Plug-In Electric and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles

Home , Fuel cell vehicle

Plug-in Electric and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles

Amgad Elgowainy Energy Systems Division Argonne National Laboratory

GREET User Workshop October 15-16, 2015 Plug-in vehicles

Emissions Upstream PHEV

Crude Crude Crude Fuel Recovery Transportation Refining Transportation

Gasoline

Oil 1% Renewable Gas Nuclear 13%11% 25%20% 21% Electricity

Coal 40%47% Electricity Transmission and Distribution Electricity Generation Mix

2 ANL examined three charging choices based on travel behavior in two distinct utility regions in the U.S.  WECC and IL

WECC California

3 Long dwell time during the day offers another charging opportunity at work and at home (figure shown for vehicles driven to work)

4 PHEVs load profile can vary considerably with charging scenario (figure shown for U.S. WECC service area)

30% higher Reach the electricity peak at 7PM demand

Reach the peak at 6AM

5 PHEVs Load is Relatively Small Even at 10% Penetration in the LDV FLEET (Figure Shown for IL in 2030)

Non-Vehicle Load PHEV (Arrival Time Charging) PHEV (Smart Charging) 25,000 2,500

20,000 2,000 Vehicle Vehicle Load (MWh)

15,000 1,500

10,000 1,000

Vehicle Load (MWh) Load Vehicle

- Non 5,000 500

0 0 Wed 12 AM Wed 6 AM Wed Noon Wed 6 PM Thu 12 AM

Typical January Week

6 State of Illinois – Modeling Approach and Data Sources

. Modeled state of Illinois in detail; buses in adjacent states were aggregated. . Agent-based modeling structure simulated operation of the electricity market – EMCAS. . Transmission modeled at bus/line level (1900 buses and 2500 lines). . Load profiles developed from FERC* data and published utility hourly data; projected to 2020 using Energy Information Administration • (EIA) data. . Virtually no hydropower. . Non-dispatchable renewable generation (wind) determined from hourly wind speed and electric generation profile data from NREL web site. Illinois Representation . Thermal power plants simulated at the unit in EMCAS level; unit characteristics derived from EIA data; . supplemented with data from NERC and Illinois Commerce Commission.

*Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 7 Marginal generation mix for charging varies significantly with charging scenario in IL( figure shown for IL in 2030)

8 Marginal mix for charging is dominated by NGCC for All considered charging choices (table shown for WECC)

Alternative Charging Scenarios of PHEVs in WECC (including California) Charging Ends Before Time Charging Starts at End of Charging Ends Before Time of Departure + Opportunity Fuel Technology Trip of Departure Charge at Work or Home

Coal Utility Boiler / 0% 0% 0 IGCC

Natural Gas Utility Boiler -0.5% 0.2% 0.9% Combined Cycle 96.5% 97.2% 92.0% Combustion 3.5% 1.8% 6.5% Turbine

Residual Oil Utility Boiler 0% 0% 0%

Nuclear Utility Boiler 0% 0% 0%

Biomass Utility Boiler 0% 0% 0%

Renewable Hydro/Wind/Solar 0.5% 0.8% 0.6%

Total 100% 100% 100%

9 WTW GHG emissions of plug-in vehicles* mainly depend on electricity generation mix

1.2

Baseline BEV (with 100% Coal) 1 Gasoline ICE Vehicle

IL (least cost charging)  69% coal IL (least cost charging) 0.8 IL (arrival time charging)  27% coal IL (arrival time charging) Regular HEV WECC (all scenarios)  99% NG WECC (all scenarios) 0.6

PHEV10 = 10 mi range, BEV (with 100% NGCC) PHEV10 25% VMT on battery (+ engine) 0.4 100% Renewable PHEV40 = 40 mi range,

PHEV40 50% VMT on battery alone GHG Emissions (relative toGasoline ICEV) BEV = 100 mi range, 0.2 100% VMT on battery

BEV (with 100% Renewable) 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Petroleum Use (relative to Gasoline ICEV)

Elgowainy et al. 2012 (TRR) *Marginal mix and fuel economy are based on simulations for 2030 Elgowainy et al. 2012 (EVS 26) GREET includes more than 20 pathways for central and distributed hydrogen production

Gasoline Ethanol Corn Petroleum Diesel Butanol Conventional Jet Fuel Oil Sands Liquefied Petroleum Gas Naphtha Sugarcane Ethanol Residual Oil Soybeans Hydrogen Biodiesel Palm Renewable Diesel Fischer-Tropsch Diesel Rapeseed Coal Fischer-Tropsch Jet Jatropha Renewable Gasoline Methanol Camelina Dimethyl Ether Hydroprocessed Algae Renewable Jet Natural Gas Compressed Natural Gas North American Cellulosic Biomass Ethanol Liquefied Natural Gas Hydrogen Non-North American Switchgrass Liquefied Petroleum Gas Methanol Shale gas Willow/Poplar Methanol Dimethyl Ether Crop Residues Dimethyl Ether Fischer-Tropsch Diesel Renewable Natural Gas Forest Residues Fischer-Tropsch Diesel Fischer-Tropsch Jet Landfill Gas Miscanthus Fischer-Tropsch Jet Pyro Gasoline/Diesel/Jet Animal Waste Fischer-Tropsch Naphtha Waste water treatment Hydrogen Residual Oil Coal Coke Oven Gas Natural Gas Electricity Petroleum Coke Hydrogen Biomass Nuclear Energy Other Renewables

11 12 Trailer - Tube Storage LoadingBays Compressor Gaseous Gaseous Terminal

Distribution Pipeline

Compressor Dispenser Cascade Refrigeration Storage Geologic Geologic Fueling Fueling Station Compressor Storage Compressor Trailer - Transmission Pipeline Transmission Tube Storage Compressor LoadingBays Compressor

Gaseous Gaseous Terminal

Centralized Gaseous H Production 2

compressed compressed gaseous hydrogen Fuel production delivery and pathways for 13 - cryo Liquid Liquid Truck LoadingBays Storage Cryogenic Pump Pump - Vaporizer Pressure - Cryo Liquid Liquid Terminal High Storage Cryogenic Fueling Station Pump - Gas Gas Cryo Dispenser Dispenser Compressed Compressed hydrogen hydrogen Liquefier

Centralized Gaseous H Production 2

compressed compressed Fuel production delivery and pathways for Hydrogen production today is mainly from SMR, but other low-carbon pathways exist today

Stack Gas

Steam

Natural Gas STEAM SHIFT REACTOR Pressure Swing H2 REFORMER Adsorption

Ambient Air Fuel Gas

At 72% NG to H2 energy efficiency

 12 kgCO2e/kgH2

14 Actual North America liquefaction plants GHG emissions are different from US average mix

15 Liquefaction GHG emissions today may be much less (~40% less) than based on US average mix

Region GHG Emissions GHG Emissions Liquefaction Capacity

(gCO2e/kWhe) (kgCO2e/kgH2)* (ton/day) California 380 4.5 30 Louisiana 610 7.4 70 Indiana 1070 12.8 30 New York 330 4.0 or 0** 40 Alabama 580 7.0 30 Ontario 130 1.6 30 Quebec 20 0.20 27 Total 257 Weighted average 5.7 or 5.0** If US mix 670 8.0

*Assuming liquefaction energy of 12 kWhe/kg_H2 ** Plant in NY uses hydro power

16 GHG emissions of H2 compression are based on US average mix

Compression Pressure lift Compression Energy GHG Emissions

process (bar) (kWhe/kgH2) (kgCO2e/kgH2)*

Pipeline 20  70 0.6 0.40 compression 350 bar dispensing 20  440 3 2.0

700 bar dispensing 20  900 4 2.7

-40oC pre-cooling --- 0.25 0.17

CcH2 station 2  350 0.3 0.20

*Assuming US average generation mix

17 GHG emissions of LH2 truck delivery is smaller than tube-trailer delivery due to higher payload

4000 kgH2

0.1 kg /kg CO2e H2 100 km (60 mi)

250 bar, 550 kgH2

0.7 kgCO2e/kgH2 100 km (60 mi)

18 Fuel cycle GHG emissions of MOF-5, LH2 and compressed GH2 pathways

kgCO2e/kgH2 Production Transport Compression/ Total Pathway liquefaction GH2 Pathway 12 0.7 2.0 14.7 (350 bar) GH2 Pathway 12 0.7 2.9 15.6 (700 bar) 17.3 or LH2 Pathway 5.2 or 12 0.1 20.3‡ (CcH2) 8.2‡ MOF-5 12 0.7 5.4 18.1 Pathway

‡ Assuming US mix for H2 liquefaction

19 Onboard storage represents 3-5% of total LCA GHG emissions of compressed GH2, LH2 and MOF-5 pathways ‒ Accomplishment gCO2e/mi* Onboard Balance of Fuel Cycle Total Pathway Storage Vehicle Cycle (WTW) GH2 Pathway 14 56 245 315 (350 bar) GH2 Pathway 17 56 257 330 (700 bar) LH2 Pathway 350 9 56 288 (CcH2) or 400‡ MOF-5 15 56 302 373 pathway

*Assuming 60 mi/kgH2 fuel economy for FCEVs, and 160,000 lifetime VMT ‡ Assuming US mix for H2 liquefaction 20 GHG emissions reduction potential depends on H2 production and packaging for delivery and onboard storage

Assuming gaseous delivery via pipelines and 700 bar onboard storage

Acronyms

GH2 = gaseous hydrogen CcH2 = cryocompressed SMR = steam methane reforming CCS = carbon capture and LH2 = liquid hydrogen MOF = metal-organic framework ICEV = internal combustion engine vehicle storage GREET Application: WTW GHG Results of a Mid-Size Car (g/mile)

For projected state of technologies in 2035

Low/high band: sensitivity to uncertainties associated with projection of fuel economy and fuel pathways (DOE EERE 2013, Record 13005) • A GREET WTW results file with most recent GREET version is available at GREET website (http://greet.es.anl.gov/results) 22 Acknowledgment

Plug-in and fuel cell vehicle analyses have been supported by the Biofuels Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) and Fuel Cell Technologies Office (FCTO) of the U.S. DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Office.

23 Questions?