1 / 32

TIAX LLC Cupertino, California Reference: E3100

TIAX LLC Cupertino, California Reference: E3100. Assessment of Full Fuel Cycle Emissions ZEV TECHnology Symposium Cal EPA, Sacramento, CA September 27, 2006 Stefan Unnasch TIAX LLC. Outline. WTW Results. Analysis Scope. Approach. Assumptions. WTW Results and Conclusions.

tmahlum
Download Presentation

TIAX LLC Cupertino, California Reference: E3100

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TIAX LLC Cupertino, California Reference: E3100 Assessment of Full Fuel Cycle EmissionsZEV TECHnology SymposiumCal EPA, Sacramento, CASeptember 27, 2006Stefan UnnaschTIAX LLC

  2. Outline WTW Results Analysis Scope Approach Assumptions WTW Results and Conclusions AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  3. WTW Results Energy Inputs Full Fuel Cycle Energy (MJ/mi) All results are based on well to tank values in Unnasch, S., “California Hydrogen Highway Network Blueprint Plan, Societal Benefits Topic Team Report,” March 2005. AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  4. WTW Results GHG Emissions Full Fuel Cycle GHG Emissions (g/mi) AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  5. Outline WTW Results Analysis Scope Approach Assumptions WTW Results and Conclusions AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  6. Analysis ScopeBackground A full fuel cycle analysis provides a basis for comparing the energy inputs and emissions from various fuel production and end use options. Objectives • Provide basis for including impacts of fuel production associated with vehicle operation • Applications: ARB ZEV, DOE H2, H2 Highway, AB1493, AB2076, AB1007 Fuel Pathways • Petroleum, natural gas, coal, biofuels, renewable power, etc. Vehicles • Blended fuel comparisons (biodiesel, FTD, E10) • New vehicle strategies (Hydrogen, EV, PHEV, CNG) • Light-duty vehicles, heavy-duty vehicles, etc. Emission Sources and Boundaries • Geographic location of fuel production • Local emission constraints • Marginal production AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  7. Analysis Scope Fuel Cycle Analysis Well-to-Wheels/ Fuel Cycle Emission Steps Well- to-Tank (Fuel Cycle) Tank-to-Wheels (Vehicle) Fueling Delivery Energy Resources Production • Full fuel cycle emissions correspond to combustion, fugitive, and spillage emissions from resource extraction, fuel production, delivery, and vehicle exhaust, running/evaporative AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  8. Analysis Scope Fuel Cycle Analysis Well-to-Wheels/ Fuel Cycle Emission Steps Well- to-Tank (Fuel Cycle) Tank-to-Wheels (Vehicle) Fueling Delivery Energy Resources Production • Full fuel cycle emissions correspond to combustion, fugitive, and spillage emissions from resource extraction, fuel production, delivery, and vehicle exhaust, running/evaporative • Fuel cycle fuel and losses are included • Emissions from facility and vehicle manufacturing are not included (LCA) • Feedstock supply, regulations, fuel prices, etc. also affect emissions AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  9. FT Diesel Methanol Gasification DME Pyrolysis Hydrogen Analysis ScopePathways Multiple Pathways Refining Gasoline Diesel 11 fuels Petroleum LPG Natural Gas CNG Landfill Gas LNG Herbaceous Biomass Catalyst Synthesis Woody Biomass Reforming Forest Residue Ag Residue Waste Paper Corn Bio-Oil Hydrolysis Fermentation Sugar Cane Ethanol Pressing Esterification Bio-Diesel Soy Beans Palm Oil Digestion Manure Combustion Coal Renewable Power Electricity Nuclear Energy Lignin, Protein Feed, Ash, Silica, Metals, Edible oils, Pet. Coke, Waste Heat AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  10. Analysis ScopePathways Primary Fuels Refining Gasoline Diesel Petroleum LPG Natural Gas CNG LNG Corn Hydrolysis Fermentation Ethanol Combustion Coal Electricity Renewable Power Nuclear Energy AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  11. Analysis ScopePathways This Presentation Refining Gasoline Diesel Petroleum LPG Natural Gas CNG Corn Hydrolysis Fermentation Ethanol Combustion Coal Electricity Renewable Power Nuclear Energy AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  12. Outline WTW Results Analysis Scope Approach Assumptions WTW Results and Conclusions AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  13. ApproachModel Calculation for CA Boundaries Fuel cycle model inputs need to capture California boundaries. Location Distance or Shares Emission Factors Technology Share Energy Factor Efficiency Transport Distance Fuel Consumption Fuel Share Specific Energy (J/J product) by Fuel ROW Emissions CA Emissions Non-attainment Attainment AQMDs AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  14. PRODUCT STORAGE Approach Fuel Cycle Analysis Boundaries Boundary definitions affect how emissions are determined. PRODUCTION BULK FUEL TRANSPORTATION PROCESSING VEHICLE EMISSIONS TRANSPORTATION AND DISTRIBUTION BULK STORAGE AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  15. ApproachModel Calculation for CA Boundaries Natural Gas Transport Example for delivering natural gas to California. 1600 mi total 70 mi in urban CA NG Pipeline 70% GT 30% ICE Energy Factor Efficiency Transport Distance Fuel Consumption Natural Gas Specific Energy (J/J product) by Fuel ROW Emissions CA Emissions Non-attainment Attainment AQMDs AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  16. Approach Modeling Approach Primary Fuels Most fuel pathways can be represented as a combination of primary fuels plus a feedstock. WTW = (WTT+carbon in fuel)/FE = gGHG/MJ x MJ/mi Example: Natural Gas SR LH2 Delivery Well- to-Tank (Fuel Cycle) Tank-to-Wheels (Vehicle) Energy Resources Production Delivery Fueling Natural Gas Hydrogen Diesel Electric Power WTT (+ Fuel) Energy = 2.27 J/J H2 WTTfh = 44% AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  17. Approach Liquid Hydrogen Example Assumptions are identified for all of the fuel cycle steps. While inputs can be expressed as % h, simple chain multiplications don’t work. Energy Inputs Loss Factors NA NG Recovery 97.5% 0.35% 0.15% NA NG Processing 97.5% LNG 0.27%/600 mi Pipeline Transport 1500 mi 500 mi 0.15% Central NG Steam Reformer 1.35 J/J H2 0.3 kWh/kg H2 (74%) 0% Liquefier 9.5 kWh/kg H2 0.285 J/J H2 (71.5%) 0.5% Electricity Delivery Truck 50 mi RT 0.0055 J/J H2 Diesel 0% Local Station 0.3 kWh/kg H2 0.009 J/J H2 0% AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  18. ApproachSpecific Energy Inputs – not WTW Specific energy inputs values are used to build up WTT results. Specific Energy (J/J Fuel), Analysis Input Primary Fuels • Determine results from GREET or other fuel cycle model • Apply emission constraints by location Fuel Production • Identify fuel production process energy (1/h) • Weight primary fuel WTT coefficients • Specific energy values provide a quick explanation of assumptions. These are not on a WTT or WTW basis. AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  19. ApproachPost Processor for Complex Fuel Chains A post processor enables the calculation of numerous complex fuel chains based on the WTT results for primary fuels from the GREET model. AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  20. Outline WTW Results Analysis Scope Approach Assumptions WTW Results and Conclusions AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  21. Assumptions Gasoline GHG Sensitivity Analysis Fuel cycle GHG emissions are about 20 percent of the WTW total. Vehicle (TTW) Fuel Cycle (WTT) AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  22. Assumptions Gasoline GHG Sensitivity Analysis Vehicle technology affects WTW GHG emissions. AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  23. Assumptions Gasoline Urban NMOG Sensitivity Analysis Local NMOG in the fuel cycle are primarily due to fuel and vapor losses. Urban CA NMOG – LDA (g/mi) Vehicle (TTW) WTT Offset Emissions AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  24. Assumptions Power Generation Dispatch models have been used to determine marginal generation emissions. • Scenarios • Fuel production process power • EV/PHEV charging at night • Scope • Analysis day • Typical incremental load • Issues • Out of state resource mix and heat rate AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  25. Assumptions Battery EV GHG Sensitivity Analysis Power generation efficiency and resource mix affect the WTW emissions from electric transportation. AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  26. Assumptions Vehicle Fuel Economy Many studies of vehicle fuel economy provide the basis for WTW comparisons. Subcompact Car - Fuel Economy Comparison (mpgge) Source: Unnasch, S., “Fuel Cycle Energy and Emission Analysis,” ARB ZEV Review 2001. Unnasch, S., “California Hydrogen Highway Network Blueprint Plan, Societal Benefits Topic Team Report,” March 2005. AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  27. Assumptions Vehicle Fuel Economy PHEVs have been modeled with plug in all electric range. Fuel Economy Comparison (mpgge) AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  28. Assumptions Vehicle Fuel Economy Fuel economy values used in this analysis. Energy Economy Ratio, EER (J gasoline/J alt fuel) AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  29. Outline WTW Results Analysis Scope Approach Assumptions WTW Results and Conclusions AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  30. WTW Results and Conclusions Energy Inputs Full Fuel Cycle Energy Inputs (MJ/mi) AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  31. WTW Results and Conclusions GHG Emissions Full Fuel Cycle GHG Emissions (g/mi) AB1007 Fuel Cycle

  32. WTW Results and ConclusionsConsiderations for Further Analysis ZEV technology can result in reduced emissions on a full fuel cycle basis, but the results depend on many parameters. Fuel Economy • Agreeing on a fuel economy assumptions for advanced vehicle technologies is challenging • Analysis can proceed with benchmark values • Implementation of programs can be based on actual vehicle performance GHG Emissions • GHG emissions for conventional fuels are well characterized • Conversion efficiency has the most significant impact on fuel cycle emissions • Agricultural and land use impacts are important for biofuels Criteria Pollutants • Boundaries for emissions analysis are as important as emission performance when considering local criteria pollutants • Future stationary and vehicle emission regulations will affect the full fuel cycle comparison. AB1007 Fuel Cycle

More Related