I Assessing Vehicle Electricity Demand Impacts On
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Assessing Vehicle Electricity Demand Impacts on California Electricity Supply by RYAN WILLIAM McCARTHY B.S. (University of California, San Diego) 2002 M.S. (University of California, Davis) 2005 DISSERTATION Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Civil and Environmental Engineering in the OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS Approved: Joan M. Ogden Christopher Yang Daniel Sperling Committee in Charge 2009 i ABSTRACT Achieving policy targets for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation will likely require significant adoption of battery-electric, plug-in hybrid, or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. These vehicles use electricity either directly as fuel, or indirectly for hydrogen production or storage. As they gain share, currently disparate electricity and transportation fuels supply systems will begin to “converge.” Several studies consider impacts of electric vehicle recharging on electricity supply or comparative GHG emissions among alternative vehicle platforms. But few consider interactions between growing populations of electric-drive vehicles and the evolution of electricity supply, especially within particular regional and policy contexts. This dissertation addresses this gap. It develops two modeling tools (EDGE-CA and LEDGE-CA) to illuminate tradeoffs and potential interactions between light-duty vehicles and electricity supply in California. Near-term findings suggest natural gas-fired power plants will supply “marginal” electricity for vehicle recharging and hydrogen production. Based on likely vehicle recharging profiles, GHG emissions rates from these plants are more than 40% higher than the average from all generation supplying electricity demand in California and 65% higher than the estimated marginal electricity emissions rate in California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Emissions from power plants supplying vehicle recharging are usually highest from 5pm-8pm, when they are 20% higher than their typical low value, from 2am-4am. Plug-in hybrid vehicles are 25-42% more efficient than conventional, gasoline hybrids, but reduce GHG emissions by less than 5%, because marginal electricity is currently much more carbon-intensive than gasoline in California (based on likely recharging profiles). Over the long term, adding vehicle recharging or renewable generation to the grid can have important impacts on how electricity is supplied. Vehicle recharging shifts capacity and generation from poorly- utilized peaking power plants to more highly-utilized baseload plants with lower operating costs. Adding renewable generation has the opposite effect, which may be partially mitigated if vehicle recharging can be made to follow renewable generation. Achieving long-term targets for deep reductions in electricity sector GHG emissions requires significantly increasing renewable or nuclear generation and reducing per-capita electricity demand or avoiding new capacity from fossil power plants without carbon capture and sequestration. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was funded by the California Energy Commission and the sponsors of the Sustainable Transportation Energy Pathways (STEPS) Program at the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis (ITS-Davis). I would like to thank those institutions, as well as CH2MHill, the National Science Foundation, and the sponsors of the Hydrogen Pathways Program at ITS-Davis for financial support in my graduate research and education. Thanks are due to many others, whose shared wisdom and generosity have made for a wonderfully enriching graduate experience: Dr. Chris Yang and Prof. Joan Ogden for their caring guidance and mentoring throughout my research endeavors; Prof. Dan Sperling for his knowing insight and direction; Profs. Yueyue Fan and Alissa Kendall for their service on my qualifying exam committee; the ITS-Davis staff for making everything easy and enjoyable; and my friends who housed me as I traveled and wrote: Reilly; Kona; Mark, Lida, Yasmin, and Sasha; Nic; Nathan and Deborah; and Mike and Belinda. As always, I am forever grateful for unwavering love and support from my friends and family – especially my parents, Sarah, Katherine, Mary, and Erica. You are my greatest blessing. Finally, a shout out to my nieces and nephews: Claire, Rosalyn, Curran, Reid, and Wyatt. Your bright smiles, pure hearts, and inquisitive minds inspire me. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................................................vii ABBREVIATIONS AND PARAMETERS ........................................................................................................ x 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 2. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Energy Policy in California ........................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Well-to-wheels vehicle GHG emissions ..................................................................................... 7 2.2.1 Vehicle Efficiency and Fuel Carbon Intensity ..................................................................... 8 2.3 Electricity Supply .................................................................................................................... 10 2.3.1 Electricity dispatch ......................................................................................................... 11 2.3.2 Marginal electricity and emissions .................................................................................. 12 2.3.3 Vehicle recharging as “active” load ................................................................................. 13 2.3.4 Integrating intermittent renewables on the grid ............................................................. 15 2.4 Literature Review ................................................................................................................... 17 PART I: MARGINAL GENERATION FOR NEAR-TERM VEHICLE ELECTRICITY DEMAND IN CALIFORNIA ...... 21 3. DOCUMENTATION OF THE ELECTRICITY DISPATCH FOR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN CALIFORNIA (EDGE-CA) MODEL ...................................................................................................... 22 3.1 Model Overview ..................................................................................................................... 22 3.1.1 Regional representation of California electricity supply .................................................. 23 3.1.2 Model outputs ................................................................................................................ 27 3.2 Power Plant Representation and Availability Module ............................................................. 29 3.2.1 Nuclear, geothermal, and biomass.................................................................................. 32 3.2.2 Wind .............................................................................................................................. 33 3.2.3 Solar ............................................................................................................................... 34 3.2.4 Hydro ............................................................................................................................. 35 3.2.5 Firm imports ................................................................................................................... 38 3.2.6 System imports............................................................................................................... 39 3.2.7 Dispatchable plants ........................................................................................................ 47 3.2.8 Additional generation ..................................................................................................... 48 3.3 Electricity Demand Module .................................................................................................... 49 3.3.1 Non-vehicle demand ...................................................................................................... 49 3.3.2 Vehicle demand .............................................................................................................. 50 3.4 Dispatch Module .................................................................................................................... 53 3.5 Costs ...................................................................................................................................... 58 3.6 Validation............................................................................................................................... 59 3.7 Discussion of Modeling Issues ................................................................................................ 63 4. NEAR-TERM VEHICLE AND FUEL PATHWAY COMPARISON .............................................................. 65 4.1 Electricity Supply in 2010 with No Vehicles ............................................................................. 65 4.2 Impacts of Vehicle Recharging on Electricity Demand