Upload
clementine-montgomery
View
219
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
System Dynamic Modeling
Dave Reichmuth
2
Objectives
•Use dynamic models of infrastructure systems to analyze the impacts of widespread deployment of hydrogen technologies
•Identify potential system-wide deficiencies that would otherwise hinder infrastructure evolution, as well as mitigation strategies to avoid collateral effects on supporting systems
•Analyze the feedback effects of competing alternative transportation options
3
We model the dynamics of emergent fuel-vehicle systems
•Our focus is on the feedback and dynamics of future transportation system options.– Primary energy source, fueling infrastructure,
and vehicles need to be considered together– Feedback and competition between
transportation and energy alternatives will effect the evolution of transportation systems
– The differing time scales for change need to be considered
4
Elimination of carbon from the fuel-vehicle system is required to meet CO2 target
1990 2005 2020 2035 2050 20650
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
H2 - zero-carbon source
H2 - SMR
BEV-75%NG 25%Coal
80% reduction
gasoline ICE 46mpg
gasoline ICE 35 mpghistorical
GT/yr CO
2
no change
5
We model the dynamics of emergent fuel-vehicle systems
•Our focus is on the feedback and dynamics of future transportation system options.– Primary energy source, fueling infrastructure,
and vehicles need to be considered together– Feedback and competition between
transportation and energy alternatives will effect the evolution of transportation systems
– The differing time scales for change need to be considered
6
Alternative fuel pathways will interact
OilOil
GasolineGasoline
Gasoline ICEGasoline ICE
Natural GasNatural Gas
HydrogenHydrogen
HFCVHFCV
Coal+NGCoal+NG
ElectricityElectricity
BEVBEV
7
Alternative fuel pathways will interact
OilOil
GasolineGasoline
Gasoline ICE
Gasoline ICE
HydrogenHydrogen
HFCVHFCV
CoalCoal
Electricity
Electricity
BEVBEV
PHEVPHEV H2-ICEH2-ICE
BiofuelsBiofuels
Intermittent ZC Intermittent ZC
NuclearNuclearNatural Gas
Natural Gas
BiomassBiomass
8
We model the dynamics of emergent fuel-vehicle systems
•Our focus is on the feedback and dynamics of future transportation system options.– Primary energy source, fueling infrastructure,
and vehicles need to be considered together– Feedback and competition between
transportation and energy alternatives will effect the evolution of transportation systems
– The differing time scales for change need to be considered
9
The type of fuel-vehicle system is more important than the speed of implementation
1990 2005 2020 2035 2050 20650
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
H2 from zero carbon
2035 sales midpoint
BEV- 100%NG2020 sales midpoint
80% reduction
gasoline ICE 35mpghistorical
GT/yr CO
2
no change
10
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 20600M
100M
200M
300M
400M
Vehicles
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
new sales rate
new vehicles
new vehicles sales rate (M/yr)
old vehicles
The turnover rate for the installed vehicle fleet is slow
(+) Fueling infrastructure capacity only needs to grow with fleet
(-) Difficult to have serial technology transitions
•50% of sales in 2020 are of “new” type
– Note: The Prius was introduced in the US in 2001. In 2010 the market share of all hybrids is only 2.2%
11
Approach
•System dynamics: Methodology– Choose a region to define the system– Pose detailed questions
• What are the impacts of large-scale H2-fueled vehicle market penetration?
• What is the impact of a carbon tax on alternative vehicle penetration?
• Can stationary FC systems provide distributed H2 production?
•System dynamics: Analysis– Formulate SD models of infrastructure components
and interrelations to a sufficient level of detail to see interactions and dependencies
– Powersim software allows quick generation of code and interfaces and can solve system of ODEs. It allows insight into the dynamic behavior of complex systems.
12
System dynamic models are built on the concept of “stock and flows”
•From simple differential equations and time delays, the model can reproduce complex behavior
13
Grid electricity submodel
Grid electricity submodel
Natural gas submodelNatural gas submodel
VehiclesubmodelVehiclesubmodel
GasolinesubmodelGasolinesubmodel
SFCsubmodelSFCsubmodel
Gasoline demand
Gasoline price
NG price
NG demand
Elect. price,CO2/kWh
EV Elect.demand
NG demand
DisplacedElect. demand
14
Model provides a tool for exploring a range of conditions
•Key model input parameters– Vehicles:
• HFV mileage• HFV and PHEV learning curves• battery vs plug-in• daily charging profile• gasoline mileage improvements (CAFE or advanced ICE)• H2 production alternatives (low-carbon)• sales/discard rates
– NG:• Import capacity• domestic production• demand growth (other than vehicles or electric) • elasticity
– Other: • carbon tax
15
Model provides a tool for exploring a range of conditions
•Key model input parameters– SFC:
• electric efficiency• combined heat/cooling factors• matching of heat, cooling, & electric loads with demand• H2 co-production• fixed & variable costs of electricity & H2
• penetration rate in new & retrofit buildings by type– Grid electricity:
• Baseload, marginal, & new generation• growth in demand• changes in nuclear, coal, NG, & renewable generation
16
Model Demo- Introduction
17
Model Demo- HFV mileage
18
Model demo- Carbon tax
19
Higher price of zero-carbon H2 requires a carbon tax to spur HFV sales
•Contours of HFV quantity on road by 2050 based on 1000 simulations
•Hydrogen supply:– Zero-carbon H2 at $6/kg
– SMR H2 at ~$4/kg before C-tax
•At low penetration of zero-carbon H2, carbon tax has little impact on HFV sales
•Higher carbon tax stimulates increase in zero-carbon hydrogen fueled vehicles
24 M8 M
10 M22 M
12 M
14 M
20 M
16 M
18 M
24 M8 M
10 M22 M
12 M
14 M
20 M
16 M
18 M
24 M8 M
10 M22 M
12 M
14 M
20 M
16 M
18 M
24 M8 M
10 M22 M
12 M
14 M
20 M
16 M
18 M
24 M8 M
10 M22 M
12 M
14 M
20 M
16 M
18 M
24 M8 M
10 M22 M
12 M
14 M
20 M
16 M
18 M
24 M8 M
10 M22 M
12 M
14 M
20 M
16 M
18 M
24 M8 M
10 M22 M
12 M
14 M
20 M
16 M
18 M
24 M8 M
10 M22 M
12 M
14 M
20 M
16 M
18 M
24 M8 M
10 M22 M
12 M
14 M
20 M
16 M
18 M
24 M8 M
10 M22 M
12 M
14 M
20 M
16 M
18 M
24 M8 M
10 M22 M
12 M
14 M
20 M
16 M
18 M
24 M8 M
10 M22 M
12 M
14 M
20 M
16 M
18 M
24 M8 M
10 M22 M
12 M
14 M
20 M
16 M
18 M
24 M8 M
10 M22 M
12 M
14 M
20 M
16 M
18 M
24 M8 M
10 M22 M
12 M
14 M
20 M
16 M
18 M
24 M8 M
10 M22 M
12 M
14 M
20 M
16 M
18 M
24 M8 M
10 M22 M
12 M
14 M
20 M
16 M
18 M
24 M8 M
10 M22 M
12 M
14 M
20 M
16 M
18 M
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $7000%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%HFV on roadby 2050
Percent Zero Carbon H
2
Carbon Tax ($/tonne)
8 M
10 M
12 M
14 M
16 M
18 M
20 M
22 M
24 M
20
Carbon tax does not effect emissions without a zero-carbon option
• Contours of LDV emissions in 2050
• 80% reduction from 1990 goal is 0.019 GT/yr
• H2 Supply:
– Zero-carbon H2 at $6/kg
– SMR H2 at ~$4/kg before C-tax
0.0150.045
0.040
0.035 0.020
0.030 0.025
0.0150.045
0.040
0.035 0.020
0.030 0.025
0.0150.045
0.040
0.035 0.020
0.030 0.025
0.0150.045
0.040
0.035 0.020
0.030 0.025
0.0150.045
0.040
0.035 0.020
0.030 0.025
0.0150.045
0.040
0.035 0.020
0.030 0.025
0.0150.045
0.040
0.035 0.020
0.030 0.025
0.0150.045
0.040
0.035 0.020
0.030 0.025
0.0150.045
0.040
0.035 0.020
0.030 0.025
0.0150.045
0.040
0.035 0.020
0.030 0.025
0.0150.045
0.040
0.035 0.020
0.030 0.025
0.0150.045
0.040
0.035 0.020
0.030 0.025
0.0150.045
0.040
0.035 0.020
0.030 0.025
0.0150.045
0.040
0.035 0.020
0.030 0.025
0.0150.045
0.040
0.035 0.020
0.030 0.025
$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700
20%
40%
60%
80%
Percent Zero Carbon H
2
Carbon Tax($/tonne)
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.040
0.045
2050LDV emissionsGT/yr
21
Adding other sources of zero-carbon fuels gives lower emissions
•Add 3-fold higher zero-carbon electricity than CA RPS default case (33GW by 2020)
•Emissions are lower than the default case
•Emissions at large carbon taxes and no zero-carbon H2 rise slightly due to increasing dependence on natural gas for electricity
0.040
0.0150.035
0.020
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.040
0.0150.035
0.020
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.040
0.0150.035
0.020
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.040
0.0150.035
0.020
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.040
0.0150.035
0.020
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.040
0.0150.035
0.020
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.040
0.0150.035
0.020
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.040
0.0150.035
0.020
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.040
0.0150.035
0.020
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.040
0.0150.035
0.020
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.040
0.0150.035
0.020
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.040
0.0150.035
0.020
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.040
0.0150.035
0.020
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.040
0.0150.035
0.020
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.040
0.0150.035
0.020
0.030
0.025
0.020
$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700
20%
40%
60%
80%
2050LDV emissionsGT/yr
Percent Zero Carbon H
2
Carbon Tax ($/tonne)
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.040
0.045
22
Adding other sources of zero-carbon fuels gives lower emissions
•Add 3-fold higher zero-carbon electricity than CA RPS default case (33GW by 2020)
•Hydrogen vehicle sales are higher due to cost of zero-carbon electricity.
8M
20M
10M
22M12M
18M
14M20M
16M
18M
8M
20M
10M
22M12M
18M
14M20M
16M
18M
8M
20M
10M
22M12M
18M
14M20M
16M
18M
8M
20M
10M
22M12M
18M
14M20M
16M
18M
8M
20M
10M
22M12M
18M
14M20M
16M
18M
8M
20M
10M
22M12M
18M
14M20M
16M
18M
8M
20M
10M
22M12M
18M
14M20M
16M
18M
8M
20M
10M
22M12M
18M
14M20M
16M
18M
8M
20M
10M
22M12M
18M
14M20M
16M
18M
8M
20M
10M
22M12M
18M
14M20M
16M
18M
8M
20M
10M
22M12M
18M
14M20M
16M
18M
8M
20M
10M
22M12M
18M
14M20M
16M
18M
8M
20M
10M
22M12M
18M
14M20M
16M
18M
8M
20M
10M
22M12M
18M
14M20M
16M
18M
8M
20M
10M
22M12M
18M
14M20M
16M
18M
8M
20M
10M
22M12M
18M
14M20M
16M
18M
8M
20M
10M
22M12M
18M
14M20M
16M
18M
8M
20M
10M
22M12M
18M
14M20M
16M
18M
8M
20M
10M
22M12M
18M
14M20M
16M
18M
8M
20M
10M
22M12M
18M
14M20M
16M
18M
8M
20M
10M
22M12M
18M
14M20M
16M
18M
$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700
20%
40%
60%
80%
Percent zero carbon H
2
Carbon Tax ($/tonne)
8M
10M
12M
14M
16M
18M
20M
22M
HFV in 2050
23
Summary
•H2 Fueled Vehicles can significantly reduce CO2 emissions– Requires large HFV penetration ~50% of CA fleet by 2050– Zero-carbon fuels are needed to meet emissions targets in 2050 and
beyond
•H2 produced from SFC could potentially supply 11% of HFV fleet demand in 2050– Approximately 2 Million vehicles
•Stationary FC systems have a small effect on CA’s CO2 emissions– Effect of SFC systems with a maximum of 35% relative fuel savings is
limited by the potential for CHP systems in CA buildings– An optimistic penetration for SFC is 16% of total electricity generation– Overall reduction in CO2 is ~2%
•Preliminary simulations show that the reduction of CO2 emissions by SFC can be significant when displacing coal generation
24
Supplemental Slides
25
0.020
0.025
0.045
0.030
0.040
0.035
0.020
0.025
0.045
0.030
0.040
0.035
0.020
0.025
0.045
0.030
0.040
0.035
0.020
0.025
0.045
0.030
0.040
0.035
0.020
0.025
0.045
0.030
0.040
0.035
0.020
0.025
0.045
0.030
0.040
0.035
0.020
0.025
0.045
0.030
0.040
0.035
0.020
0.025
0.045
0.030
0.040
0.035
0.020
0.025
0.045
0.030
0.040
0.035
0.020
0.025
0.045
0.030
0.040
0.035
0.020
0.025
0.045
0.030
0.040
0.035
0.020
0.025
0.045
0.030
0.040
0.035
0.020
0.025
0.045
0.030
0.040
0.035
$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700
20%
40%
60%
80%
2050LDV emissionsGT/yr
Percent zero-carbon H
2
Carbon Tax ($/tonne)
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.040
0.045
Very high carbon tax is required to offset coal-fired power
•Using coal in place of natural gas increases emissions
•High carbon tax is required to achieve the emissions of default case
•Achieving a low emissions target is very difficult
26
8M
10M
12M
24M
14M
16M18M
22M
20M
8M
10M
12M
24M
14M
16M18M
22M
20M
8M
10M
12M
24M
14M
16M18M
22M
20M
8M
10M
12M
24M
14M
16M18M
22M
20M
8M
10M
12M
24M
14M
16M18M
22M
20M
8M
10M
12M
24M
14M
16M18M
22M
20M
8M
10M
12M
24M
14M
16M18M
22M
20M
8M
10M
12M
24M
14M
16M18M
22M
20M
8M
10M
12M
24M
14M
16M18M
22M
20M
8M
10M
12M
24M
14M
16M18M
22M
20M
8M
10M
12M
24M
14M
16M18M
22M
20M
8M
10M
12M
24M
14M
16M18M
22M
20M
8M
10M
12M
24M
14M
16M18M
22M
20M
8M
10M
12M
24M
14M
16M18M
22M
20M
8M
10M
12M
24M
14M
16M18M
22M
20M
8M
10M
12M
24M
14M
16M18M
22M
20M
8M
10M
12M
24M
14M
16M18M
22M
20M
8M
10M
12M
24M
14M
16M18M
22M
20M
8M
10M
12M
24M
14M
16M18M
22M
20M$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700
20%
40%
60%
80%
HFV in 2050
Percent zero carbon H
2
Carbon Tax ($/tonne)
8M
10M
12M
14M
16M
18M
20M
22M
Regions with coal electricity and zero-carbon hydrogen are sensitive to carbon pricing
•Hydrogen vehicle penetration is sensitive to carbon tax, especially at high levels of zero-carbon hydrogen
27
Penetration of SFC systems can provide significant H2 for vehicles
H2 from SFC•H2 available:
– Fraction of NG input = 15%• Assume 85% H2 utilization in FC
– Reduced electricity efficiency of FC from 47% to 40%
•SFC provide 11% of H2 demand– Supply 2 Million H2 vehicles
SFC dedicated to EV charging•Cost effectiveness is dependent on SFC capital and maintenance costs•Effect on CO2 emissions is minimal in regions with NG as marginal supply•Caveat: utility distribution concerns are not addressed by model
0
1
2
3
4
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Hydrogen (B-kg/yr)
Year
Total for HFV
H2 from SFC
28