What is a “Well-to-Wheel” Analysis? - EV WORLD.COM · What is a “Well-to-Wheel” Analysis?...
25
Transcript of What is a “Well-to-Wheel” Analysis? - EV WORLD.COM · What is a “Well-to-Wheel” Analysis?...
What is a “Well-to-Wheel” Analysis?What is a “Well-to-Wheel” Analysis?
A rigorous examination of the entire process ofcreating and using fuels to provide power to thewheels of a vehicle, resulting in an assessment ofrequisite energy consumption and correspondinggreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
“Well-to-Tank” (Fuel): Accounting of energy consumption andGHG emissions over the entire fuel pathway, from feedstock tofuel dispenser nozzle
“Tank-to-Wheel” (Vehicle): Accounting of the energyconsumption and GHG emissions resulting from moving thevehicle through its drive cycle
“Well-to-Wheel” denotes the combination of the fuel andvehicle portions
A rigorous examination of the entire process ofcreating and using fuels to provide power to thewheels of a vehicle, resulting in an assessment ofrequisite energy consumption and correspondinggreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
“Well-to-Tank” (Fuel): Accounting of energy consumption andGHG emissions over the entire fuel pathway, from feedstock tofuel dispenser nozzle
“Tank-to-Wheel” (Vehicle): Accounting of the energyconsumption and GHG emissions resulting from moving thevehicle through its drive cycle
“Well-to-Wheel” denotes the combination of the fuel andvehicle portions
Two Illustrative Well-to-Wheel PathwaysTwo Illustrative Well-to-Wheel Pathways
Well-to-Tank Tank-to-Wheel
• Study commissioned by GM– Well-to-Tank (Fuel) work conducted by Ludwig Bölkow
Systemtechnik (LBST) with input from BP, ExxonMobil,Shell and TotalFinaElf
– Tank-to-Wheel (Vehicle) work performed by GM
• Considers 36 fuel “pathways” and 18 conventional andadvanced powertrain systems, targeted to 2010 timeframe
• North American WTW study unveiled at Hart World FuelConference, New Orleans, March 2001
• Study commissioned by GM– Well-to-Tank (Fuel) work conducted by Ludwig Bölkow
Systemtechnik (LBST) with input from BP, ExxonMobil,Shell and TotalFinaElf
– Tank-to-Wheel (Vehicle) work performed by GM
• Considers 36 fuel “pathways” and 18 conventional andadvanced powertrain systems, targeted to 2010 timeframe
• North American WTW study unveiled at Hart World FuelConference, New Orleans, March 2001
BackgroundBackground
Motivation for a European Well-to-Wheel StudyAs Follow-Up to the North American StudyMotivation for a European Well-to-Wheel StudyAs Follow-Up to the North American Study
Fuel Related• Different crude oil/refining scenarios
• Different natural gas supply factors at play
• Different electricity grid mix
• Affords the opportunity to explore additionalrenewables-based pathways
Vehicle Related• Different vehicle and drive cycle
• Different customer performance requirements
• ACEA commitment to reduce CO2 emissions by 2008
Fuel Related• Different crude oil/refining scenarios
• Different natural gas supply factors at play
• Different electricity grid mix
• Affords the opportunity to explore additionalrenewables-based pathways
Vehicle Related• Different vehicle and drive cycle
• Different customer performance requirements
• ACEA commitment to reduce CO2 emissions by 2008
Well-to-Tank Pathways Analyzed*Well-to-Tank Pathways Analyzed*Feedstock Fuel
Oil-Based (3) Gasoline, Diesel, Naphtha
Natural Gas-Based (16) CNG, Methanol, Fischer-TropschDiesel and Naphtha (GTL),Compressed Hydrogen, LiquidHydrogen
Electricity (6) Electricity, Compressed Hydrogen,Liquid Hydrogen
Biomass-Based (11) Compressed Hydrogen, Methanol,Ethanol, Hydrocarbon Liquids,Bio-ester, ETBE, MTBE
Total pathways examined: 36 [+ 58 variants]
Feedstock Fuel
Oil-Based (3) Gasoline, Diesel, Naphtha
Natural Gas-Based (16) CNG, Methanol, Fischer-TropschDiesel and Naphtha (GTL),Compressed Hydrogen, LiquidHydrogen
Electricity (6) Electricity, Compressed Hydrogen,Liquid Hydrogen
Biomass-Based (11) Compressed Hydrogen, Methanol,Ethanol, Hydrocarbon Liquids,Bio-ester, ETBE, MTBE
Total pathways examined: 36 [+ 58 variants]* production potential may be limited for some pathways in 2010 timeframe
European Tank-to-Wheel Analysis(Vehicle Pathways)European Tank-to-Wheel Analysis(Vehicle Pathways)
• Baseline vehicle: Opel Zafira
• Duty cycle: European Driving Cycle (EDC)
• All vehicle concepts modeled to meet same set ofEuropean customer performance requirements
• Technologies targeted for the 2010 time frame– Advanced IC engine and transmission technologies– Advanced vehicle level technologies– Hybrid system technologies– Fuel processor and fuel cell systems
in hybrid and non-hybridarchitectures
• Baseline vehicle: Opel Zafira
• Duty cycle: European Driving Cycle (EDC)
• All vehicle concepts modeled to meet same set ofEuropean customer performance requirements
• Technologies targeted for the 2010 time frame– Advanced IC engine and transmission technologies– Advanced vehicle level technologies– Hybrid system technologies– Fuel processor and fuel cell systems
in hybrid and non-hybridarchitectures
IC Engine Fuel CellIC Engine Hybrid Fuel Cell Hybrid
Gasoline X X X X+Advanced Powertrain
Diesel X X
F-T Diesel X X
CNG X X(optimized mono-fuel)
Methanol X X
Ethanol (E100) X X
Hydrogen X X X X
IC Engine Fuel CellIC Engine Hybrid Fuel Cell Hybrid
Gasoline X X X X+Advanced Powertrain
Diesel X X
F-T Diesel X X
CNG X X(optimized mono-fuel)
Methanol X X
Ethanol (E100) X X
Hydrogen X X X X
Vehicle Propulsion Systems AnalyzedVehicle Propulsion Systems Analyzed
Consistent “Real World” VehiclePerformance RequirementsConsistent “Real World” VehiclePerformance RequirementsEuropean Minivan ClassEuropean Minivan Class
MaximumMaximumAcceleration
(m/s2)Acceleration
(m/s2)
Gradeabilityat 90 km/h for 20 minutes
(%)
Gradeabilityat 90 km/h for 20 minutes
(%)
Top Speed(Continuous)
(km/h)
Top Speed(Continuous)
(km/h)
1212
1515
44
4.54.5
3030
180180
66
Maximum Gradeability(%)
Maximum Gradeability(%)
Acceleration Time,0-50 km/h
(sec)
Acceleration Time,0-50 km/h
(sec)
Acceleration Time, 0-100 km/h
(sec)
Acceleration Time, 0-100 km/h
(sec)
Acceleration in Top Gear,(Elasticity) 80-120 km/h
(sec)
Acceleration in Top Gear,(Elasticity) 80-120 km/h
(sec)
Range(20 km ZEV Range for HEVs)
(km)
Range(20 km ZEV Range for HEVs)
(km) 650650
Tank-to-Wheel Energy ConsumptionConventional (Non-Hybrid Drives)Tank-to-Wheel Energy ConsumptionConventional (Non-Hybrid Drives)
Tank-to-Wheel Energy ConsumptionConventional (Non-Hybrid Drives)Tank-to-Wheel Energy ConsumptionConventional (Non-Hybrid Drives)
Parallel Hybrid Powertrain ArchitectureParallel Hybrid Powertrain Architecture
EngineEngine Multi-SpeedTransmission
Multi-SpeedTransmission
Excess engine powermay be used tocharge battery
Excess engine powermay be used tocharge battery
Motor can assist engine
Vehicle may be launchedwith battery
Motor can assist engine
Vehicle may be launchedwith battery
BatteryBattery MotorMotorInvInv
GearGear
RegenerationRegeneration
Engine can operate atlow speed and high loadEngine can operate atlow speed and high load
Engine may be disconnectedduring standstill, deceleration and launchEngine may be disconnectedduring standstill, deceleration and launch
Tank-to-Wheel Energy ConsumptionHybrid DrivesTank-to-Wheel Energy ConsumptionHybrid Drives
Tank-to-Wheel Energy ConsumptionHybrid DrivesTank-to-Wheel Energy ConsumptionHybrid Drives
Well-to-Wheel Energy ConsumptionWell-to-Wheel Energy Consumption
Well-to-Wheel Energy ConsumptionWell-to-Wheel Energy Consumption
Well-to-Wheel Energy ConsumptionWell-to-Wheel Energy Consumption
Well-to-Wheel Greenhouse Gas* EmissionsWell-to-Wheel Greenhouse Gas* Emissions
* CO2, N2O, CH4
Well-to-Wheel Greenhouse Gas EmissionsWell-to-Wheel Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Well-to-Wheel Greenhouse Gas EmissionsWell-to-Wheel Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Well-to-Wheel Greenhouse Gas EmissionsWell-to-Wheel Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Well-to-Wheel Conclusions (1/2)Well-to-Wheel Conclusions (1/2)• Findings of the present work are generally consistent with those of the
GM-Argonne North American WTW study in terms of relative rankingsof the fuel-powertrain combinations; absolute WTW values are lowerprimarily due to the smaller (lower mass) reference vehicle used in theEuropean Study
• Hybridization reduces fuel consumption in all propulsion systems,however the benefits are larger for internal combustion (IC) enginesthan for fuel cells because of the fuel cell’s superior part-load efficiencyrelative to IC engines
• Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles running on hydrogen from reformed naturalgas offer reduced GHG emissions relative to gasoline and diesel ICengine vehicles
• The source of natural gas feedstock has a large impact on GHGemissions for natural gas-based pathways
• Fuel cell vehicles offer the potential to greatly reduce or eliminate WTWGHG emissions when fueled with hydrogen from renewable sources
• Findings of the present work are generally consistent with those of theGM-Argonne North American WTW study in terms of relative rankingsof the fuel-powertrain combinations; absolute WTW values are lowerprimarily due to the smaller (lower mass) reference vehicle used in theEuropean Study
• Hybridization reduces fuel consumption in all propulsion systems,however the benefits are larger for internal combustion (IC) enginesthan for fuel cells because of the fuel cell’s superior part-load efficiencyrelative to IC engines
• Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles running on hydrogen from reformed naturalgas offer reduced GHG emissions relative to gasoline and diesel ICengine vehicles
• The source of natural gas feedstock has a large impact on GHGemissions for natural gas-based pathways
• Fuel cell vehicles offer the potential to greatly reduce or eliminate WTWGHG emissions when fueled with hydrogen from renewable sources
Well-to-Wheel Conclusions (2/2)Well-to-Wheel Conclusions (2/2)• Methanol fuel cell vehicles offer no benefit relative to gasoline or diesel
IC engine vehicles or gasoline processor fuel cell vehicles
• Electrolysis-based hydrogen generates high GHG emissions withelectricity from the traditional electric grid mix, and near-zero GHGswhen the electricity is produced renewably
• Optimized CNG engine vehicles provide GHG emission benefitscompared with gasoline IC engine vehicles, however, they do notprovide a benefit on well-to-wheel energy consumption
• Biofuels offer reduced GHGs, however, the magnitude of improvementdepends on the assumptions about N2O emissions from the crops
• Fischer-Tropsch diesel IC engine vehicles yield higher energyconsumption and GHG emissions than oil-based diesel IC enginevehicles
• IC engine vehicles fueled with liquid hydrogen from natural gas offerzero vehicle CO2 emissions, but result in higher WTW GHGs than eitherconventional gasoline or diesel IC engine vehicles
• Methanol fuel cell vehicles offer no benefit relative to gasoline or dieselIC engine vehicles or gasoline processor fuel cell vehicles
• Electrolysis-based hydrogen generates high GHG emissions withelectricity from the traditional electric grid mix, and near-zero GHGswhen the electricity is produced renewably
• Optimized CNG engine vehicles provide GHG emission benefitscompared with gasoline IC engine vehicles, however, they do notprovide a benefit on well-to-wheel energy consumption
• Biofuels offer reduced GHGs, however, the magnitude of improvementdepends on the assumptions about N2O emissions from the crops
• Fischer-Tropsch diesel IC engine vehicles yield higher energyconsumption and GHG emissions than oil-based diesel IC enginevehicles
• IC engine vehicles fueled with liquid hydrogen from natural gas offerzero vehicle CO2 emissions, but result in higher WTW GHGs than eitherconventional gasoline or diesel IC engine vehicles
Next StepsNext Steps
• Finalize and publish European Well-to-Wheelstudy for public release this summer– Study will be available at http://www.lbst.de/gm-wtw
• Participate in “Joint European Well-to-WheelStudy” (under EUCAR and CONCAWE auspices)
• Collaborate with other similar efforts– Prof. Ishitani, Tokyo University– Prof. Heywood, MIT
• Finalize and publish European Well-to-Wheelstudy for public release this summer– Study will be available at http://www.lbst.de/gm-wtw
• Participate in “Joint European Well-to-WheelStudy” (under EUCAR and CONCAWE auspices)
• Collaborate with other similar efforts– Prof. Ishitani, Tokyo University– Prof. Heywood, MIT
AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgmentsEuropean Well-to-Wheels Study Working GroupAndrew Armstrong, BPNorman Brinkman, GMJean Cadu, ShellRaj Choudhury, GMDavid Masten, GMOlivier Dautrebande, TotalFinaElfMartin Fasse, GMVolker Formanski, GMDieter Hasenauer, GMDaniel Le Breton, TotalFinaElfMoshe Miller, Advanced Development Corp.Stephan Noodt, Fiat-GM PowertrainJoachim Quarg, Fiat-GM PowertrainDavid Rickeard, Exxon MobilJörg Schindler, LBSTChristoph Schmidt, GMTrudy Weber, GMHans Weidner, GMWerner Weindorf, LBSTReinhold Wurster, LBST
European Well-to-Wheels Study Working GroupAndrew Armstrong, BPNorman Brinkman, GMJean Cadu, ShellRaj Choudhury, GMDavid Masten, GMOlivier Dautrebande, TotalFinaElfMartin Fasse, GMVolker Formanski, GMDieter Hasenauer, GMDaniel Le Breton, TotalFinaElfMoshe Miller, Advanced Development Corp.Stephan Noodt, Fiat-GM PowertrainJoachim Quarg, Fiat-GM PowertrainDavid Rickeard, Exxon MobilJörg Schindler, LBSTChristoph Schmidt, GMTrudy Weber, GMHans Weidner, GMWerner Weindorf, LBSTReinhold Wurster, LBST
