GHG EMISSION COMPARISON BETWEEN E85 FLEX FUEL VEHICLE AND EV UPTAKE A Scandinavian perspective Dissertation in partial fulllment of the requirements for the degree of BACHELOR OF SCIENCE WITH A MAJOR IN SUSTAINABLE ENERGY TRANSITION Uppsala University Department of Earth Sciences, Campus Gotland Lucas Dewilde Cevelló 26 05 2021 GHG EMISSION COMPARISON BETWEEN E85 FLEX FUEL VEHICLE AND EV UPTAKE A Scandinavian perspective Dissertation in partial fulllment of the requirements for the degree of BACHELOR OF SCIENCE WITH A MAJOR IN SUSTAINABLE ENERGY TRANSITION Uppsala University Department of Earth Sciences, Campus Gotland Approved by: Supervisor, Simon Davidsson Kurland Examiner, Ola Eriksson 26 05 2021 i Abstract In this thesis the eects of two future greenhouse gas emission reducing strategies in the passenger transport sector are investigated. Three factors were modelled for 2021-2055; The life cycle emissions of four vehicle types using a well-to-wheel life cycle analysis tool called GREET, the growth curve of these vehicle types was analyzed and extrapolated to obtain total vehicle predictions and the mileage of these vehicles was extrapolated from existing governmental data. The resulting scenarios show that in the short term E85 ex fuel vehicles are capable of more avoided emissions, with EVs outperforming them in the long term. However limitations in the prediction of vehicle mileage leaves the overtake point to be determined. Keywords Well-to-wheels, GREET, LCA, GHG emissions, Automotive fuels, Flex fuel vehicles, E85, Electric vehicles. ii Acknowledgments Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor Simon Davidsson Kurland for his guidance and feedback throughout this process. In addition, I would like to thank all the teachers, department faculty and sta for making my time at Uppsala University Campus Gotland a great experience. I would also like to thank my friends who have been very supportive throughout my studies and my time on Campus Gotland. To my friends and classmates in Visby who made my experience at Uppsala University special and unforgettable; to group D who provided support and memorable times; to my roommates Ivy, Kadri, and Shaelyn who provided pressure and crucial feedback throughout the thesis process; and to Antii, Edward and Jamie with whom I made unforgettable memories. (Also thanks to Shaelyn for letting me copy her acknowledgments page) Finally, I would like to thank my family and girlfriend who supported me throughout this process and my studies for the past three years, especially my grandfather and my dad who endured through the unnished versions to provide valuable and much needed feedback. (Also thanks to Shaelyn for letting me copy her acknowledgments page) iii Nomenclature BEV Battery electric vehicle E85 Fuel composed of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline (gasoline % usually increases in winter to facilitate cold starts EtOH Ethanol, C2H6O EV Electric vehicle, while an umbrella term for the purposes of this paper it is used to refer to BEVs GHG greenhouse gas HEV Hybrid electric vehicle ICEV Internal combustion engine vehicle LCA Life cycle analysis WTP Well to pump, referring to the path fuel takes from its well to the pump (charging station in the case of EVs) WTW Well to wheel, referring to the path fuel takes from its well to its use in a vehicle iv Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Aim . .2 1.2 Literature . .2 I Methodology 3 2 LCA 3 3 Data collection 4 3.1 GREET . .5 3.1.1 E85 . .5 Russian oil . .6 Norwegian oil . .7 Ethanol . .8 3.1.2 Electricity . .9 WTW data . 10 3.2 Number of Vehicles . 11 4 scenarios 12 scenarios 12 5 Future car uptake 14 5.1 Base scenario . 14 5.2 E85 . 15 First cycle . 15 Second cycle . 15 5.3 EVs ................................... 16 II Results 16 6 Scenario emissions 17 6.1 EV scenario . 17 6.2 E85 scenario . 18 7 Comparing the scenarios 19 8 Ethical considerations 20 v III Discussion and limitations 21 9 Scenario limitations 21 10 Discussion 22 IV Conclusion 24 V Appendix 30 List of Figures 1 GREET pathway: E85 Gasoline Blending and transportation to re- fueling station Sweden. .6 2 GREET Pathway: Gasoline blendstock from crude oil for Use in CA Reneries. .6 3 Oil pipeline route plotted on Calcmaps. .7 4 Assumed tanker route Primorsk to Nynäshamn . .7 5 Assumed tanker route from Mongstad (NO) to the Preemra Lysekil Renery (SE). .8 6 Non Distributed European electricity mix (template). 10 7 Non Distributed Swedish electricity mix (mix created based on data from Svenska kraftnät 2020). 10 8 EV and Ethanol passenger vehicle numbers as a percentage of total passenger vehicles. 12 9 EV and Ethanol passenger vehicle uptake (EV values scaled for Swe- den and uptakes synchronized). 12 10 First and second (projected) E85 cycle. 16 11 EV projection and t to 2008-2020 data. 17 12 Yearly projected EV emissions of the complete vehicle eet. 18 13 Yearly E85 emissions of the modelled second cycle. 18 14 Cumulative emissions of the four scenarios. 19 15 Relative cumulative emissions of the four scenarios. 19 16 Cumulative emissions with same average mileage in all scenarios. 20 17 Cumulative relative emissions with same average mileage in all sce- narios. 20 18 Yearly E85 emissions, rst and second (modelled) cycle. 23 19 Cumulative emissions of the scenarios (4 p. 12), with separate and general mileage (see section 9 p. 21). 23 20 Yearly emissions of the scenarios (4 p. 12), with separate and general mileage (see section 9 p. 21). 23 A.1 Transneft oil pipelines. 30 A.2 GREET pathway: Ethanol Produced in the US for Gasoline Blend- ing Sweden. 31 A.3 Modelled vehicle stock (see section 5), a combination of g. 10 and 11..................................... 32 vii List of Tables 1 Ethanol shares used to modify the GREET Ethanol Produced in the US for Gasoline Blending pathway. .9 2 Scenario overview. 13 3 Growth model used (from toolbox by Höök et al. 2011). 14 4 Gompertz curve t values for the rst E85 cycle (2001-2020). 15 5 Gompertz curve t values for the second E85 cycle (2021-2055). 16 6 Gompertz curve t values for the EV scenario. 16 1 1 Introduction The eects of climate change are becoming a challenge for the world, among other things the eects on ecosystems, food and ber production, coastal regions and human health are expected to increase if nothing is done (Watson et al. 1998). Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) are one of the main drivers of climate change, mainly produced by burning fossil fuels. The consumption of fossil fuels has histor- ically been associated with economic development. Renewable energies (RE) can decouple economic development from growing GHG emissions (Edenhofer et al. 2012), however the pace at which REs have been growing has been dierent from sector to sector (IEA 2020). The transport sector produces the most CO2 emissions of any sector in Sweden. On the world scale transport is the second most emitting sector behind electricity and heat production (IEA 2021a; IEA 2021b). If climate change is to be halted, decarbonizing the transport sector will be a vital part of this process. E85 (a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) is one of the emission-reducing alternatives to fossil fuel that is available in Sweden. E85 can provide a reduction in GHG emissions through the ethanol used in the fuel mix, which if produced sustainably can lead to signicant reductions of aforementioned GHGs (US EPA 2015) for the overall mix, the introduction of ethanol is also responsible for emis- sion reductions through its octane enhancing eects (Milovano et al. 2020). The sustainability therefore depends on the way this ethanol is produced, however even with 100% clean ethanol there would still be 15% fossil fuel left in the mix. The advantages of this approach are that E85 is generally used in ex-fuel vehicles that also run on regular gasoline, by also refueling the same way as regular gasoline ve- hicles the barrier for people that are used to gasoline or diesel vehicles is drastically lower than for the next alternative. Another strategy is based on the use of Electric vehicles, EVs possess the advan- tage of near 0 operational emissions when paired with 100% renewable electricity. The production emissions however are higher, especially because of battery produc- tion (Nordelöf et al. 2014). This leads to a situation where fresh o the assembly line a gasoline or ex fuel vehicle has a lower environmental impact than an electric vehicle. Over the lifetime of these vehicles the electric vehicles will emit much less or practically nothing, while the gasoline vehicle emissions will continue to rise over the life cycle of the car, with the same happening for the ex fuel vehicle but to a lesser degree. This could mean that a shift to electric vehicles would have short-term negative impacts before the low or zero operational costs show their benet. This is assuming current production methods, while battery production is bound to change within the time frame of this paper's projections, the paper has been delimited to currently viable solutions. Solid state batteries are an example of a so far unviable option that is making rapid progress, and while challenges still 2 exist (Boaretto et al. 2021; C. Wu et al. 2021; Yu et al. 2021) it is a promising step forward for the electric vehicle industry in the coming ve to ten years(Cooley 2012; Teague 2021; Cohen 2021). This paper compares these decarbonizing strategies for the transport sector: the use of an 85% ethanol fuel blend in vehicles and the introduction of electric vehicles (EVs). These alternatives are based on dierent technologies and bring with them their challenges, advantages, and disadvantages.