Well-to-wheel efficiency for fuels from natural gas and ... efficiency for fuels from natural gas...

Well-to-wheel efficiency for fuels from natural gas and biomass

Meeting in Stockholm 2003-06-17Meeting in Stockholm 2003-06-17Peter Ahlvik, Ecotraffic ERDPeter Ahlvik, Ecotraffic ERD33

2003-06-172003-06-17 IEA Annex XV meeting in Stockholm 22 EcotrafficEcotrafficEcotrafficEcotrafficEcotrafficEcotrafficEcotrafficEcotraffic

Outline

✦✦ Introduction and backgroundIntroduction and background✦✦ MethodologyMethodology✦✦ Assumptions and conditionsAssumptions and conditions✦✦ Vehicles, energy converters and drivetrainVehicles, energy converters and drivetrain✦✦ Fuel production and fuel supply (well-to-tank)Fuel production and fuel supply (well-to-tank)✦✦ Vehicle efficiency (tank-to-wheel)Vehicle efficiency (tank-to-wheel)✦✦ Full fuel cycle efficiency (well-to-wheel)Full fuel cycle efficiency (well-to-wheel)✦✦ Summary and conclusionsSummary and conclusions


Some finalized and on-goingEcotraffic projects in this area

✦✦ BAL: Etanol, methanol fromBAL: Etanol, methanol from cellulosic cellulosic m. m.✦✦ BioMeeTBioMeeT I: Energy combine in Trollhättan I: Energy combine in Trollhättan✦✦ Well-to-wheel efficiencyWell-to-wheel efficiency✦✦ Sustainable fuels: Introduction of biofuelsSustainable fuels: Introduction of biofuels✦✦ BioMeeTBioMeeT II: ”Stakeholders” ( II: ”Stakeholders” (inclincl. DME). DME)✦✦ BLGMF: Methanol/DME from black liquorBLGMF: Methanol/DME from black liquor

Preliminary results: very low cost (!) Preliminary results: very low cost (!)✦✦ RENEWA: Methanol/DME from wasteRENEWA: Methanol/DME from waste

Compl

Compl

Compl

Compl

Compl


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

Yea

rly

oil p

rodu

ctio

n (G

b/ye

ar)

Production statisticsEUR=1800 GbEUR=2000 GbEUR=2200 GbEUR=2400 GbEUR=2600 Gb

Worldwide yearly oil production

Source:Source: EIA, Energy Information Administration EIA, Energy Information Administration

EUR: Estimated UltimatelyEUR: Estimated UltimatelyRecoverable (global oil)Recoverable (global oil)

Gb = GigabarrelGb = Gigabarrel


Environmental driving forcesfor vehicle development

Source: Schindler et al. (VW), DEER 2002 Workshop


Voluntary CO2 reduction byEU car manufacturers (ACEA)

164

199185

224

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

CO

2 em

issio

ns (g

/km

)

ACEA commitmentStatistics 1995-2000Sweden 1995&2000

Indicative target 2003:165-170 (2000: 169)

Target 2008: 140

Indicative target 2012: 120Average CO2 emissions forACEA manufacturersAverage CO2 emissions forACEA manufacturers


EU “biofuels” directive2003/30/EC, targets

YYeeaarr BBiiooffuueell ((%%)) SShhaarree ooff llooww--bblleennddiinngg ((%%))

22000055 22 --22000066 22,,7755 --22000077 33,,55 --22000088 44,,2255 --22000099 55 1122001100 55,,7755 11,,7755

Reference value for targets for proportion of all sold gasoline and diesel fuel (energy equiv.) in a member state.

Cancellations compared to original proposal are shown.


Optimistic scenario in the EU

YYeeaarr BBiiooffuueell((%%))

NNaattuurraallggaass ((%%))

HHyyddrrooggeenn((%%)) TToottaall ((%%))

22000055 22 2222001100 66 22 8822001155 ((77)) 55 22 114422002200 ((88)) 1100 55 ((2233))

Assessment of alternative fuel potential if an active policy is decidedto promote them (does not exclude other possibilities, e.g. DME).

Note that this is an optimistic scenario and not part of the directive.


Methodology

✦✦ Assumptions and conditions for period 2010 toAssumptions and conditions for period 2010 to2015 (2012). Fuel efficiency scenario according2015 (2012). Fuel efficiency scenario accordingto EU & car industry indicative target for 2012to EU & car industry indicative target for 2012

✦✦ Well-to-tank efficiency based on previousWell-to-tank efficiency based on previousEcotraffic WTW study “Life of Fuels” but withEcotraffic WTW study “Life of Fuels” but withextensive update using new input data.extensive update using new input data.

✦✦ Vehicle simulations: Advisor® (by NREL)Vehicle simulations: Advisor® (by NREL)✦✦ Some comparisons with studies by GM USASome comparisons with studies by GM USA

and MIT (2000) are shown (later studies by GMand MIT (2000) are shown (later studies by GMEuropa Europa and addendum by MIT are nowand addendum by MIT are nowavailable...)available...)


Systems that have beenassessed (well-to-wheel)

MMoottoorr ffuueell EEnneerrggyy ccoonnvveerrtteerrss ((EECC)) DDrriivveettrraaiinnss ((DDTT))EEtthhaannooll ((EEttOOHH)) OOttttoo eennggiinnee ((oottttoo)) CCoonnvveennttiioonnaall ((ccoonnvv..))HHyyddrrooggeenn,, ggaasseeoouuss ((GGHH22)) FFuueell cceellll ((FFCC)) EElleeccttrriicc hhyybbrriidd ((hhyybb))MMeetthhaannooll ((MMeeOOHH)) DDiieesseell eennggiinnee ((ddiieesseell)) EElleeccttrriicc hhyybbrriidd ((hhyybb))

IInn ttoottaall:: 9988 ddiiffffeerreenntt ccoommbbiinnaattiioonnss ooff ffeeeeddssttoocckkss,, ffuueellss aanndd ddrriivveettrraaiinnss

METANOL

Feedstock production Feedstock transport Fuel production

Fuel transport Refuelling (+conversion) Energy conversion in the vehicleSome examples of pathways


FTD

Production of biofuels viathe synthesis gas route

Shift/cleaning

Synthesis gas production

Fuel synthesis

H2DME

CO2 Renewable H2

CO2(air)

MeOH

Biomass


Some vehicle parameters

✦✦ Model year: 2010 – 2015 (2012)Model year: 2010 – 2015 (2012)✦✦ Vehicle size: between VW Golf andVehicle size: between VW Golf and Passat Passat✦✦ AerodynAerodyn.: A=2,1 m.: A=2,1 m33,, C Cdd=0,25,=0,25, C Cdd•A=0,525 m•A=0,525 m33

✦✦ Rolling resistance: 0,007Rolling resistance: 0,007✦✦ Vehicle weight (conventional): 1088 kg (plusVehicle weight (conventional): 1088 kg (plus

fuel and driver)fuel and driver)✦✦ Performance:Performance: acc acc. 0-100 km/h: 11,0 s ± 0,1 s.. 0-100 km/h: 11,0 s ± 0,1 s.

TheThe powertrains powertrains were scaled to match the were scaled to match theperformance criterionperformance criterion


Vehicle weight for some fueland powertrain combinations

1097

1096 12

04

1204

1323

1272

1438

1296

1088

1102 11

95

1195 12

70

1244 1270

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Gas,Otto

Diesel,diesel

CH4,Otto

H2, Otto H2, FC MeOH,PEFC

MeOH,DMFC

DME,PEFC

Veh

icle

wei

ght (

kg)

Hybrid (parallell, series) Conventional/direct


Relative vehicle weightEcotraffic vs. MIT

100

100,

8 116,

7

121,

6

101,

3

100,

7 114,

3

116,

9

109,

8

110,

7

116,

7

121,

6

108,

8

100

101,

6

128,

3

104,

8

104,

9 121

103,

2 115,

7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Otto, base

Otto, convOtto-hyb

FC-dirFC-hyb

Diesel, conv

Diesel-hybFC-dir

FC-hyb

Otto-convOtto-hyb

FC-dirFC-hyb

Rel

ativ

e ve

hicl

e w

eigh

t (ot

to=1

00)

Ecotraffic MIT

Gasoline Diesel MeOH CNG GH2


Powertrain

✦✦ Energy convertersEnergy converters–– Otto engine: direct injection (”GDI”), N/AOtto engine: direct injection (”GDI”), N/A–– Diesel engine: direct injection, Diesel engine: direct injection, turbochargedturbocharged

(”TDI”) and downsized(”TDI”) and downsized–– Fuel cell: PEFC, DMFC (MeOH) Fuel cell: PEFC, DMFC (MeOH)

✦✦ DrivetrainDrivetrain–– Otto & diesel: Automated manual transmissionOtto & diesel: Automated manual transmission

(5 & 6 speed), conventional and parallel hybrid(5 & 6 speed), conventional and parallel hybrid–– FC: direct drive and series hybridFC: direct drive and series hybrid

✦✦ Battery: 2x performance ofBattery: 2x performance of NiMh NiMh in Advisor in Advisor


Ecotraffic’s forecast for futureenergy converters i the EU

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Mar

ket s

hare

, new

veh

icle

s (%

)

IDI diesel

CIDI diesel

SIDI (comb.)

SIDI otto

Fully VVTotto (TWC)

Conv. otto(TWC)

Fuel cells


110%

112%

114%

116%

118%

120%

122%

124%

1998-01 1999-01 2000-01 2001-01 2002-01 2003-01 2004-01

Rel

ativ

e ef

ficie

ncy

(%)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Num

ber

of c

ars

(#)

Relative mileageNumber of cars

Relative efficiency, gasoline anddiesel cars with similar performance

Based on fuel consumption in NEDCEqual performance: acc., 0-100 km/hStatistical data compiled by Ecotraffic

Based on fuel consumption in NEDCBased on fuel consumption in NEDCEqual performance:Equal performance: acc acc., 0-100 km/h., 0-100 km/hStatistical data compiled by EcotrafficStatistical data compiled by Ecotraffic

FE

No. of cars


Comparison of efficiencies forCI diesel and SI methanol engines

Diesel fuelDiesel fuelMethanolMethanol

Adapted from SAE 2002-01-2743

Is it possible to improve ICEs, i.e. achieve a higher efficiency than the diesel engine?

The efficiency achieved in SAE 2002-01-2743 wassignificantly higher than in the Ecotraffic WTW studyThe efficiency achieved in SAE 2002-01-2743 wassignificantly higher than in the Ecotraffic WTW study


Efficiency for various fuel cellsystems (fuel cell “engine”)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55Power (kW)

Eff

icie

ncy

(%)

ANL, atmospheric (Advisor)Ecotraffic, pressurizedANL, gasoline w/ reformer


Fuel cell - reformer

250 °C

550 °C

850 °C

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Gasoline

Ethanol

Methanol

Reforming temperature (°C)

What about efficiency???


Well-to-tank (WTT) efficiencyEcotraffic, MIT and GM USA

82,9

% 88,0

%

55,0

%

67,3

%

70,1

%

87,0

%

85,5

%

61,1

%

43,1

%

82,5

% 87,9

%

52,0

%

65,0

%

85,0

%

59,0

%

79,9

%

82,3

%

59,0

%

62,8

%

76,9

%

53,9

%

41,1

%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Gas Diesel FTD MeOH DME CNG LNG GH2 LH2

Wel

l-to-

tank

eff

icie

ncy

(%)

Ecotraffic MIT GM USA

Natural gasfeedstockNatural gasfeedstock


Tank-to-wheel (TTW) efficiencyEcotraffic, MIT and GM USA

100

124

118 12

3

118

142

88

100

144

86

114

168

100

121

135

150

118

146

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Gas, otto,base

Gas, otto,conv

Gas, otto-hybrid

Gas, FC-direct

Gas, FC-hybrid

DF, diesel,conv

DF, diesel-hybrid

Tan

k-to

-whe

el e

ffic

ienc

y (r

el. c

onv.

gas

car

) Ecotraffic MIT GM USA

Gasoline Diesel


116,1

81,9

128,8120,2

70,2

115,4126,6

94,3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

CNG FC-hyb

LNG FC-hyb

DME diesel-hyb

GH2 FC-hyb

MeOH diesel-hyb

FT diesel-hyb

LH2 FC-hyb

El-GH2 FC-hybWel

l-to-

whe

el e

ff.,

inde

x (g

asol

ine=

100)

Principal fuel (FFV)Principal fuel (non-FFV)Niche fuel (non-FFV)

Natural gas feedstock (WTW)Efficiency ranking of fuels, index

Best fuel/Best fuel/drivelinedriveline combination for each fuel combination for each fuel Index: petrol=100


71,6

92,5 90,9

67,676,1

87,7

78,6

58,4

73,5

0

20

40

60

80

100

DME diesel-hyb

GH2 FC-hyb

MeOH diesel-hyb

LH2 FC-hyb

EtOH diesel-hyb

FT diesel-hyb

CBG FC-hyb

SNG FC-hyb

El-GH2 FC-hybWel

l-to-

whe

el e

ff.,

inde

x (g

asol

ine=

100)

Principal fuel (FFV)Principal fuel (non-FFV)Niche fuel (non-FFV)

Biomass feedstock (WTW) Efficiency ranking of fuels, index

Best fuel/Best fuel/drivelinedriveline combination for each fuel combination for each fuel Index: petrol=100


Relative efficiency (WTW) forliquid biofuels in hybrid cars

100

85

73

103

8679

9592 88

105

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

MeOH EtOH FTD LH2

Wel

l-to-

whe

el e

ffic

ienc

y (M

eOH

, ott

o=10

0)

Otto engine Fuel cel l Diesel engine

Liquid fuels Cryogenic fuel


Fossil and non-fossil energy useConventional gasoline = 100

83,2 86,7 86,7 88,3 91,4 86,1 89,4

102,4 106,7 108,1 110,1 113,9105,8 109,8

4,34,26,46,16,06,05,80

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

NG Bio NG Bio NG Bio NG Bio NG Bio NG Bio NG Bio

Rel

ativ

e en

ergy

use

(gas

olin

e=10

0)

B ioenergyFossil energy

MethanolDME GH2D

ME

die

sel-h

yb

DM

E d

iese

l-hyb

DM

E F

C-h

yb

DM

E F

C-h

yb

MeO

H d

iese

l-hyb

MeO

H d

iese

l-hyb

MeO

H F

C-h

yb

MeO

H d

iese

l-hyb

MeO

H d

iese

l-hyb

MeO

H d

iese

l-hyb

GH

2 di

esel

-hyb

GH

2 di

esel

-hyb

GH

2 di

esel

-hyb

GH

2 di

esel

-hyb

108,1112,7 114,1 116,3 120,3

110,0 114,2


Summary and conclusions

✦✦ WTW in 2010 to 2015 timeframe (2012)WTW in 2010 to 2015 timeframe (2012)✦✦ Improved drivetrain is essential, i.e. hybrids.Improved drivetrain is essential, i.e. hybrids.

Diesel and fuel cells more efficient than otto.Diesel and fuel cells more efficient than otto.✦✦ Performance criteria are important conditions.Performance criteria are important conditions.✦✦ Biomass conversion has “low” efficiency.Biomass conversion has “low” efficiency.✦✦ Fossil energy use can be kept low (i.e. ~5%)Fossil energy use can be kept low (i.e. ~5%)✦✦ CNG/LNG rank high; low process energy.CNG/LNG rank high; low process energy.✦✦ DME, GHDME, GH22 and MeOH are “best” biofuels and MeOH are “best” biofuels✦✦ Differences between studies can be explainedDifferences between studies can be explained

in most casesin most cases✦✦ Many issues and uncertainties still remain...Many issues and uncertainties still remain...


This concludes my presentation

✦✦ Thank you for your attention!Thank you for your attention!✦✦ Questions?Questions?

More information available at: www.ecotraffic.se

(e.g. reports, presentations, etc.)

Well-to-wheel efficiency for fuels from natural gas and ... efficiency for fuels from natural gas...

Documents

Transcript of Well-to-wheel efficiency for fuels from natural gas and ... efficiency for fuels from natural gas...