STAVANGERNORWAYMAY 13-16

2009

www.evs24.org

Maria GrahnDept. of Energy and Environment,

Physical resource theory

The role of ICEVs, HEVs, PHEVs, BEVsand FCVs in achieving stringent CO2targets: results from global energy

systems modeling

Acronyms usedPetro: Gasoline/diesel

BTL/GTL/CTL: biomass/gas/coal to liquid

NG: Natural gas

H2: Hydrogen

CCS: Carbon capture and storage

CSP: Concentrating solar power

ppm: parts per million

ICEV: Internal combustion engine vehicle

HEV: Hybrid electric vehicle

PHEV: Plug-in electric vehicle

BEV: Battery electric vehicle

FCV: Fuel cell vehicle

GET-RC 6.1 Linearly programmedenergy systems cost minimizing model

transportationsystem andtechnologies

energyconversionsystem

elec-tricity

heat

demandsupply

trans-portation

CO2 CO2

biomasshydro windsolar

nat. gasoil coalnuclear

CCS - CO2 Storage (fossil and biomass)

Carbon cycle model

Testing CCS commercially available or not.

ELECTRICITY

PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

HYDROGEN

NATURAL GAS

CTL/GTL/BTL (coal to liquid, gas to liquid and biomass to liquid. Syntheticfuels e.g. meoh, Fischer-TropschDiesel or DME)

Vehicletechnology options: ICEVs, HEVs, PHEVsBEVs and FCVs

Fuel options:Testing CSP (or any other inexpensive CO2-neutral electricity sources) available or not.

Analysis from varyingCCS on/off

CSP on/off

NG storage: 1000-1300 USD/GJ

H2 storage: 1500-3500 USD/GJ

Battery cost: 150-450 USD/kWh

FC stack cost: 65-125 USD/kW

Shorter driving range on BEVs

Lower bound set at government/industry R&D targets, upper bound set at cost above which there were no further impact on model results.

Research questions

• What cost-effective fuel and vehicle technologies might dominate in a carbon-constrained world?

• To what degree is the answer to the first question affected by the introduction of CCS and/or CSP?

• How sensitive are the results to future vehicle cost assumptions?

Results

• Start with the simplest scenario…

7

No CO2

constraints

(i) In absence of CO2 constraint we see a switch to GTL/CTL as oil is depleted. The reason for the small BTL contribution is that some regions run out of coal supply and that imported fossil fuels are more expensive than domestic biomass in these regions.

(ii) No impact of CCS/CSP availability, i.e. no connection between energy sectors.

8

(i) Imposition of CO2 constraint has a major impact.

(ii) Availability of CCS and/or CSP has a major impact.

(iii) Rich diversity of fuel/vehicle technologies.

CO2-neutral options in the stationary energysectors allow for larger emissions in the trspsector.

No incitaments for advanced technologies

450 ppm

9

450 ppm,

lower battery

cost

(i) With battery cost reduced to $150/kWh, PHEVs are dominating regardless of CCS/CSP available or not.

(ii) Availability of CCS prolongs use of Petro-ICEVs.

10

450 ppm,

higher battery

cost

(i) With higher battery costs, $450/kWh, gaseous fuels are dominating and no PHEVs are shown.

(ii) Availability of CCS prolongs use of Petro-ICEVs.

450 ppm,

Driving range

for BEVs:

100 km

Base case: Driving range all vehiclesexceptBEVs: 500 km. BEVs: 200 km

(i) BEVs become a cost-effective options if a driving range at 100 km will be accepted

(ii) BEVs enter the scenarios where CCS is assumed to not become a large-scale option.

12

No single solution• The diversity of solutions reflects

• different regional resource availability and mobility demand.

• relative cost-effectiveness between fuels and technology options, changes over time due to increased carbon constraints.

• oil and natural gas supply potentials become scarcer with time and this alone drives the introduction of alternative fuels (CTL in the no CO2 policy scenario).

Main findings• CCS and CSP have substantial impacts

• CCS increases the use of coal (in the energy system) and ICEV (for transport).

• CSP reduces the cost of electricity (in relation to hydrogen) and tends to increase the use of electricity for transport.

• CCS and CSP combined, reduce the incentives to shift to more advanced vehicle technologies (only ICEVs in model scenarios).

• Most sensitive cost estimates

• For low battery costs ($150/kWh), electrified powertrainsdominate and for higher battery costs ($450/kWh), hydrogen fueled vehicles dominate, regardless of CCS and CSP availability.

Conclusion

•The results highlight the importance of

• a multi-sector approach and

• the importance of pursuing research and development of multiple fuel and vehicle technologies.

That is, it is too early to express firm opinions about the future cost-effectiveness or optimality of different fuel and powertrain combinations.