Plug-in Electric and Hydrogen Fuel Cell

Electric Vehicles

Amgad Elgowainy

Energy Systems Division

Argonne National Laboratory

GREET User Workshop

October 15-16, 2015

Plug-in vehicles

Upstream

Oil

1%

Gas

20%

Coal

47%

Nuclear

21%

Renewable

11%

2

PHEV

Emissions

CrudeRecovery

CrudeTransportation

FuelTransportation

CrudeRefining

Gasoline

Electricity Generation Mix

Electricity Transmission

and Distribution

Electricity

40%

25%13%

ANL examined three charging choices based on travel

behavior in two distinct utility regions in the U.S.

WECC and IL

3

California

WECC

IL

Long dwell time during the day offers another charging

opportunity at work and at home (figure shown for

vehicles driven to work)

4

PHEVs load profile can vary considerably with charging

scenario (figure shown for U.S. WECC service area)

5

Reach the peak at 7PM

Reach the peak at 6AM

30% higher electricity demand

6

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Wed 12 AM Wed 6 AM Wed Noon Wed 6 PM Thu 12 AM

Ve

hicle

Load

(MW

h)

No

n-V

eh

icle

Lo

ad (M

Wh

)

Typical January Week

Non-Vehicle Load PHEV (Arrival Time Charging) PHEV (Smart Charging)

PHEVs Load is Relatively Small Even at 10% Penetration

in the LDV FLEET (Figure Shown for IL in 2030)

7

State of Illinois – Modeling Approach and Data Sources

Modeled state of Illinois in detail; buses in adjacent states were aggregated.

Agent-based modeling structure simulated operation of the electricity market – EMCAS.

Transmission modeled at bus/line level(1900 buses and 2500 lines).

Load profiles developed from FERC* data and published utility hourly data; projected to2020 using Energy Information Administration

• (EIA) data.

Virtually no hydropower.

Non-dispatchable renewable generation(wind) determined from hourly wind speedand electric generation profile datafrom NREL web site.

Thermal power plants simulated at the unitlevel; unit characteristics derived from EIA data;

supplemented with data from NERC and Illinois Commerce Commission.

Illinois Representation

in EMCAS

*Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Marginal generation mix for charging varies significantly

with charging scenario in IL( figure shown for IL in

2030)

8

9

Alternative Charging Scenarios of PHEVs in WECC (including California)

Fuel Technology

Charging Starts at End of

Trip

Charging Ends Before Time

of Departure

Charging Ends Before Time

of Departure + Opportunity

Charge at Work or Home

Coal Utility Boiler /

IGCC

0% 0% 0

Natural Gas Utility Boiler -0.5% 0.2% 0.9%

Combined Cycle 96.5% 97.2% 92.0%

Combustion

Turbine

3.5% 1.8% 6.5%

Residual Oil Utility Boiler 0% 0% 0%

Nuclear Utility Boiler 0% 0% 0%

Biomass Utility Boiler 0% 0% 0%

Renewable Hydro/Wind/Solar 0.5% 0.8% 0.6%

Total 100% 100% 100%

Marginal mix for charging is dominated by NGCC for All

considered charging choices (table shown for WECC)

WTW GHG emissions of plug-in vehicles* mainly depend on electricity generation mix

*Marginal mix and fuel economy are based on simulations for 2030

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

GH

G E

mis

sio

ns (

rela

tiv

e t

o G

aso

lin

e I

CE

V)

Petroleum Use (relative to Gasoline ICEV)

Regular HEV

Baseline Gasoline ICE Vehicle

IL (least cost charging)

IL (arrival time charging)

WECC (all scenarios)

PHEV40

PHEV10

100% Renewable

BEV (with 100% Coal)

BEV (with 100% NGCC)

IL (least cost charging) 69% coal

IL (arrival time charging) 27% coal

WECC (all scenarios) 99% NG

PHEV10 = 10 mi range, 25% VMT on battery (+ engine)

PHEV40 = 40 mi range,50% VMT on battery alone

BEV = 100 mi range, 100% VMT on battery

BEV (with 100% Renewable)

Elgowainy et al. 2012 (TRR)Elgowainy et al. 2012 (EVS 26)

GREET includes more than 20 pathways for central and

distributed hydrogen production

PetroleumConventional

Oil Sands

Compressed Natural Gas

Liquefied Natural Gas

Liquefied Petroleum Gas

Methanol

Dimethyl Ether

Fischer-Tropsch Diesel

Fischer-Tropsch Jet

Fischer-Tropsch Naphtha

Hydrogen

Natural GasNorth American

Non-North American

Shale gas

Coal

Soybeans

Palm

Rapeseed

Jatropha

Camelina

Algae

Gasoline

Diesel

Jet Fuel

Liquefied Petroleum Gas

Naphtha

Residual Oil

Hydrogen

Fischer-Tropsch Diesel

Fischer-Tropsch Jet

Methanol

Dimethyl Ether

Biodiesel

Renewable Diesel

Renewable Gasoline

Hydroprocessed

Renewable Jet

Sugarcane

Corn

Cellulosic BiomassSwitchgrass

Willow/Poplar

Crop Residues

Forest Residues

Miscanthus

Residual Oil

Coal

Natural Gas

Biomass

Other Renewables

Ethanol

Butanol

Ethanol

Ethanol

Hydrogen

Methanol

Dimethyl Ether

Fischer-Tropsch Diesel

Fischer-Tropsch Jet

Pyro Gasoline/Diesel/Jet

Electricity

Renewable Natural GasLandfill Gas

Animal Waste

Waste water treatment

11

Coke Oven Gas

Petroleum Coke

Nuclear EnergyHydrogen

Ce

ntralize

d G

aseo

us

H2

Pro

du

ction

Fueling Station

Geologic Storage

Compressor

Tube-Trailer

Gaseous Terminal

Loading Bays

Storage

Compressor

Storage

CompressorCascade

Dispenser

Gaseous Terminal

Loading Bays

Storage

Compressor

Compressor

Com

pressor Distrib

utio

n P

ipe

line

Transmission Pipeline

Tube-Trailer

Refrigeration

Fuel production and delivery pathways for

compressed gaseous hydrogen

12

Ce

ntralize

d G

aseo

us

H2

Pro

du

ction

Fueling Station

Liquefier

High-Pressure Cryo-Pump

Cryo-Compressed

Dispenser

Liquid Terminal

Loading Bays

CryogenicStorage

Liquid Truck

Pump Pump

Compressed Gas

Dispenser

CryogenicStorage

Vaporizer

Fuel production and delivery pathways for cryo-

compressed hydrogen

13

Hydrogen production today is mainly from SMR, but other

low-carbon pathways exist today

STEAM REFORMER

SHIFT REACTOR Pressure Swing Adsorption

Ambient Air

Steam

Stack Gas

Fuel Gas

Natural Gas H2

At 72% NG to H2 energy efficiency

12 kgCO2e/kgH2

14

Actual North America liquefaction plants GHG emissions are

different from US average mix

15

Liquefaction GHG emissions today may be much less (~40%

less) than based on US average mix

Region GHG Emissions(gCO2e/kWhe)

GHG Emissions(kgCO2e/kgH2)*

Liquefaction Capacity(ton/day)

California 380 4.5 30

Louisiana 610 7.4 70

Indiana 1070 12.8 30

New York 330 4.0 or 0** 40

Alabama 580 7.0 30

Ontario 130 1.6 30

Quebec 20 0.20 27

Total 257

Weighted average 5.7 or 5.0**

If US mix 670 8.0

*Assuming liquefaction energy of 12 kWhe/kg_H2

** Plant in NY uses hydro power

16

GHG emissions of H2 compression are based on US

average mix

Compression process

Pressure lift(bar)

Compression Energy(kWhe/kgH2)

GHG Emissions(kgCO2e/kgH2)*

Pipelinecompression

20 70 0.6 0.40

350 bar dispensing 20 440 3 2.0

700 bar dispensing 20 900 4 2.7

-40oC pre-cooling --- 0.25 0.17

CcH2 station 2 350 0.3 0.20

*Assuming US average generation mix

17

GHG emissions of LH2 truck delivery is smaller than

tube-trailer delivery due to higher payload

4000 kgH2

250 bar, 550 kgH2

100 km (60 mi)

100 km (60 mi)

0.1 kgCO2e/kgH2

0.7 kgCO2e/kgH2

18

Fuel cycle GHG emissions of MOF-5, LH2 and

compressed GH2 pathways

PathwayProduction Transport Compression/

liquefactionTotal

GH2 Pathway (350 bar)

12 0.7 2.0 14.7

GH2 Pathway (700 bar)

12 0.7 2.9 15.6

LH2 Pathway (CcH2) 12 0.1

5.2 or8.2‡

17.3 or20.3‡

MOF-5 Pathway

12 0.7 5.4 18.1

kgCO2e/kgH2

19

‡ Assuming US mix for H2 liquefaction

PathwayOnboard Storage

Balance of Vehicle Cycle

Fuel Cycle (WTW)

Total

GH2 Pathway (350 bar)

14 56 245 315

GH2 Pathway (700 bar)

17 56 257 330

LH2 Pathway(CcH2)

9 56 288350

or 400‡

MOF-5pathway

15 56 302 373

gCO2e/mi*

Onboard storage represents 3-5% of total LCA GHG emissions of compressed GH2, LH2 and MOF-5 pathways

‒ Accomplishment

*Assuming 60 mi/kgH2 fuel economy for FCEVs, and 160,000 lifetime VMT

‡ Assuming US mix for H2 liquefaction20

GHG emissions reduction potential depends on H2 production

and packaging for delivery and onboard storage

GH2 = gaseous hydrogen CcH2 = cryocompressed SMR = steam methane reforming CCS = carbon capture and storageLH2 = liquid hydrogen MOF = metal-organic framework ICEV = internal combustion engine vehicle

Assuming gaseous delivery via pipelines and 700 bar onboard storage

Acronyms

Low/high band: sensitivity to uncertainties associated with projection of fuel economy and fuel pathways

22

GREET Application: WTW GHG Results of a Mid-Size Car (g/mile)

(DOE EERE 2013, Record 13005)

• A GREET WTW results file with most recent GREET version is available at GREET website (http://greet.es.anl.gov/results)

For projected state of technologies in 2035

Acknowledgment

23

Plug-in and fuel cell vehicle analyses have been supported by the Biofuels Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) and Fuel Cell Technologies Office (FCTO) of the U.S. DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Office.

Questions?

24