Well-To-Wheels Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Amgad Elgowainy, Andy Burnham, Michael Wang, John Molburg, and Aymeric Rousseau

Center for Transportation ResearchArgonne National Laboratory

Presentation at MIT/Ford/Shell Research Workshop

June 8, 2009

2

Scope of Argonne’s PHEV WTW Analysis

2

To examine relative energy and emission merits of PHEVs; the vehicle types addressed were: Conventional international combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) Regular hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) ICE plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) Fuel cell (FC) PHEVs

Fuel options: Petroleum

Gasoline Diesel

E85 with ethanol from Corn Switchgrass

Hydrogen with several production pathways Electricity with different generation mixes

3

Argonne’s PHEV WTW Analysis Addresses The Following Key Issues

PHEV performance evaluation with Argonne’s PSAT model Explored PHEV operating strategies Processed fuel economy results for various PHEV configurations Examined effects of all electric ranges (AER) of PHEVs

Electricity generation mixes to charge PHEVs Reviewed studies completed in this area Generated five sets of generation mixes for PHEV recharge

PHEV mileage shares by power source Relied on national average distribution of daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) Determined VMT shares by charge depleting (CD) and charge sustaining

(CS) operations

GREET WTW simulations of PHEVs Expanded and configured GREET for PHEVs Conducted GREET PHEV WTW simulations

3

4

Five Sets of Generation Mixes for PHEV Recharge Were Used in This Study (%)

4

• US Average: the default GREET average mix for 2020• IL, NY, and CA Marginal: from the 2020 mix with 2kW charging capacity starting at 10 PM from

a study by Hadley et al.• Renewable: a scenario reflecting upper limit on benefits of PHEVs

Mix Coal Oil Natural Gas

Nuclear Other

US Average 52.5 1.3 13.5 20.1 12.6

Illinois – Region 4 (MAIN) Marginal 75.2 0.0 24.7 0.0 0.1

New York – Region 6 (NPCC-NY) Marginal 3.4 67.2 29.4 0.0 0.0

California – Region 13 (WECC-CA) Marginal 0.0 0.0 99.0 0.0 1.0

Renewable 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Mix Coal Oil Natural Gas

Nuclear Other

US Average 52.5 1.3 13.5 20.1 12.6

Illinois – Region 4 (MAIN) Marginal 75.2 0.0 24.7 0.0 0.1

New York – Region 6 (NPCC-NY) Marginal 3.4 67.2 29.4 0.0 0.0

California – Region 13 (WECC-CA) Marginal 0.0 0.0 99.0 0.0 1.0

Renewable 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

5

A Set of Vehicle/Fuel Systems Was Included in This Analysis

Vehicle types included: ICEV: Gasoline SI, E85 SI, Diesel CI HEV: Gasoline SI, E85 SI, Diesel CI; Hydrogen FC PHEV: Gasoline SI, E85 SI, Diesel CI; Hydrogen FC

Model year 2015 midsize car

Fuel economy results were adjusted using EPA 2007-adopted formula for on-road performance

5

6

Fuel Consumption Calculated from PSAT Fuel Economy Values (Btu/mi)

6

Fuel consumption for each operation is the following:• CD electric: electricity consumption in CD operation• CD Engine: fuel consumption by ICE/FC in CD (blended mode) operation• CS operation: fuel consumption in CS operation

AER 0 AER 10 AER 20 AER 30 AER 40

Fuel ICEV Regular Hybrid

CD Electric

CD Engine

CS Engine

CD Electric

CD Engine

CS Engine

CD Electric

CD Engine

CS Engine

CD Electric

CD Engine

CS Engine

Gasoline 3790 2680 520 1135 2590 560 1010 2600 670 725 2620 670 750 2645

E85 2840 515 1200 2740 560 1050 2750 665 760 2780 665 780 2810

Diesel 2470 535 1080 2435 575 955 2450 690 680 2470 685 710 2490

Hydrogen 1890 760 510 1895 745 595 1915 650 795 1940 735 670 1960

7

PHEVs with 20-Mile AER Can Potentially Drive 40% of Daily VMT , PHEVs with 40-Mile AER More than 60%

7

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

All Electric Range (mi)

% V

MT

on

Ele

ctr

icit

y (

Uti

lity

Fa

cto

r)

NHTS

8

WTW Total Energy Use for CD Mode (Electricity and Fuel) vs. CS mode (Fuel) – 20 AER; US Mix

PHEV20 - US Mix (Model Year 2015)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

SI R

FG, C

DS

I RFG

, CS

CI L

SD

, CD

CI L

SD

, CS

SI E

85 -C

orn,

CD

SI E

85 -C

orn,

CS

SI E

85 -H

.Bio

mas

s, C

D

SI E

85 -H

.Bio

mas

s, C

SFC

H2-

Dis

tibut

ed S

MR

, CD

FC H

2- D

istib

uted

SM

R, C

SFC

H2-

Dis

tibut

ed E

lect

roly

sis,

CD

FC H

2- D

istib

uted

Ele

ctro

lysi

s, C

SFC

H2-

Cen

tral

H.B

iom

ass,

CD

FC H

2- C

entr

al H

.Bio

mas

s, C

S

To

tal E

ne

rgy

Us

e [

Btu

/mi]

PTW (On-board)

PTW (Grid Electricity)

WTP (Grid Electricity)

WTP (On-board)

9

WTW GHG Emissions for CD Mode (Electricity and Fuel) vs. CS Mode (Fuel) – 20 AER; US Mix

PHEV20 - US Mix (Model Year 2015)

-200

0

200

400

600

800

SI R

FG

, CD

SI R

FG

, CS

CI L

SD

, CD

CI L

SD

, CS

SI E

85 -

Co

rn, C

D

SI E

85 -

Co

rn, C

S

SI E

85 -

H.B

iom

ass,

CD

SI E

85 -

H.B

iom

ass,

CS

FC

H2-

Dis

tibu

ted

SM

R, C

DF

C H

2- D

istib

ute

d S

MR

, CS

FC

H2-

Dis

tibu

ted

Ele

ctro

lysi

s, C

DF

C H

2- D

istib

ute

d E

lect

roly

sis,

CS

FC

H2-

Cen

tral

H.B

iom

ass,

CD

FC

H2-

Cen

tral

H.B

iom

ass,

CS

GH

G E

mis

sio

ns

[g

/mi]

PTW (On-board)

WTP (Grid Electricity)

WTP (On-board)

10

WTW GHG Emissions for CD Mode (Electricity and Fuel) vs. CS Mode (Fuel) – 20 AER; CA Mix

PHEV20 in CA (Model Year 2015)

-200

0

200

400

600

800

SI R

FG

, CD

SI R

FG

, CS

CI L

SD

, CD

CI L

SD

, CS

SI E

85 -

Co

rn, C

D

SI E

85 -

Co

rn, C

S

SI E

85 -

H.B

iom

ass,

CD

SI E

85 -

H.B

iom

ass,

CS

FC

H2-

Dis

tibu

ted

SM

R, C

DF

C H

2- D

istib

ute

d S

MR

, CS

FC

H2-

Dis

tibu

ted

Ele

ctro

lysi

s, C

DF

C H

2- D

istib

ute

d E

lect

roly

sis,

CS

FC

H2-

Cen

tral

H.B

iom

ass,

CD

FC

H2-

Cen

tral

H.B

iom

ass,

CS

GH

G E

mis

sio

ns

[g

/mi]

PTW (On-board)

WTP (Grid Electricity)

WTP (On-board)

11

WTW GHG Emissions for CD Mode (Electricity and Fuel) vs. CS Mode (Fuel) – 20 AER; IL Mix

PHEV20 in IL (Model Year 2015)

-200

0

200

400

600

800

SI R

FG

, CD

SI R

FG

, CS

CI L

SD

, CD

CI L

SD

, CS

SI E

85 -

Co

rn, C

D

SI E

85 -

Co

rn, C

S

SI E

85 -

H.B

iom

ass,

CD

SI E

85 -

H.B

iom

ass,

CS

FC

H2-

Dis

tibu

ted

SM

R, C

DF

C H

2- D

istib

ute

d S

MR

, CS

FC

H2-

Dis

tibu

ted

Ele

ctro

lysi

s, C

DF

C H

2- D

istib

ute

d E

lect

roly

sis,

CS

FC

H2-

Cen

tral

H.B

iom

ass,

CD

FC

H2-

Cen

tral

H.B

iom

ass,

CS

GH

G E

mis

sio

ns

[g

/mi]

PTW (On-board)

WTP (Grid Electricity)

WTP (On-board)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 10 20 30 40

All Electric Range [mi]

GH

G E

mis

sio

ns

[g/m

i]

ICEV SI Gasoline PHEV FC SMRPHEV FC Electrolysis PHEV FC BiomassPHEV SI Gasoline PHEV SI Corn E85PHEV CI Diesel PHEV SI Biomass E85

1212

WTW GHG Emissions – US Mix: Comparison of Technology and All Electric Range

Regular Hybrid

13

Summary of Petroleum Energy and GHG Effects of All Evaluated Options

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Petroleum Use (relative to GV)

GH

G E

mis

sio

ns

(re

lati

ve

to

GV

)

Baseline (GV) PHEV SI Gasoline PHEV CI Diesel PHEV SI Corn-E85 PHEV SI H. Biomass-E85 PHEV FC Distributed SMR-H2 PHEV FC Central H. Biomass-H2 PHEV FC Distributed Electrolysis-H2

Small marker for PHEV10Large marker for PHEV40

AER 0 (Regular HEV)

US Ave. Mix

CA Mix

NY Mix

IL Mix

Renewable

[ VMTCD / VMTtotal ]PHEV10 = 23%

[ VMTCD / VMTtotal ]PHEV40 = 63%

Petroleum Fuels

E85

H2

color/pattern of marker = fuel/vehicle typeshape of marker = electricity generation mixsize of marker = AER rating

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Petroleum Use (relative to GV)

GH

G E

mis

sio

ns

(re

lati

ve

to

GV

)

Baseline (GV) PHEV SI Gasoline PHEV CI Diesel PHEV SI Corn-E85 PHEV SI H. Biomass-E85 PHEV FC Distributed SMR-H2 PHEV FC Central H. Biomass-H2 PHEV FC Distributed Electrolysis-H2

Small marker for PHEV10Large marker for PHEV40

AER 0 (Regular HEV)

US Ave. Mix

CA Mix

NY Mix

IL Mix

Renewable

[ VMTCD / VMTtotal ]PHEV10 = 23%

[ VMTCD / VMTtotal ]PHEV40 = 63%

Petroleum Fuels

E85

H2

color/pattern of marker = fuel/vehicle typeshape of marker = electricity generation mixsize of marker = AER rating

14

Thank you!

GREET web site:http://www.transportation.anl.gov/modeling_simulation/GREET/index.html

PHEV WTW Analysis Report:http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/559.pdf

14

15

PSAT Fuel Economy Results (Miles Per Gasoline Equivalent Gallon, Wh/Mile for CD Electric Operation)

15

• CD Electric = charge depleting operation with grid electricity

• CD Engine = charging depleting operation with on-board power systems (ICE or Fuel Cell)

• CS = charge sustaining operation with on-board power systems

• AER 0 = zero-mile AER (i.e., regular HEV)

• AER 10 = 10-mile AER; AER 20 = 20-mile AER; AER 30 = 30-mile AER; AER 40 = 40-mile AER

• UDDS = Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule; HWFET = Highway Fuel Economy Test

CD electric operation and CD on-board operation complement each other for the same CD miles (i.e., blended mode operation)

ICEV AER 0 AER 10 AER 20 AER 30 AER 40

Regular Hybrid

CD Electric

CD Engine

CS Engine

CD Electric

CD Engine

CS Engine

CD Electric

CD Engine

CS Engine

CD Electric

CD Engine

CS Engine

UDDS 27.6 45.6 148.1 132.4 47.1 141.3 122.3 46.9 174.1 184.3 46.6 165.1 153.4 46.2 Gasoline ICE

HWFET 34.0 39.7 107.8 78.3 41.1 136.9 103.9 41.0 158.2 134.5 40.6 168.0 152.6 40.2

UDDS 42.9 146.1 125.5 44.4 141.2 118.4 44.2 172.6 179.7 43.8 164.3 148.6 43.4 E85 ICE

HWFET 37.5 106.3 73.8 38.9 136.9 99.3 38.8 156.8 126.2 38.3 167.0 144.4 37.9

UDDS 49.4 151.4 138.1 50.0 144.7 127.5 49.7 179.7 191.3 49.3 169.7 158.7 48.9 Diesel ICE

HWFET 43.0 110.2 84.1 43.8 140.3 112.2 43.6 163.3 145.7 43.2 172.6 164.5 42.9

UDDS 59.4 157.7 132.6 59.5 154.2 123.4 58.8 156.2 120.7 58.1 181.8 142.7 57.3 H2 FC

HWFET 62.3 229.4 1514.4 61.5 224.0 601.5 60.9 170.1 189.6 60.3 184.7 225.4 59.7

16

Processing of PSAT MPG Results for GREET Fuel Consumption Inputs

PSAT fuel economy results were first converted into fuel consumption

The city (UDDS) and highway (HWFET) results of PSAT were combined with 55% UDDS and 45% HWFET

The PSAT results for CD electric operation did not include charging losses; we assumed a 85% efficient charger

PSAT fuel consumption for CD and CS operations were combined using the “Utility Factor” (FCCDGrid + FCCDICE

)* UF + FCCS * (1-UF)

16

17

Concluding Remarks

PSAT simulations of the blended mode operation of PHEVs show that grid electricity accounts for a small share of total vehicle energy use in combined CD and CS operations (~6% for PHEV10 and ~24% for PHEV40)

The effect of electric generation mix becomes smaller with the blended mode operation; However, electric generation mix is still shown to have a significant effects on WTW results, especially for GHG emissions Petroleum use declines when electricity is generated from non-petroleum sources GHGs are highest with large coal shares, but decreased with NG, and decreased even further with

renewables

HEV vs. PHEV Petroleum use decreases as AER increases (except for generation mixes with high share of oil) GHGs in general decrease as AER increases (except for carbon intensive generation mixes and

biomass-to-E85 and H2)

Gasoline ICE PHEV vs. FC PHEV FC PHEVs have much lower petroleum energy use FC PHEVs using SMR-H2 slightly reduce GHGs; Biomass-to-H2 FC PHEVs significantly reduce

GHGs

Outstanding issues Electric generation mix for recharging PHEVs is affected by many factors: total electricity demand by

PHEVs, location of PHEVs, time of day for recharging, PHEV buffer ability for the utility system Utility dispatch modeling may be necessary for further analysis

17