Life Cycle CO 2 Footprint of a LCVTP vehicle

Transcription

1 Life Cycle CO 2 Footprint of a LCVTP vehicle LCVTP Final Dissemination Event 21 February 2012 Jane Patterson Technology, Innovation & Strategy Ricardo UK RD.12/

2 Introduction LCVTP has developed a range of technologies that will reduce the tailpipe CO 2 emissions of passenger cars But tailpipe emissions alone do not necessarily tell the whole story > How do these technologies compare on a life cycle basis? Ricardo applied Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) techniques to understand the potential life cycle CO 2 footprint of a future vehicle using LCVTP technologies and components > Analysis based on SUV-segment vehicle > Key components investigated in separate cradle-to-gate carbon studies (battery pack, motor generator and power electronics) > Whole vehicle considered in top-down review > Results compared with a benchmark vehicle representing today s technology Source: Ricardo RD.12/

3 Life Cycle CO 2 Footprint of LCVTP vehicle energy scenario UK 2011 Benchmark Vehicle LCVTP Electric Vehicle LCVTP RE-EV 46.8 tco 2 e 38.7 tco 2 e 39.7 tco 2 e Assume lifetime mileage 200,000 km. Assume fuels B5 and E5. Assume electricity carbon intensity 594 gco 2 e/kwh. Assume battery pack is not replaced during the vehicle lifetime. Units are tonnes of CO 2 equivalent, based on global warming potential of GHG emissions over 100 year time horizon Sources: Benchmark vehicle footprint adapted from JLR s LCA study of the Freelander, independently certified by the VCA to ISO 14040, ISO and ISO Footprint predictions for LCVTP EV and RE-EV based on Ricardo analysis. RD.12/

4 Vehicle Specifications Benchmark Vehicle Fuel SUV segment vehicle 2.2L diesel engine with stop-start, 6-speed manual transmission, FWD LCVTP Electric Vehicle (EV) SUV segment vehicle 35 kwh Li-ion battery pack, 108 kw (continuous) motor, 3-speed transmission, FWD LCVTP Range-Extended Electric Vehicle (RE-EV) Sources: Ricardo Fuel SUV segment vehicle 13.3 kwh Li-ion battery pack, 108 kw (continuous) motor, 3-speed transmission, FWD 0.9L gasoline APU engine with motor generator, RD.12/

5 Vehicle Performance Characteristics Benchmark Vehicle LCVTP Electric Vehicle LCVTP RE-EV Vehicle Mass 1794 kg 1520 kg 1440 kg Battery Capacity - 35 kwh 13.3 kwh Fuel Diesel Electricity Electricity and Gasoline Fuel Consumption (combined) Electricity Consumption (combined) 5.9 L/100km L/100km kwh/100km 13.8 kwh/100km EV Range 0 km 130 km 50 km Tailpipe CO gco 2 /km 0 gco 2 /km 51 gco 2 /km Well-to-Wheels CO gco 2 /km 125 gco 2 /km 140 gco 2 /km Selection of battery capacity based on compromise between EV range, cost and mass. Assume fuels contain 5% vol biofuel (i.e. B5 and E5). Assume WTT factor for diesel is kgco2e/l, and WTT factor for gasoline is kgco2e/l (CONCAWE). Assume carbon intensity of electricity is 594 gco2e/kwh (Defra). Assume battery charging efficiency is 90%. Use 70% battery capacity for calculating EV range Sources: Benchmark vehicle data provided by JLR. Predicted LCVTP vehicle characteristics from vehicle simulation conducted by Ricardo RD.12/

6 GTV Research Vehicle Vehicle Lightweighting Aerodynamics Battery Pack Electric Motor & Power Electronics APU Engine & Generator Parastic Losses Vehicle NEDC Energy Consumption for RE-EV Note about predicted vehicle characteristics ILLUSTRATIVE 20% mass reduction in vehicle glider, without increase in embedded CO 2 e (WS7) 6% drag reduction (WS12) Improved energy density, reducing battery mass by ~100kg (35 kwh) (WS1) 2-3% efficiency improvement in electric motor and power electronic components (WS2, WS3) ~10% improvement in fuel consumption (WS5) Transmission: 1% reduction due to gearbox improvements Tyres: 10% reduction in rolling (WS11) Further real-world reductions possible through improvements in vehicle dynamics (WS8) and thermal management (WS9) Sources: WMG, JLR, Ricardo RD.12/

7 The life cycle of a passenger car Fuel Assessment of environmental impact of producing the energy vector(s) from primary energy source to distribution Life cycle WTW CO 2 Life cycle embedded CO 2 Vehicle Assessment of environmental impact of producing the vehicle from raw materials to complete product Use - Tailpipe CO 2 from driving - Impact from maintenance and servicing Disposal Assessment of environmental impact of end of life scenario, including re-using components, recycling materials and landfill Source: Ricardo RD.12/

8 Top-down method for estimating life cycle CO 2 Vehicle Fuel In-Use Disposal Total Key Systems Source: Ricardo Materials + Processes / Energy Vehicle Simulation Lifetime Fuel / Energy Consumption x Well-to-Tank CO 2 factor Tailpipe CO 2 x Lifetime mileage Assumed lifetime mileage to be 200,000 km Note: Zero tailpipe emissions for BEV e.g. CO 2 from generating electricity (UK grid carbon intensity) Considered negligible in this study RD.12/

9 CO 2 e emissions [tonnes] Life Cycle CO 2 Footprint of LCVTP vehicle 70 energy scenario UK Vehicle Use (TTW) % 65% 17% 15% 26% 4% 41% Fuel (WTT) Electricity % 21% 35% 29% Benchmark Vehicle LCVTP EV LCVTP RE-EV Vehicle Assume lifetime mileage 200,000 km. Fuels B5 and E5. Electricity carbon intensity assumed to be 594 gco 2 e/kwh. Assume battery pack is not replaced during the vehicle lifetime. Source: JLR, Ricardo RD.12/

10 CO 2 e emissions [tonnes] Life Cycle CO 2 Footprint of LCVTP vehicle 70 energy scenario France Vehicle Use (TTW) % 57% 41% Fuel (WTT) % 32% 5% 12% 15% 21% 68% 42% Benchmark Vehicle LCVTP EV LCVTP RE-EV Electricity Vehicle Assume lifetime mileage 200,000 km. Fuels B5 and E5. Electricity carbon intensity assumed to be 149 gco 2 e/kwh. Assume battery pack is not replaced during the vehicle lifetime. Source: JLR, Ricardo RD.12/

11 CO 2 e emissions [tonnes] Life Cycle CO 2 Footprint of LCVTP vehicle % + 32% 78% energy scenario China % 19% 3% 57% Vehicle Use (TTW) Fuel (WTT) Electricity % 21% 22% 21% Benchmark Vehicle LCVTP EV LCVTP RE-EV Vehicle Assume lifetime mileage 200,000 km. Fuels B5 and E5. Electricity carbon intensity assumed to be 1145 gco 2 e/kwh. Assume battery pack is not replaced during the vehicle lifetime. Source: JLR, Ricardo RD.12/

12 Embedded CO 2 e emissions Benchmark Vehicle LCVTP Electric Vehicle LCVTP RE-EV 9.9 tco 2 e 13.7 tco 2 e 11.6 tco 2 e 1% 2% 6% 1% 3% 7% 1% 6% 15% 15% 78% 33% 56% 3% 5% 66% 2% Vehicle Glider Engine & Exhaust Transmission Fuel System Battery Motor Power Electronics Other components Source: Ricardo RD.12/

13 Cumulative CO 2 e [tonnes] Carbon payback Carbon payback for RE-EV ~40,000 km Carbon payback for EV ~65,000 km energy scenario UK 2011 Trade-off between EV and RE-EV at ~130,000 km ~8 tco 2 e saved after 200,000 km 0-50, , , , ,000 Distance Travelled [km] Benchmark Vehicle LCVTP EV LCVTP RE-EV Assume lifetime mileage 200,000 km. Fuels B5 and E5. Electricity carbon intensity assumed to be 594 gco 2 e/kwh. Assume battery pack is not replaced during the vehicle lifetime. Source: JLR, Ricardo RD.12/

14 Cumulative CO 2 e [tonnes] Carbon payback changing the energy mix Carbon payback for RE-EV ~16,000 km Carbon payback for EV ~25,000 km Trade-off between EV and RE-EV at ~44,000 km energy scenario France tco 2 e saved after 200,000 km 0-50, , , , ,000 Distance Travelled [km] Benchmark Vehicle LCVTP EV LCVTP RE-EV Assume lifetime mileage 200,000 km. Fuels B5 and E5. Electricity carbon intensity assumed to be 149 gco 2 e/kwh. Assume battery pack is not replaced during the vehicle lifetime. Source: JLR, Ricardo RD.12/

15 Caveat: LCVTP is a research project! Many of the technologies investigated by LCVTP are at the test bench or early technology validation stage (TRL 2-5) It will take time and effort to progress these technologies into commercial products > 5-10 years? In this time frame, the conventional technology of the benchmark vehicle will also improve, and it is likely that the biofuel content in diesel will increase 1, 2 Also, some of the LCVTP technologies could also be applied to the benchmark vehicle, such as lightweighting and improvements in aerodynamics How would the CO 2 footprint comparison look in 2020? 1. The European CO 2 Regulation (Regulation No 443/2009) mandates targets for fleet average tailpipe CO 2, which is one of the main drivers for reducing passenger car tailpipe CO 2 in Europe 2. The European Renewable Energy Directive sets a target of 10% renewable energy in transport by 2020 RD.12/

16 CO 2 e emissions [tonnes] Life Cycle CO 2 Footprint of LCVTP vehicle EXAMPLE Source: JLR, Ricardo Assume 30% 20% improvement in vehicle fuel consumption 63% 65% 9% 28% 26% 53% 47% De-carbonisation of electricity reduces vehicle CO 2 footprint energy scenario UK % 30% 35% Benchmark Vehicle LCVTP EV LCVTP RE-EV 4% Reduction from UK 2011 scenario Vehicle Use (TTW) Fuel (WTT) Electricity Vehicle Assume lifetime mileage 200,000 km. Fuels B10 and E10. Electricity carbon intensity assumed to be 368 gco 2 e/kwh. Assume battery pack is not replaced during the vehicle lifetime. Apply same vehicle lightweighting technology to benchmark vehicle, and apply additional powertrain efficiency improvements RD.12/

17 Conclusions The LCVTP low carbon technologies will help to reduce the life cycle CO 2 emissions of passenger cars But this is highly dependent on the carbon intensity of the electricity grid Design And these vehicles will have higher embedded CO 2 e emissions from vehicle production So engineers need to adopt a life cycle philosophy to ensure future vehicle truly are low carbon Disposal Life Cycle Philosophy LCVTP is supporting this shift in thinking by: > Commissioning an easy-to-use LCA tool suitable for non-expert users based on IDC s LCA Calculator ( and Use > Developing the Clean n Lean process for removing carbon and cost RD.12/

18 Other LCA Activities within LCVTP WS7 Development of non-expert tool (WMG, SPMJ, JLR, IDC) LCA Literature Review (SPMJ) Review of existing LCA and CO 2 Footprinting Tools (SPMJ) LCA study of car seat (WMG) LCVTP WS7 LCA Activities Training and Knowledge Cascade (SPMJ) Cradle-to-Gate Carbon Studies of key components (Ricardo) Clean n Lean Case Study (Ricardo) LCA Workshops RD.12/

19 Rapid Automotive Life Cycle Calculator An on-line CO 2 footprint tool for non-experts For further information see RD.12/

20 Thank-you for your attention Ricardo UK Ltd Shoreham Techical Centre, Shoreham-by-Sea, West Sussex, BN43 5FG, UK Dr Nicholas Powell BSc MBA PhD CEng FIMechE Chief Engineer Technology, Innovation & Strategy Ricardo UK Ltd Shoreham Techical Centre, Shoreham-by-Sea, West Sussex, BN43 5FG, UK Jane Patterson MEng AMIMechE Senior Project Engineer Technology, Innovation & Strategy Direct Dial: +44 (0) Reception: +44 (0) Facsimile: +44 (0) Mobile: +44 (0) Telephone: +44 (0) Reception: +44 (0) Ricardo UK Ltd Shoreham Techical Centre, Shoreham-by-Sea, West Sussex, BN43 5FG, UK Adam Gurr BEng AMIMechE Systems Engineer Technology, Innovation & Strategy Direct Dial: +44 (0) Reception: +44 (0) Mobile: +44 (0) RD.12/

21 Appendix Support material RD.12/

22 Life Cycle CO 2 Footprint Study Assumptions Vehicle lifetime assumed to be 200,000 km over 10 years Fuel and electricity consumption based on New European Drive Cycle (NEDC) On-board battery charger efficiency for plug-in vehicles assumed to be 90% Battery useable capacity assumed to be 70% (used for calculating EV range) Assume no major parts are replaced during the vehicle lifetime Assume battery pack is not replaced during the vehicle lifetime Assumed vehicles are produced in Europe Assume the vehicle s fuel and/or electricity consumption does not change with vehicle age Assumptions on fuels and electricity are provided in the next slides RD.12/

23 Assumptions regarding Well-to-Tank CO 2 Well-to-Tank CO 2 factors for liquid fuels have been derived from CONCAWE analysis The study considered two fuel scenarios: > 2011, based on reference fuel specifications Assume gasoline contains 5% vol, 3% energy ethanol Ethanol is assumed to be from a range of feedstocks (70% sugar cane, 20% sugar beet, 8% wheat, 2% corn) WTT factor kgco 2 e/l fuel Assume diesel contains 5% vol, 6% energy FAME FAME is assumed to be from a range of feedstocks (40% soy, 25% oilseed rape, 15% tallow, 10% palm, 10% other) WTT factor kgco 2 e/l fuel > 2020, based on Renewable Energy Directive targets Assume gasoline contains 10% vol, 7% energy ethanol WTT factor kgco 2 e/l fuel Assume diesel contains 10%vol, 9%energy biodiesel Biodiesel assumed to 63% FAME, 36% HVO and 2% Fischer-Tropsch diesel (from Ricardo Technology Roadmap) WTT factor kgco 2 e/l fuel Source: CONCAWE, Well-to-Wheel Analysis of Future Automotive Fuels and Powertrains in the European Context - WELL-to-TANK Report, Version 2c, March 2007; Ricardo analysis RD.12/

24 Assumptions regarding electricity Four energy scenarios were considered in the study: > UK 2011 UK electricity carbon intensity assumed to 594 gco 2 e/kwh (based on data from Defra) Both gasoline and diesel assumed to contain 5% vol biofuel > France 2011 French electricity carbon intensity assumed to 149 gco 2 e/kwh (based on data from PE International) Both gasoline and diesel assumed to contain 5% vol biofuel > China 2011 Chinese electricity carbon intensity assumed to 1145 gco 2 e/kwh (based on data from PE International) Both gasoline and diesel assumed to contain 5% vol biofuel > UK 2020 UK electricity carbon intensity assumed to 368 gco2e/kwh (based on CCC scenario for 2020, adjusted to include primary energy production and transmission losses) Both gasoline and diesel assumed to contain 10% vol biofuel Sources: Defra (2011) Guidelines to Defra / DECC s GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting. Produced by AEA for the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Published 7 July 2011; Ricardo analysis; Committee on Climate Change (CCC); PE International RD.12/