Well-to-Wheels Analysis of Biofuels and Plug-In Hybrids

Michael Wang Center for Transportation Research Argonne National Laboratory

Presentation at the Joint Meeting of Chicago Section of American society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers And Chicago Section of Society of Automotive Engineers Argonne National Laboratory, June 3, 2009 The Transportation Sector: Dual Challenges, Dual Approaches

 Challenges  Greenhouse gas emissions – climate change  Oil use – energy security

 Approaches  Vehicle efficiency (and transportation system efficiency)  New transportation fuels

2 US Greenhouse Gas Emission Shares by Source Pipelines 2% Rail Other 3% 0%

Water Commercial 8% 18%

Transportation Air 33% 8% Light Duty Residential 59% 21% Heavy Trucks & Buses 20% Industrial 28%

2006 GHG Emissions (CO2 Eqv) 2006 GHG Emissions (CO2 Eqv)

Annual US total GHG emissions are 5.6 GT of CO2e

3 U.S. Petroleum Production and Consumption, 1970-2030

20 18 16 Air U.S. Production Rail 14 Marine Off-Road 12 Heavy Trucks 10 8 Light Trucks 6

Million barrelsday per Million 4 2 Cars 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Sources: Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 27 and projections from the Early Release Annual Energy Outlook 2009. Coal-Based Fuels Pose a Trade-Off Between Energy Security and GHG Emissions

2 Petroleum Use Petroleum

1 Gasoline ICE Diesel ICE

Gasoline HEV

Diesel HEV Coal-based fuels Coal-based fuels, CCS No CCS Biomass-based fuels LPG

Sugarcane-EtOH DME Corn-EtOH NG-DME H2 BD NG-H2 CNG FTD DME FTD MeOH 0 MeOH EV: CA mix EV: China NG-MeOH 0 Coal-H2, CCS EV: US mix 1 2 3 Switchgrass-EtOH NG-FTD Switchgrass- GHG emissions Switchgrass-H2 Life-Cycle Analysis for Vehicle/Fuel Systems Has Been Evolved in the Past 30 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 battery-powered EVs  Recent studies were motivated primarily by introduction of new fuels such as hydrogen and biofuels  Pursuing reductions in transportation GHG emissions now demands for intensive and extensive WTW analyses

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

 The GREET model and its documents are available at Argonne’s website at http://www.transportation.anl.gov/modeling_simulation /GREET/index.html  The most recent GREET version (GREET 1.8c) was released in March 2009 2.7 GREET Cycle Vehicle  As of Jan. 2009, there were more than 10,000 registered GREET users worldwide

Well to Wheels Fuel Cycle GREET 1.8

7 GREET Includes More Than 100 Fuel Production Pathways from Various Energy Feedstocks

8 GREET Includes More Than 75 Vehicle/Fuel Systems

Conventional Spark-Ignition Vehicles Compression-Ignition Direct-Injection Hybrid • Conventional gasoline, federal reformulated Electric Vehicles: Grid-Independent gasoline, California reformulated gasoline and Connected • Compressed natural gas, liquefied natural • Conventional diesel, low sulfur diesel, dimethyl gas, and liquefied petroleum gas ether, Fischer-Tropsch diesel, E-diesel, and biodiesel • Gaseous and liquid hydrogen • Methanol and ethanol Battery-Powered Electric Vehicles • U.S. generation mix Spark-Ignition Hybrid Electric Vehicles: • California generation mix Grid-Independent and Connected • Northeast U.S. generation mix • Conventional gasoline, federal reformulated • User-selected generation mix gasoline, California reformulated gasoline • Compressed natural gas, liquefied natural Fuel Cell Vehicles gas, and liquefied petroleum gas • Gaseous hydrogen, liquid hydrogen, methanol, • Gaseous and liquid hydrogen federal reformulated gasoline, California • Methanol and ethanol reformulated gasoline, low sulfur diesel, ethanol, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, and naphtha Compression-Ignition Direct-Injection Vehicles Spark-Ignition Direct-Injection Vehicles • Conventional diesel, low sulfur diesel, • Conventional gasoline, federal reformulated dimethyl ether, Fischer-Tropsch gasoline, and California reformulated gasoline diesel, E-diesel, and biodiesel • Methanol and ethanol

9 GREET Includes Some of the Potential Biofuel Production Pathways  Sugar Crops for EtOH  Oils for Biodiesel/Renewable  Sugar cane Diesel  Sugar beet  Soybeans  Sweet sorghum  Algaes  Rapeseed   Palm oil  Starch Crops for EtOH  Oils  Hydrogen  Jatropha  Corn  Waste cooking oil  Butanol Production  Wheat  Animal fat  Cassava  Corn  Cellulosic Biomass for EtOH  Sweet potato  Sugar beet  Corn stover, rice straw,  Cellulosic Biomass via wheat straw Gasification  Forest wood residue  Fitscher-Tropsch diesel  Municipal solid waste  Hydrogen  Energy crops  Methanol  Black liquor

The feedstocks that are underlined are already included in the GREET model.

10 The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) Established Aggressive Biofuel Production Targets

21000

Corn EtOH Adv. Biofuels 18000

15000

12000

9000

6000 Million Gallons of EtOH/Yr of MillionGallons

3000

0

1980 1982 1986 1990 1994 2000 2004 2008 2012 2018 2022 1984 1988 1992 1996 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2016 2020 The 2007 EISA and Low-Carbon Fuel Standard Development Require Life-Cycle Analysis for Fuels  EISA requires LCAs to be conducted to determine if given fuel types meet mandated minimum GHG reductions  New ethanol produced from corn: 20%  Cellulosic biofuels: 60%  Biomass-based diesel (e.g., biodiesel): 50%  Other advanced biofuels (e.g., imported sugarcane ethanol, renewable diesel, CNG/LNG made from biogas): 50%  EPA released a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in early May  Low-carbon fuel standard development efforts in EU, California, and other states require LCAs for biofuels  Life cycle analysis includes

 All major GHGs (CO2, CH4, and N2O)  Both production and use of fuels  Direct and indirect land use change impacts

12 California Has Adopted Low-Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) in April 2009

Adopted Carbon Intensities for Selected  10% reduction in Fuels (g CO2e/MJ) carbon intensity of CA fuel supply pool Fuel Direct Land Use or Total Emissions other effects (in g CO2e/MJ) by CA Gasoline 95.86 0 95.86 2020  GREET was used to Midwest Corn EtOH 69.40 30 99.40 develop fuel-specific carbon intensities CA Corn EtOH, wet 50.70 30 80.70  Purdue’s GTAP DGS model was used for Sugarcane EtOH 27.40 46 73.40 land use simulations CA Electricity 124.10 0 41.37  Fuel carbon intensity may be adjusted with NG-Based H2 142.20 0 61.83 vehicle efficiency

13 The U.S. EPA Released A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for EISA RFS2 in May 2009

 A suite of models (including GREET) were used to conduct biofuel LCAs  Land use change in EPA’s NPRM, as well as in CA’s LCFS, has been a contentious issue

EPA Estimated Biofuel GHG Changes (Relative to 2005 Gasoline) 100 yr, 2% 30 yr, 0% EISA Discount discount Target Corn EtOH -16% +5% -20%

Sugarcane EtOH -44% -26% -50%

Corn Stover EtOH -115% -117% -60%

Switchgrass EtOH -128% -121% -60%

Soybean Biodiesel -22% +4% -50%

Waste Grease Biodiesel -80% -80% -50%

14 GHG Benefits and Burdens for Fuel Ethanol Cycle Occur at Different Stages (and With Different Players)

CO2 in the atmosphere CO2 via Photosynthesis

Energy inputs for farming Fossil energy inputs to ethanol plant CO2 emissions during fermentation CO2 emissions from ethanol combustion

Carbon in Carbon in Fertilizer kernels ethanol

Change in soil carbon DGS

N2O emissions from soil and water streams

In direct land use changes for other crops and in other regions Conventional animal feed production cycle Key Issues Affecting Biofuel WTW Results  Continued technology advancements  Agricultural farming: continued crop yield increase and resultant reduction of energy and chemical inputs per unit of yield  Energy use in ethanol plants: reduction in process fuel use and switch of process fuel types  Methods of estimating emission credits of co-products of ethanol  Distillers grains and solubles (DGS) for corn ethanol: 0-50%  Electricity for cellulosic and sugarcane ethanol  Animal feed and specialty chemicals for biodiesel  Life-cycle analysis methodologies  Attributional LCA: CA LCFS  Consequential LCA: EPA RFS2  Direct and indirect land use changes and resulted GHG emissions

16 Key Steps to Address GHG Emissions of Potential Land Use Changes by Large-Scale Biofuel Production

 Simulations of potential land use changes  So far, general equilibrium models have been used  CA LCFS: Purdue GTAP  EPA RFS2: Texas A&M FASOM and Iowa State FAPRI  Significant efforts have been made in the past 16 months to improve existing CGE models  More efforts may still be required  Carbon profiles of major land types  Both above-ground biomass and soil carbon are being considered  Of the available data sources, some are very detailed (e.g., the Century model) but others are very aggregate (e.g., IPCC)  There are mismatches between simulated land types and the land types in available carbon databases  Soil depth for soil carbon could be a major issues when energy crops are to be simulated

17 Specific Issues with General Equilibrium Modeling of Land Use Changes by Biofuel Production Baseline definition  Understanding of the issue has been advanced  Definition itself may still not be agreed; scenarios may be the way to go Worldwide land availability and productivity Growth of crop yields  Trend yield growth  Yield growth response to price increase  Two key technical parameters to predict yields: price elasticities; land rent (or other parameter) Various worldwide biofuel programs: are they parts of a biofuel system or competing individual programs? How to value animal feeds in modeling?  Nutrition value vs. market price approach  Advancement has been made; reconciliation between the two approaches is still needed

18 Accurate Ethanol Energy Analysis Must Account for Increased Productivity in Farming Over Time

1.00 U.S. Corn Output Per Pound of Fertilizer Has Risen by 55% in The Past 35 Years

0.80 (bushel/lb N fertilizer)N (bushel/lb

0.60

1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 Corn Yield Normalized by Nitrogen Fertilizer Applied Fertilizer Nitrogen Applied by Normalized Yield Corn

Based on harvested acreage. Source: USDA

19 GREET Includes Building of Farming Equipment for Ethanol WTW Analysis

 Size of farm served by equipment Equipment Weight Lifetime (tons) (yr)  Life time of equipment Large tractor 10 15  Energy for producing Small tractor 5.7 15 equipment materials (the Field cultivator 2.6 10 majority of equipment Chisel plow/ripper 4.0 10 materials is steel and Planter 3.7 10 rubber) Combine 13.7 15 Corn combine head 4.0 10  Argonne has found that building of farming Gravity box (4) 7.3 15 Auger 0.9 10 equipment may contribute to Grain bin (3) 10.5 15 <2% of energy and ~1% Irrigation 5.3 12 GHG emissions for corn Sprayer 0.6 10 ethanol

20 Improved Technology and Plant Design Has Reduced Energy Use and Operating Costs in Corn Ethanol Plants

70,000 Average in 1980s Average in 2005 60,000 New NG EtOH Plant 50,000 New Coal EtOH Plant

40,000 30%

30,000 reduction Btu/Gallon 20,000 50% reduction 10,000

0 Wet Mill Dry Mill

There are indications that the ethanol industry continues to reduce plant energy use.

21 Co-Products with Biofuels  Types of co-products  Corn ethanol: animal feeds (distillers grains and solubles, DGS)  Sugarcane ethanol: electricity  Cellulosic ethanol: electricity  Biodiesel and renewable diesel from soybean and rapeseed: animal feeds, glycerin, and other chemicals  Ways of dealing with co-products  Displacement method (or the system boundary expansion approach)  Allocation methods  Mass based  Energy content based  Economic revenue based  Production plant process purpose based  Scale of biofuel production (and resultant scale of co-product production) can affect the choice of methods Proper Accounting for Animal Feed Is Key to Corn Ethanol WTW Analysis

Source: RFA, 2008 Allocation Method GHG to EtOH GHG to GDS Weight 54% 46% Energy content 62% 38% Process energy 68% 32% Market value 77% 23% Displacement 81% 19%

Argonne uses the displacement method, the most conservative method for ethanol evaluation.

23 24 Most Recent Studies Show Positive Net Energy Balance for Corn Ethanol

Energy balance here is defined as Btu content a gallon of ethanol minus fossil energy used to produce a gallon of ethanol

25 Key Issues Affecting Cellulosic Ethanol Results  Cellulosic biomass feedstock types  Fast growing trees  Soil carbon could increase  Fertilizer may be applied  Irrigation to be needed?  Switchgrass and other native grass  Soil carbon could increase  Fertilizer will be applied  Irrigation to be needed?  Crop residues  Soil carbon could decrease  Additional fertilizer will be needed to supplement nutrient removal  Forest wood residues: collection effort could be extensive  Co-production of ethanol and electricity  The amount of electricity produced  The types of conventional electric generation to be displaced  Land use changes could have less effects on cellulosic ethanol’s GHG results GHG Emissions of Corn Ethanol Vary Considerably Among Process Fuels in Plants GHG Emission Reductions By Ethanol Relative to Gasoline

GHG effects of potential land use changes are not fully included in these results.

27 Scope of Argonne’s Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) WTW Analysis  To examine relative energy and emission impacts of PHEVs; the vehicle types addressed were:  Conventional international combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs)  Regular hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs)  ICE plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs)  Fuel cell (FC) PHEVs

 Fuel options:  Petroleum  Gasoline  Diesel  E85 with ethanol from  Corn  Switchgrass  Hydrogen with several production pathways  Electricity with different generation mixes

28 Argonne’s PHEV WTW Analysis Addresses The Following Key Issues

 PHEV performance evaluation with Argonne’s PSAT model  Explored PHEV operating strategies  Processed fuel economy results for various PHEV configurations  Examined effects of all electric ranges (AER) of PHEVs

 PHEV mileage shares by power source  Relied on national average distribution of daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT)  Determined VMT shares by charge depleting (CD) and charge sustaining (CS) operations for PHEVs with different AERs

 Electricity generation mixes to charge PHEVs  Reviewed studies completed in this area  Generated five sets of generation mixes for PHEV recharge

 GREET WTW simulations of PHEVs  Expanded and configured GREET for PHEVs  Conducted GREET PHEV WTW simulations

29 Five Sets of Generation Mixes for PHEV Recharge Were Used in This Study (%)

Mix Coal Oil Natural Nuclear Other Gas

US Average 52.5 1.3 13.5 20.1 12.6

Illinois – Region 4 (MAIN) Marginal 75.2 0.0 24.7 0.0 0.1 New York – Region 6 (NPCC-NY) Marginal 3.4 67.2 29.4 0.0 0.0 California – Region 13 (WECC-CA) Marginal 0.0 0.0 99.0 0.0 1.0

Renewable 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

• US Average Mix: the default GREET average mix for 2020 • IL, NY, and CA Marginal Mix: from the 2020 mix with 2kW charging capacity starting at 10 PM from a study by Hadley et al. • Renewable: a scenario reflecting upper limit on benefits of PHEVs

30 PSAT Fuel Economy Results (Miles Per Gasoline Equivalent Gallon for CD Engine and CS Engine; Wh/Mile for CD Electric)

ICEV AER 0 AER 10 AER 20 AER 30 AER 40

Regular CD CD CS CD CD CS CD CD CS CD CD CS Hybrid Electric Engine Engine Electric Engine Engine Electric Engine Engine Electric Engine Engine

Gasoline UDDS 27.6 45.6 148.1 132.4 47.1 141.3 122.3 46.9 174.1 184.3 46.6 165.1 153.4 46.2 ICE HWFET 34.0 39.7 107.8 78.3 41.1 136.9 103.9 41.0 158.2 134.5 40.6 168.0 152.6 40.2

E85 UDDS 42.9 146.1 125.5 44.4 141.2 118.4 44.2 172.6 179.7 43.8 164.3 148.6 43.4 ICE HWFET 37.5 106.3 73.8 38.9 136.9 99.3 38.8 156.8 126.2 38.3 167.0 144.4 37.9

Diesel UDDS 49.4 151.4 138.1 50.0 144.7 127.5 49.7 179.7 191.3 49.3 169.7 158.7 48.9 ICE HWFET 43.0 110.2 84.1 43.8 140.3 112.2 43.6 163.3 145.7 43.2 172.6 164.5 42.9

H2 UDDS 59.4 157.7 132.6 59.5 154.2 123.4 58.8 156.2 120.7 58.1 181.8 142.7 57.3 FC HWFET 62.3 229.4 1514.4 61.5 224.0 601.5 60.9 170.1 189.6 60.3 184.7 225.4 59.7

CD electric operation and CD engine operation complement each other for the same CD miles (i.e., blended mode operation)

• CD Electric = charge depleting operation with grid electricity • CD Engine = charging depleting operation with on-board power systems (ICE or Fuel Cell) • CS engine = charge sustaining operation with on-board power systems • AER 0 = zero-mile AER (i.e., regular HEV) • AER 10 = 10-mile AER; AER 20 = 20-mile AER; AER 30 = 30-mile AER; AER 40 = 40-mile AER • UDDS = Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule; HWFET = Highway Fuel Economy Test

31 PHEVs with 20-Mile AER Can Potentially Drive 40% of Daily VMT with CD Operation, PHEVs with 40-Mile AER More than 60 % 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

0% % VMT% on Electricity (Utility Factor) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 All Electric Range (mi)

32 WTW Total Energy Use for CD Mode vs. CS Mode vs. Combination; 20 AER; US Mix

9,000 PTW (On-board) PHEV20 - US Mix (Model Year 2015) 8,000 PTW (Grid Electricity) 7,000 6,000 WTP (Grid Electricity) 5,000 WTP (On-board) 4,000

3,000 TotalEnergy Use [Btu/mi] 2,000 1,000 0

SI RFG, CDSI RFG, CS CI LSD, CDCI LSD, CS

SI E85 -Corn,SI E85 CD -Corn, CS SI RFG, Combined CI LSD, Combined

SI E85 -H.Biomass,SI E85 -H.Biomass, CD CS SI E85 -Corn, Combined

FC H2- DistibutedFC H2- DistibutedSMR, CD SMR, CS

SI E85 -H.Biomass, Combined FC H2- CentralFC H2- H.Biomass, Central H.Biomass, CD CS

FC H2- Distibuted SMR,FC CombinedH2- DistibutedFC H2- DistibutedElectrolysis, Electrolysis, CD CS

FC H2- Distibuted Electrolysis, C... FC H2- Central H.Biomass, Combined

The combination of CD and CS modes are with 40% CD VMT and 60% CS VMT.

33 Summary of Petroleum Energy and GHG Effects of Evaluated PHEV

Options 2.0

UF (VMTCD / VMTtotal) for:

1.8 PHEV10 = 23% PHEV40 = 63%

1.6

1.4

large marker for PHEV10 1.2 small marker for PHEV40

1.0 US Ave. Mix

CA Mix 0.8 NY Mix

IL Mix GHG EmissionsGHG (relative to GV) 0.6 Renewable

Baseline (GV) 0.4 PHEV SI Gasoline PHEV SI Corn-E85 PHEV SI H. Biomass-E85 PHEV CI Diesel 0.2 PHEV FC Distributed SMR-H2 PHEV FC Distributed Electrolysis-H2 PHEV FC Central H. Biomass-H2

0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 Petroleum Use (relative to GV)

34 Summary of Petroleum Energy and GHG Effects of Favorable Options

1.0

UF (VMTCD / VMTtotal) for: 0.9 PHEV10 = 23% H2 Petroleum fuels PHEV40 = 63%

0.8 large marker for PHEV10 small marker for PHEV40 0.7 E85

0.6

AER 0 (Regular HEV) 0.5 US Ave. Mix

CA Mix

0.4 NY Mix

IL Mix

GHG EmissionsGHG (relative to GV) 0.3 Renewable

Baseline (GV) 0.2 PHEV SI Gasoline PHEV SI Corn-E85 PHEV SI H. Biomass-E85 PHEV CI Diesel 0.1 PHEV FC Distributed SMR-H2 PHEV FC Distributed Electrolysis-H2 PHEV FC Central H. Biomass-H2

0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Petroleum Use (relative to GV)

35