE in evaluating its vehicle technology portfolio Developing a fully functioning CA version?