sign in sign up
<<
Home , Biofuel, Biogasoline

and , do we need both? The role of , and electricity in the transformation of the transport sector

Maria Grahn Fysisk Resursteori, Institutionen för Rymd- geo- och miljövetenskap, Chalmers tekniska högskola 2018-04-26 Different and vehicle technology options in different transport modes?

Liquid fuels ICEV, HEV Aviation (petro, , (internal combus- Fossil , tion vehicles (oil, natural ) and hybrids) Shipping (short) gas, ) Shipping (long) (, SNG, FCV ( cell vehicles) ) Road (short) (, busses, Solar, distribution trucks) BEV, PHEV wind etc Production (battery electric of electro Electrolysis vehicles) Road (long) fuels (long distance trucks and busses) Water CO2 Inductive and conductive Rail Electricity electric (train, tram)

ENERGY SOURCES ENERGY CARRIERS VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES TRANSPORT MODES Example of biofuels and conversion processes

Electricity & Lignin e.g. wood, black Hydrogen liquor, grass to Fischer-Tropsch Fuels (CO and H2) e.g. , corn, DME potatoes Anearobic (Dimethyleter) digestion to biogas Methanol Fermentation Oil of sugar Methane e.g. , palmoil, soy Ethanol Pressing and esterification Rest flows FAME (Fatty acid methyl e.g. , sawdust, , eg RME) , sludge, Hydrotreating food waste of HVO

BIOMASS CONVERSION PROCESS ENERGY CARRIER Which fuel is best? Depends on… Energy balance and climate impact

Coal-based DME, diesel

Conventional , diesel Ethanol (wheat, sugerbeet) Ethanol Biodiesel (cellolose, (FAME, HVO) ) Wood-based DME, diesel Biogas (manure)

Well-to-wheel energy expended and gas emissions for different fuel production pathways, assuming technology matureness by year 2020. All biofuel options are plotted as neat products. Pathways differ depending on different primary energy sources (e.g., farmed wood, waste wood, straw, corn, wheat, sugarbeet, sugarcane, municipal waste, manure), different types of added energy to the conversion process (e.g., renewable, natural gas, lignite coal), and different co-products (e.g., animal feed, biogas, electricity). Source: CONCAWE, Eucar, Joint Research Centre. Land efficiency

Bäst värde bruttoutbyte Cellulosa till metan. Bäst värde nettoutbyte.

Average net (netto) and gross (brutto) biofuels produced per hectare and year, on average , in southern (Götalands södra slättbyhgder). Translation of the analyzed biofuel option from the left: wheat-ethanol, wheat-biogas, sugarbeet-ethanol, sugarbeet-biogas, rapeseed methyl esther, pasture-biogas, corn-biogas, - ethanol, willow-Fischer-Tropsch-diesel, willow-DME/methanol, willow-biomethane, poplar-ethanol, poplar-Fischer-Tropsch-diesel, poplar-DME/methanol, poplar-biomethane.

Börjesson P. 2007. ”Produktionsförutsättningar för biobränslen inom svenskt jordbruk” [Production conditions of in Swedish ] and ”Förädling och avsättning av jordbruksbaserade biobränslen” [Conversion and utilisation of biomass from Swedish agriculture]. Two reports (Lund reports No 61 and 62) included as Appendix to ”Bioenergi från jordbruket – en växande resurs” [Appendix to Bioenergy from Swedish agriculture – a growing resource], Statens offentliga utredningar 2007:36. Jordbrukets roll som bioenergiproducent Jo 2005:05. Available at http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/08/19/74/5c250bb0.pdf. Multicriteria analysis Climate impact, energy efficiency, land use efficiency, fuel potential/feedstock availability, vehicle adaptivity, cost, infrastructure (top score = 5)

Många höga betyg på DME

Updated version exist where also HVO and Electricity are included, both showing very good results. Contact Patrik Klintbom for more information. Volvo, 2007. Climate issues in focus. Publication No 011-949-027, 01-2008 GB, Available at http://www.volvogroup.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Volvo%20AB/values/environment/climate_issues_in_focus_eng.pdf. Another multi-criteria analysis

Best value biomethane

Source: Tsita K.G, Pilavachi P.A. (2013). Evaluation of next generation biomass derived fuels for the transport sector. Energy Policy 62: 443–455. Common results from different fuel comparisons

• Forest-based fuels show better results than -based fuels. • Biomethane, HVO and DME often comes up as top candidates. • Electricity sometimes not included in the comparisons. • It is difficult to find alternative fuels that can compete with oil-based fuels when it comes to WTW energy balance. – Obviuos when knowing that more input energy always are needed when converting a solid feedstock compared to a liquid feedstock. – Maybe energy balance is of less importance if/when renewable electricity (solar, wind) domintates the electricity mix. • Coal-based fuels emit double the CO2 compared to oil-based fuels. • There are more renewable options available for substituting fossil diesel than gasoline. New types of fuels?

Electrofuels Heavy and Ammonia? Example of blendable chemicals in fossil diesel (fit into EN590) A strategy for introducing 0-100% renewable components into fossil diesel without changes in infrastructure or vehicles.

Analysed in the ongoing project ”Future Fuels” Production of Other hydrogen options (H ) CO electrofuels 2 2 Water (H2O)

Hydrogen El Electro- (H2) CO2 from air lysis and seawater

CO2 from combustion H Heat 2

How to utilize or Synthesis reactor (e.g. Biofuel store possible Sabatier, Fischer-Tropsch) 5-10 €/tCO2 production future excess CO2 Biomass electricity (C H O ) Electrofuels Biofuels 6 10 5

Methane (CH4) How to substitute fossil Methanol (CH3OH) How to utilize based fuels in the the maximum of transportation sector, DME (CH OCH ) 3 3 carbon in the especially aviation and Higher alcohols, e.g., Ethanol (C H OH) globally limited shipping face 2 5 amount of challenges utlilzing Higher , e.g., Gasoline (C8H18) biomass batteries and fuel cells. Production cost different electrofuels, 2030 assuming most optimistic (low), least optimistic (high) and median values (base) Production costs have the Parameters assumed for 2030, 50 MW potential to lie in the order of reactor, CF 80%. 100 €/MWh (low) or 160-180 Interest rate 5% €/MWh (base) in future Economic lifetime 25 years (similar to the most expensive Investment costs: biofuels). Alkaline electrolyzers 700 (400-900)

€/kWelec Methane reactor €/kWfuel 300 (50-500)

Methanol reactor €/kWfuel 500 (300-600)

DME reactor €/kWfuel 500 (300-700)

FT liquids reactor €/kWfuel 700(400-1000)

Gasoline (via meoh) €/kWfuel 900(700-1000) Electrolyzer efficiency 66 (50-74) %

Electricity price 50 €/MWh el Costs for electrolyser CO capture 30 €/tCO 2 2 and electricity dominate O&M 4% Water 1 €/m³ Electrolyser Electricity

Fuel synthesis and CO2 capture uncertainties installation & indirect costs

Brynolf S, Taljegård M, Grahn M, Hansson J. (2018). Electrofuels for the transport sector: a review of production costs. Renewable & Reviews 81 (2) 1887-1905. Production cost e-methanol depending on

Production cost found in literature Fossil fuels 40-140 Methane from 40-180 Methane from gasification of 70-90 lignocellulose Methanol from gasification of 80-120 lignocellulose DME from gasification of lignocellulose 90-110 Ethanol from , sugarcane, wheat 70-345 and waste Production costs may lie FAME from rapeseed, palm, waste oil 50-210 in the order of 100-150 HVO from 134-185 EUR/MWh in future Synthetic biodiesel from gasification of 120-655 lignocellulose Synthetic from gasification 90 of lignocellulose

Future production of electrofuels have the potential to compete with the most expensive biofuels

Brynolf S, Taljegård M, Grahn M, Hansson J. (2018). Electrofuels for the transport sector: a review of production costs. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2) 1887-1905. Annual cost electro-diesel in ICEV (blue) vs hydrogen in FC (green)

Trucks Cars

km per year km per year Common Common for for cars long-distance trucks

Trucks: H2+FC lowest tot cost (over 30,000 km/yr) Cars: E-diesel+ICEV lowest tot cost (up to 30,000 km/yr)

Main findings Source: Grahn . M. (2017) Can - Expensive investments dominates at low use, expensive fuel dominates at large use. electrofuels in combustion - Electro-diesel can be competitive when vehicles have a short driving range per year. be cost-competitive to - Hydrogen has advantages when vehicles have long driving distances per year. hydrogen in fuel cells? Conference proceedings, - The concept of electro-diesel in ICEVs seem to be cost-competitive to H2-FC for cars. TMFB, Aachen, 20-22 June. Production cost electro-hydrogen (left) and electro-methanol (right) assuming that there is a market for excess heat and from the electrolysers.

Production costs compared to natural gas based hydrogen, Production costs compared to natural gas based which is assumed can be bought for 50 €/MWh. methanol, which is assumed can be bought for 72 €/MWh.

Production cost electro-hydrogen [€/MWh] Production cost electro-methanol [€/MWh] 500 174 50 35 51 66 81 500 485 133 76 95 115 134 CAPEX

CAPEX 400 434 117 68 88 107 127

400 135 38 29 45 60 75 (25 yr) (25 yr) 300 95 26 23 39 54 70 300 383 102 61 80 100 119 kWel / kWel /

€ 200 333 87 53 73 92 112

€ 200 55 14 17 33 48 64 Electrolyser Electrolyser 100 15 2 12 27 42 58 100 282 71 46 65 85 104 0 10 20 30 40 50 Electricity price €/MWh 0 10 20 30 40 50 Electricity price €/MWh CF=10 CF=40 CF=95 CF=95 CF=95 CF=95 CF=10 CF=40 CF=95 CF=95 CF=95 CF=95

Green-marked results indicate a production cost that is equal or below what the industries’ pay for natural gas based hydrogen (left) and methanol (right). Yellow-marked results indicate a production cost that is equal or below doubled price to what industries’ pay for natural gas based options. Red-marked results indicate a production cost that is more than double to what industries´pay for natural gas based options, i.e. difficult to see business opportunities.

We find that there are circumstances when both electro-hydrogen and electro-methanol can be produced at lower cost compared to what industries buy natural gas based fuels. In the methanol case this result appears when average electricity price is 20 EUR/MWh, electrolyser CAPEX is at 400 EUR/kWel or below (i.e. the green marked cells). For more details on assumptions and calculations contact [email protected]. Maria Grahn

Example results on fuel mix for global fleet using a global cost minimisation energy systems model atte y cost $300/ 6000 C)CO2-target: 450 ppm 5000 PETRO = Gasoline/Diesel BTL= Biofuels 4000 CTL= Fuels based on coal GTL= Fuels based on natural gas H2.FCV NG = Natural gas 3000 H2 = Hydrogen GTL/CTL.PHEV PETRO.PHEV ICEV = Internal Combustion engine Million cars 2000 FCV = vehicle NG.ICEV PETRO.HEV H2.ICEV HEV = Hybrid electric vehicles PHEV = Plug-in electric vehicles 1000 PETRO.ICEV (Electrofuels are not included) 0 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 General results: - It is not likely that one single solution will dominate the fuel scenario. - Hybrids and plug-in-hybrids are solutions that have the potential to play a large role in the near future. - Hydrogen is the most expensive solution but still a fuel that may dominate in a long term when oil, natural gas and bioenergy are scarce sources. - Scenarios are most often either dominated by electricity or hydrogen solutions depending on battery prices, fuel cell prices and cost. - The globally limited amount of biomass can reduce CO2 emissions at a lower cost if it replaces fossil fuels in the stationary energy sector compared to replacing oil in the transportation sector.

Source: Grahn M, Azar C, Williander MI, Anderson JE, Mueller SA and Wallington TJ (2009). Fuel and vehicle technology choices for passenger vehicles in achieving stringent CO2 targets: connections between transportation and other energy sectors. Environmental Science and Technology 43(9): 3365–3371. Maria Grahn

The pre-requsites for Sweden is slightly different from to the global

• Challenges connected to a large scale use in a global perspective do not necessarily apply to the Swedish conditions. • Advantages for Sweden: • Sparsly populated country => no immediate land constraint • Large biomass potential (tot potential 50-85 TWh/yr according to FFF). • Well developed biomass infrastructure, lovh history of large scale pulp and paper industry • Well developed infrastructure around and nischmarkets for ED95. • Sweden has set ambitious targets. A fossil independent vehicle fleet by 2030, no net emissions of GHG by 2045. Conclusions from the FFF-commission report. Roadmap for the road transport sector towards a Sweden without any net emissions 2050.

(in energy terms)

http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/23/07/39/1591b3dd.pdf Mina reflektioner kring framtidens drivmedel • Tre huvudgrupper alternativa drivmedel har potential att komma ner i nästan nollutsläpp: • bränslen som innehåller kolatomer (biodrivmedel/ elektrobränslen), • el, • vätgas • Drivmedel som har en fördel är de som • kan blandas i konventionella bränslen (alkoholer, biodiesel, elektrobränslen) • bidrar till mindre bullriga städer och renare luft (el och vätgas) • satsas på inom EU (el, metan och vätgas). • Det är högst sannolikt att det kommer att utvecklas flera parallella lösningar. • Det finns många fördelar med elfordon i städer. Sannolikt el i städer. • Det finns många utmaningar med el till långväga transporter (speciellt flyg och sjöfart). Elektrobränslen kan komplettera biodrivmedel för dessa transportslag. • Vänta inte på den enda rätta lösningen. The team

Maria Grahn, Research leader Selma Brynolf, Postdoc Julia Hansson, Postdoc Maria Taljegård, PhD student Energy and environment Energy and environment Energy and environment Energy and environment Chalmers University of Chalmers University of Chalmers University of Chalmers University of Technology Technology Technology Technology Email: Email: Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Karin Andersson, Professor Sofia Poulikidou, Postdoc Stefan Heyne, Researcher Roman Hackl, Researcher Shipping and Marine Technology Energy and environment CIT IVL Chalmers University of Chalmers University of Email: Email: Technology Technology [email protected] [email protected] Email: Email: [email protected] [email protected]