Environmental impact - H 2 versus ICE

Transcription

1 Environmental impact - H 2 versus ICE Provinciehuis Zuid-Holland, Den Haag, 25 March 2010 Presented by Coen Hanschke

2 OVERVIEW Objective Well-to-Wheel concept Well-to-Wheel emissions: ICE and H 2 Environmental impact THRIVE scenarios Conclusions 2

3 OVERVIEW Objective Well-to-Wheel concept Well-to-Wheel emissions: ICE and H 2 Environmental impact THRIVE scenarios Conclusions 3

4 Workpackage: Environmental impact analysis Hydrogen refuelling stations Design rollout model and development of assumptions Program rollout model and run simulations Fuel Cell cars Hydrogen production Safety Hydrogen liquefaction and transport Scenario development and Policy analysis Overall cost analysis Environmental impact analysis 4

5 Objective - workpackage Assess environmental impact of introduction H 2 in transport Scope: Focus on Well-to-Wheel GHG emissions Passenger cars only The Netherlands Approach: Assessment WTW ICE and H 2 Compare THRIVE scenarios with Business-as-Usual Sensitivity analysis on important assumptions No Life Cycle Analysis! 5

6 Objective - real world Global warming: 60% to 80% emission reduction needed in all sectors to limit global warming to +2ºC. Source: King Review, 2007 Low-carbon energy carriers and efficiency are key for transport sector to meet targets 6

7 OVERVIEW Objective Well-to-Wheel concept Well-to-Wheel emissions: ICE and H 2 Environmental impact THRIVE scenarios Conclusions 7

8 Well-to-Wheel concept Well to Wheel (WTW) = + Well to Tank (WTT) Tank to Wheel (TTW) Extraction Production Transport Dispensing Use: ICE or cultivation? with CCS? or ZEV? 8

9 CO 2 sinks can improve Well-to-Wheel emissions Short CO 2 (re)cycle & Store CO 2 9

10 OVERVIEW Objective Well-to-Wheel concept Well-to-Wheel emissions: ICE and H 2 Environmental impact THRIVE scenarios Conclusions 10

11 Well-to-Wheel emissions: ICE - Petrol and Diesel Well to Tank Tank to Wheel Extraction Refinery Transport Dispensing Use: ICE Tank-to-Wheel emissions high due low efficiency ICE Well-to-Tank very efficient: about 15% extra 11

12 WTW petrol and diesel can still be improved 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 100% = WTW petrol 100% = WTW diesel wheat straw farmed wood Ethanol grain 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% farmed FAME rapeseed HVO wood next BTL Biodiesel Well-to-Wheel emissions can be reduced by: Biofuels: substantial WTW reduction, but limited potential Improving ICE efficiency Already addressed by EU regulation (FQD, RED, CO 2 norm) Based on: CONCAWE,

13 Well-to-Wheel emissions: Hydrogen Well to Tank Tank to Wheel Extraction Nat. Gas H 2 production: SMR Transport LH 2 Dispensing 700 bar Use: ZEV (FC) Tank-to-Wheel zero-emission & high vehicle efficiency Well-to-Tank is energy intensive 13

14 Hydrogen: WTT vary from green to no-go H 2 Production method WTT [g/mj] SMR Electrolysis Other No-go area: Coal Coal to H SMR SMR + Biogas SMR + CCS Nat. Gas Coal + CCS Coal to H 2 + CCS Nat. Gas + CCS Wood to H 2 Nuclear, Wind E ne r g y S ou r c e 14

15 Similar vehicle efficiency development expected TTW [MJ/km] H2 ICE Substantial improvement ICE until 2050: towards 95 or 80 gr/km? Trend is comparable for H 2 and ICE 15

16 H 2 FC vs ICE: comparing WTW emissions WTW [g/km] ICE % biofuels H2 - SMR, incl / excl CCS Bandwidth dependent on % biofuels (ICE) and CCS (H 2 ) Hydrogen offers 30% to 70% (incl CCS) WTW reduction 16

17 OVERVIEW Objective Well-to-Wheel concept Well-to-Wheel emissions: ICE and H 2 Environmental impact THRIVE scenarios Conclusions 17

18 Overview THRIVE Scenarios Policy focus Generic Infra Cars Infra & Cars Policy ambition level Low Medium Medium Medium High H 2 refuel infra availability Careful Proactive Careful Reactive Proactive Vehicle availability Careful Careful Proactive Reactive Proactive Consumer attractiveness Low Low Medium Medium High 18

19 Environmental impact depends on HV Penetration Hydroge en cars [x1000] 50% % % % % 0% Year Hydrogen car penetration Policy focus Generic Infra Cars Infra & Cars Policy ambition level Low Medium Medium Medium High 19

20 Environmental impact of H 2 - SMR max 15% in % Including detour willinness 15% 10% 5% 0% Well-to-Wheel emission reduction increases from 1-2% in 2030 to max 10%-15% in 2050 Replacing 100% fossil fuels, if not effect halved 20

21 possibly doubled in case of SMR with CCS 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Similar pattern, different scale Based on replacing 30% biofuels, no biogas used yet 21

22 OVERVIEW Objective Well-to-Wheel concept Well-to-Wheel emissions: ICE and H 2 Environmental impact THRIVE scenarios Conclusions 22

23 Summary Key factors for environmental impact of Hydrogen are: Volume: Market penetration of H 2 Vehicles Relative WTW reduction: Production route H 2, application of CCS H 2 versus ICE - Well-to-Wheel: Relative emission reductions substantial: 30%-70% per ICE replaced Large reduction only in case of SMR with CSS THRIVE scenario results: Given low H 2 penetration, only visible after 2030 If successfully introduced, H 2 provides a large step towards achieving climate targets around

24 Conclusions on contribution of Hydrogen Good prospects for significant Well-to-Wheels CO 2 emission reduction, especially if proper incentives are introduced for clean and green hydrogen Indication of expected progress until 2050 seems promising 100% H 2 penetration needed, including CCS to meet climate targets Biofuels & vehicle efficiency (ICE) Max reduction potential H 2 (excl/incl CCS) Source: King Review,

25 The THRIVE consortium gratefully acknowledges the Ministerie van Economische Zaken and SenterNovem for their financial support