Well-to-wheel efficiency for fuels from natural gas and biomass. Meeting in Stockholm Peter Ahlvik, Ecotraffic ERD 3

Transcription

1 Well-to-wheel efficiency for fuels from natural gas and biomass Meeting in Stockholm Peter Ahlvik, Ecotraffic ERD 3

2 Outline Introduction and background Methodology Assumptions and conditions Vehicles, energy converters and drivetrain Fuel production and fuel supply (well-to-tank) Vehicle efficiency (tank-to-wheel) Full fuel cycle efficiency (well-to-wheel) Summary and conclusions Ecotraffic IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm 2 Ecotraffic

3 Some finalized and on-going Ecotraffic projects in this area BAL: Etanol, methanol from cellulosic m. BioMeeT I: Energy combine in Trollhättan Well-to-wheel efficiency Sustainable fuels: Introduction of biofuels BioMeeT II: Stakeholders (incl( incl.. DME) BLGMF: Methanol/DME from black liquor Preliminary results: very low cost (!) RENEWA: Methanol/DME from waste Compl Compl Compl Compl Compl Ecotraffic IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm 3 Ecotraffic

4 Worldwide yearly oil production Yearly oil production (Gb/year) Source: EIA, Energy Information Administration EUR: Estimated Ultimately Recoverable (global oil) Gb = Gigabarrel Production statistics EUR=1800 Gb EUR=2000 Gb EUR=2200 Gb EUR=2400 Gb EUR=2600 Gb Ecotraffic IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm 4 Ecotraffic

5 Environmental driving forces for vehicle development Source: Schindler et al. (VW), DEER 2002 Workshop Ecotraffic IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm 5 Ecotraffic

6 Voluntary CO 2 reduction by EU car manufacturers (ACEA) CO 2 emissions (g/km) Target 2008: 140 ACEA commitment Statistics Sweden 1995&2000 Indicative target 2003: (2000: 169) 120 Average CO 2 emissions for ACEA manufacturers Indicative target 2012: Ecotraffic IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm 6 Ecotraffic

7 EU biofuels directive 2003/30/EC, targets Reference value for targets for proportion of all sold gasoline and diesel fuel (energy equiv.) in a member state. Cancellations compared to original proposal are shown. Year Biofuel (%) Share of lowblending (%) , , , ,75 1,75 Ecotraffic IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm 7 Ecotraffic

8 Optimistic scenario in the EU Assessment of alternative fuel potential if an active policy is decided to promote them (does not exclude other possibilities, e.g. DME). Note that this is an optimistic scenario and not part of the directive. Year Biofuel Natural Hydrogen (%) gas (%) (%) Total (%) (7) (8) 10 5 (23) Ecotraffic IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm 8 Ecotraffic

9 Methodology Assumptions and conditions for period 2010 to 2015 (2012). Fuel efficiency scenario according to EU & car industry indicative target for 2012 Well-to-tank efficiency based on previous Ecotraffic WTW study Life of Fuels but with extensive update using new input data. Vehicle simulations: Advisor (by NREL) Some comparisons with studies by GM USA and MIT (2000) are shown (later studies by GM Europa and addendum by MIT are now available...) Ecotraffic IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm 9 Ecotraffic

10 Systems that have been assessed (well-to-wheel) Feedstock production Feedstock transport Fuel production METANOL Fuel transport Refuelling (+conversion) Energy conversion in the vehicle Some examples of pathways Motor fuel Energy converters (EC) Drivetrains (DT) Ethanol (EtOH) Otto engine (otto) C o n v e n t i o n a l ( c o n v.) Hydrogen, gaseous (GH2) F u el cel l ( F C) Electric hybrid (hyb) Methanol (MeOH) Diesel engine (diesel) Electric hybrid (hyb) In total: 98 different combinations of feedstocks, fuels and drivetrains IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm 10 Ecotraffic

11 Production of biofuels via the synthesis gas route IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm Ecotraffic Biomass CO 2 Renewable H 2 Synthesis gas production CO 2 (air) Fuel synthesis Shift/cleaning DME MeOH FTD H 2

12 IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm Ecotraffic Some vehicle parameters Model year: (2012) Vehicle size: between VW Golf and Passat Aerodyn.: A=2,1 m 3, C d =0,25, C d A=0,525 m 3 Rolling resistance: 0,007 Vehicle weight (conventional): 1088 kg (plus fuel and driver) Performance: acc km/h: 11,0 s ± 0,1 s. The powertrains were scaled to match the performance criterion

13 Vehicle weight for some fuel and powertrain combinations Vehicle weight (kg) Hybrid (parallell, series) Conventional/direct Gas, Otto Diesel, diesel CH4, Otto H2, Otto H2, FC MeOH, PEFC IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm 13 MeOH, DMFC DME, PEFC 13 Ecotraffic

14 Relative vehicle weight Ecotraffic vs. MIT ,8 100,8 101,6 101,3 104,8 100,7 104,9 116,7 114,3 121,6 128, , ,8 110,7 103,2 116,7 121,6 115, Ecotraffic MIT Gasoline Diesel MeOH CNG GH2 Relative vehicle weight (otto=100) Otto, base Otto, conv Otto-hyb FC-dir FC-hyb Diesel, conv Diesel-hyb FC-dir FC-hyb Otto-conv Otto-hyb FC-dir FC-hyb IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm 14 Ecotraffic

15 Powertrain Energy converters Otto engine: direct injection ( GDI ), N/A Diesel engine: direct injection, turbocharged ( TDI ) and downsized Fuel cell: PEFC, DMFC (MeOH) Drivetrain Otto & diesel: Automated manual transmission (5 & 6 speed), conventional and parallel hybrid FC: direct drive and series hybrid Battery: 2x performance of NiMh in Advisor IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm Ecotraffic

16 Ecotraffic s forecast for future energy converters i the EU Market share, new vehicles (%) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm 16 IDI diesel CIDI diesel SIDI (comb.) SIDI otto Fully VVT otto (TWC) Conv. otto (TWC) Fuel cells 16 Ecotraffic

17 Relative efficiency, gasoline and diesel cars with similar performance Relative efficiency (%) 124% 122% 120% 118% 116% 114% 112% Relative mileage Number of cars FE Based on fuel consumption in in NEDC Equal performance: acc., km/h Statistical data compiled by Ecotraffic 110% IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm 17 No. of cars Number of cars (#) 17 Ecotraffic

18 Comparison of efficiencies for CI diesel and SI methanol engines Is it possible to improve ICEs, i.e. achieve a higher efficiency than the diesel engine? Methanol Diesel fuel Adapted from SAE The efficiency achieved in SAE was significantly higher than in the Ecotraffic WTW study IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm Ecotraffic

19 Efficiency for various fuel cell systems (fuel cell engine ) 60% 50% Efficiency (%) 40% 30% 20% 10% ANL, atmospheric (Advisor) Ecotraffic, pressurized ANL, gasoline w/ reformer 0% Power (kw) IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm Ecotraffic

20 Fuel cell - reformer Methanol Ethanol 250 C 550 C What about efficiency??? Gasoline 850 C Reforming temperature ( C) IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm Ecotraffic

21 Well-to-tank (WTT) efficiency Ecotraffic, MIT and GM USA Well-to-tank efficiency (%) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 82,9% 82,5% 79,9% 88,0% 87,9% 82,3% Ecotraffic MIT GM USA 55,0% 52,0% 59,0% 67,3% 65,0% 62,8% 70,1% 87,0% 85,0% 76,9% 85,5% Natural gas feedstock 61,1% 59,0% 53,9% 43,1% 41,1% 10% 0% Gas Diesel FTD MeOH DME CNG LNG GH2 LH IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm Ecotraffic

22 Tank-to-wheel (TTW) efficiency Ecotraffic, MIT and GM USA Tank-to-wheel efficiency (rel. conv. gas car) Gas, otto, base Ecotraffic MIT GM USA Gas, otto, conv Gasoline IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm Gas, ottohybrid Gas, FCdirect Gas, FChybrid Diesel 118 DF, diesel, conv DF, dieselhybrid 22 Ecotraffic

23 Natural gas feedstock (WTW) Efficiency ranking of fuels, index Well-to-wheel eff., index (gasoline=100) CNG FC-hyb 128,8 Best fuel/driveline combination for each fuel 126,6 120,2 Index: petrol=100 LNG FC-hyb 116,1 DME diesel-hyb GH2 FC-hyb 115, IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm 23 94,3 MeOH diesel-hyb FT diesel-hyb LH2 FC-hyb 81,9 Principal fuel (FFV) Principal fuel (non-ffv) Niche fuel (non-ffv) El-GH2 FC-hyb 70,2 23 Ecotraffic

24 Biomass feedstock (WTW) Efficiency ranking of fuels, index Well-to-wheel eff., index (gasoline=100) Best fuel/driveline combination for each fuel 87,7 Index: petrol=100 92,5 90, IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm 24 78,6 DME diesel-hyb GH2 FC-hyb MeOH diesel-hyb LH2 FC-hyb EtOH diesel-hyb FT diesel-hyb CBG FC-hyb SNG FC-hyb El-GH2 FC-hyb 76,1 73,5 71,6 67,6 58,4 Principal fuel (FFV) Principal fuel (non-ffv) Niche fuel (non-ffv) 24 Ecotraffic

25 Relative efficiency (WTW) for liquid biofuels in hybrid cars Well-to-wheel efficiency (MeOH, otto=100) Otto engine Fuel cell Diesel engine Liquid fuels IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm MeOH EtOH FTD LH Cryogenic fuel Ecotraffic

26 Fossil and non-fossil energy use Conventional gasoline = DME Methanol GH2 102,4 106,7 108,1 110,1 83,2 86,7 86,7 88,3 91,4 5,8 6,0 6,0 86,1 89, IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm 26 Ecotraffic 6,1 113,9 6,4 105,8 Bioenergy Fossil energy NG Bio NG Bio NG Bio NG Bio NG Bio NG Bio NG Bio 4,2 109,8 4,3 Relative energy use (gasoline=100) DME diesel-hyb DME diesel-hyb DME FC-hyb DME FC-hyb MeOH diesel-hyb MeOH diesel-hyb MeOH FC-hyb MeOH diesel-hyb MeOH diesel-hyb MeOH diesel-hyb GH2 diesel-hyb GH2 diesel-hyb GH2 diesel-hyb 108,1 112,7 114,1 116,3 120,3 110,0 114,2 GH2 diesel-hyb

27 Summary and conclusions WTW in 2010 to 2015 timeframe (2012) Improved drivetrain is essential, i.e. hybrids. Diesel and fuel cells more efficient than otto. Performance criteria are important conditions. Biomass conversion has low efficiency. Fossil energy use can be kept low (i.e. ~5%) CNG/LNG rank high; low process energy. DME, GH 2 and MeOH are best biofuels Differences between studies can be explained in most cases Many issues and uncertainties still remain IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm Ecotraffic

28 IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm Ecotraffic This concludes my presentation Thank you for your attention! Questions? More information available at: (e.g. reports, presentations, etc.)