Well-to-Wheels analysis of future fuels and associated automotive powertrains in the European context A joint initiative of /JRC/CONCAWE ry Results for Hydrogen Summary of Material Presented to the EC Contact Group on Alternative Fuels in May 2003 Slide 1
Well-to-Wheels analysis of future fuels and associated automotive powertrains in the European context Partial and preliminary results Conventional fuels/engines Hydrogen powertrains Well-to-tank Gasoline and diesel production and distribution Hydrogen pathways Tank-to Wheels 2002, assessments 2010 Conventional advanced gasoline, diesel, natural gas vehicles Hydrogen vehicles Well-to-Wheels integration Slide 2
WELL-TO-TANK Slide 3
Well-to-Tank analysis Conventional oil pathways At the 2010-2020 horizon, alternative fuels will replace some fraction of the current conventional fuels market The energy that can be saved and the GHG emissions that can be avoided therefore pertain to the MARGINAL production of conventional fuels Europe is short in diesel and long in gasoline: the natural balance between gasoline and middle distillates is stretched As a result, refinery production of marginal diesel is more energyintensive than that of marginal gasoline Energy GHG 0.18 16.0 0.16 14.0 0.14 12.0 MJ/MJ 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 Gasoline Diesel g CO2 eq / MJ 10.0 8.0 6.0 Gasoline Diesel 0.04 4.0 0.02 2.0 0.00 Extraction & Processing Transport Refining Distribution Total chain 0.0 Extraction & Processing Transport Refining Distribution Total chain CO2 on combustion is about 75g/MJ Slide 4
Compressed hydrogen pathways (excluding electricity) Coal (EU mix) Production and EU mix typical Gasification + Pipeline, 50 km conditioning CO shift + compression NG (piped) Production and Pipeline into EU NG grid conditioning EU-mix 4000 km 7000 km Reforming (on-site) Compression NG (remote) Production and Liquefaction Shipping (LNG) conditioning Reforming (central) Road or pipeline 50 km + compression Wood waste Collection Road, 50 km Small scale gasif. Pipeline, 10 km + CO shift + compression Road, 50 km Large scale gasif. + Shipping CO shift Pipeline, 50 km Farmed wood Growing Road, 50 km + compression Harvesting + Shipping Slide 5
Liquefied hydrogen pathways (excluding electricity) NG (piped) Production and Pipeline into EU Reforming Road, 300 km conditioning (central) + H 2 Liquefaction NG (remote) Production and Reforming Shipping Road, 500 km conditioning + H 2 liquefaction (LH2) NG (remote) Production and Liquefaction Shipping (LNG) Reforming (central) Road, 500 km conditioning + H2 liquefaction Slide 6
Electricity to hydrogen pathways Electricity Electrolysis Pipeline (grid) (central) Compression Electrolysis (on-site) Compression Electricity Electrolysis Road, 300 km (grid) (central) + H 2 Liquefaction Electricity production pathways Coal (EU mix) Production and Typical of EU mix IGCC MV grid conditioning NG (piped) Production and Pipeline into EU CCGT MV grid conditioning NG (remote) Liquifaction Shipping (LNG) CCGT MV grid EU fuel mix EU mix typical MV grid Wind Wind turbine MV grid On/offshore Slide 7
NG-to-Hydrogen pathways Compressed Hydrogen MJ/MJ 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 g CO2eq/MJ Compressed hydrogen from on-site NG reforming 140 120 100 80 NG Extraction & 60 Processing 40 20 0 Reforming energy is the main element Compressed hydrogen from on-site NG reforming GHG from reforming is major contribution (because of decarbonisation) NG Liquefaction Longdistance transport LNG Vaporisation + On-site reforming On-site delivery Total chain NG Extraction & Processing NG Liquefaction Longdistance transport LNG Vaporisation + Distribution NG EU-mix, 1000 km, on-site reforming Piped NG, 4000 km, on-site reforming Piped NG, 7000 km, on-site reforming LNG, on-site reforming On-site reforming NG EU-mix, 1000 km, on-site reforming Piped NG, 4000 km, on-site reforming Piped NG, 7000 km, on-site reforming LNG, on-site reforming On-site delivery Total chain Slide 8
NG-to-Hydrogen pathways Compressed Hydrogen On-site vs central reforming Central reforming is more efficient (heat recovery) 1.2 1.0 Distribution mode has only marginal effect (only pipeline is practical in the long term) MJ/MJ 0.8 0.6 0.4 On-site vs central reforming 0.2 0.0 NG Extraction & Processing g CO2eq/MJ 120 100 40 Piped NG, 4000 km, on-site reforming 20 NG Transport Piped NG, 4000 km, central 0 reforming, pipeline NG Extraction Piped NG, 4000 km, central reforming, & Processing trucking 80 60 NG Distribution NG Transport Reforming NG Distribution Distribution and delivery Reforming Total chain Distribution and delivery Total chain Piped NG, 4000 km, on-site reforming Piped NG, 4000 km, central reforming, pipeline Piped NG, 4000 km, central reforming, trucking Slide 9
NG-to-Hydrogen pathways Liquid Hydrogen Liquid hydrogen 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Total chain Piped NG is slightly more favourable for 4000 km (LNG similar to 7000 km pipeline case) Remote hydrogen liquefaction not attractive Liquid hydrogen Slide 10 MJ/MJ NG Extraction & Processing NG Liquefaction Remote reforming Remote hyd liquefaction NG transport (pipeline) LNG Transport (shipping) LNG Receipt + Vaporisation Liquid hyd transport (shipping) NG Distribution (HP) Central reforming Hyd liquefaction 180 160 140 Liquid hyd distribution & delivery Total chain 120 100 80 60 g CO2eq/MJ 40 20 0 Piped NG, 4000 km, central reforming + liquefaction Piped NG, 7000 km, central reforming + liquefaction Remote NG reforming + hyd liquefaction + liquid hyd shipping LNG, central reforming + liquefaction NG Extraction & Processing NG Liquefaction Remote reforming Remote hyd liquefaction NG transport (pipeline) LNG Transport (shipping) LNG Receipt + Vaporisation Liquid hyd transport (shipping) NG Distribution (HP) Central reforming Hyd liquefaction Liquid hyd distribution & delivery Piped NG, 4000 km, central reforming + liquefaction Piped NG, 7000 km, central reforming + liquefaction Remote NG reforming + hyd liquefaction + liquid hyd shipping LNG, central reforming + liquefaction
NG-to-Hydrogen pathways Summary Hydrogen WTT pathways 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 180 0.4 160 0.2 140 0.0 120 Conditioning & distribution Transformation near market Transportation to market Transformation at source Production Conditioning & conditioning & distribution at source Slide 11 Diesel CNG, 4000 km Diesel CNG, 4000 km LH 2 is more energy-intensive than CH 2 Hydrogen WTT pathways MJ/MJ CH2, NG 4000 km, ref on-site CH2, NG 4000 km,ref central, pipeline CH2, LNG, on-site CH2, LNG, ref central LH2, NG 4000 km, ref central LH2, ref remote LH2, LNG, ref central 100 80 60 40 20 0 CH2 LH2 Transformation near market Transportation to market Transformation at source Production & conditioning at source g CO2eq/MJ CH2, NG 4000 km, ref on-site CH2, NG 4000 km,ref central, pipeline CH2, LNG, on-site CH2, LNG, ref central LH2, NG 4000 km, ref central LH2, ref remote LH2, LNG, ref central
Wood-to-Hydrogen pathways Wood to Hydrogen 200 MW (biomass) is a very large plant! (about 50 t/h of wood) MJ/MJ 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Farming / collection and chipping g CO2eq/MJ 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Mixed transport Farming / collection and chipping Gasifier + CO shift + power generation Mixed transport Gasifier + CO shift + Liquefaction power generation Wood waste, on-site gasification, 10 MW (biomass) Wood to Hydrogen Wood waste, large scale gasification, 200 MW (biomass) Farmed wood, on-site gasification, 10 MW (biomass) Distribution Liquefaction & delivery Farmed wood, large scale gasification, 200 MW (biomass) Wood waste, on-site gasification, 10 MW (biomass) Farmed wood, large scale gasification, 200 MW (biomass), liquefaction Wood waste, large scale gasification, 200 MW (biomass) Farmed wood, on-site gasification, 10 MW (biomass) Total chain Distribution & delivery Farmed wood, large scale gasification, 200 MW (biomass) Farmed wood, large scale gasification, 200 MW (biomass), liquefaction Total chain Slide 12
Hydrogen via electrolysis pathways Hydrogen via electrolysis Little difference between central and on-site electrolysis MJ/MJ 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 EU-mix more energy-intensive than NG/CCGT, but NG Extraction & Processing g CO2eq/MJ 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 NG Transport NG Distribution Power generation Hydrogen via electrolysis very close in terms of GHG Electricity distribution Electrolysis Hyd liquefaction Hyd distribution and delivery Total chain NG Extraction & Processing NG Transport NG Distribution Power generation Electricity distribution EU-mix electricity, on-site electrolysis Piped NG, 4000 km, CCGT, on-site electrolysis Piped NG, 4000 km, CCGT, central electrolysis EU-mix electricity, on-site electrolysis, liquefaction Piped NG, 4000 km, CCGT, central electrolysis, liquefaction EU-mix electricity, on-site electrolysis Piped NG, 4000 km, CCGT, on-site electrolysis Piped NG, 4000 km, CCGT, central electrolysis EU-mix electricity, on-site electrolysis, liquefaction Piped NG, 4000 km, CCGT, central electrolysis, liquefaction Electrolysis Hyd liquefaction Hyd distribution and delivery Total chain Slide 13
Hydrogen via electrolysis pathways Energy (MJ/MJ) 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 GHG (g CO2eq/MJ) 250 200 150 100 Piped NG, 4000 km, CCGT, on-site 50 electrolysis Piped NG, 4000 km, CCGT, central electrolysis Hydrogen via electrolysis Wood is more energy-intensive than NG The type of power plant is crucial Piped NG, 4000 km, CCGT, central electrolysis, liquefaction Hydrogen via electrolysis Farmed wood, CCGT, on-site electrolysis Farmed wood, conv. power plant, on-site electrolysis Wind offshore, on-site electrolysis 0 Production & conditioning at source Transformation at source Transportation to market Piped NG, Piped NG, Piped NG, Farmed wood, Farmed wood, Transformation 4000 near km, market 4000 km, Conditioning & distribution CCGT, on-site conv. power CCGT, on-site CCGT, central electrolysis plant, on-site electrolysis electrolysis electrolysis 4000 km, CCGT, central electrolysis, liquefaction Is wind a real option? Or is it simply replacing marginal electricity? EU-mix electricity, onsite electrolysis Wind offshore, on-site electrolysis EU-mix electricity, onsite electrolysis Production & conditioning at source Transformation at source Transportation to market Transformation near market Conditioning & distribution Slide 14
Hydrogen pathways Summary Hydrogen WTT pathways Conditioning & distribution 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 300 250 200 Transformation near market Conditioning & distribution Transportation to market Transformation near market Transformation at source Transportation to market Production & conditioning at source Transformation at source Slide 15 MJ/MJ 150 100 Hydrogen WTT pathways CH2, NG 4000 km, ref on-site CH2, NG 4000 km,ref central, pipeline CH2, LNG, ref central CH2, farmed wood, gasifier on-site CH2, farmed wood, gasifier central CH2, EU-mix elec, electrolysis on-site CH2, Coal EU-mix, gasifier LH2, NG 4000 km, ref central LH2, ref remote LH2, LNG, ref central LH2, farmed wood, gasifier central 50 LH2, EU-mix elec, electrolysis central LH2, NG 4000 km, electrolysis central Diesel CNG, 4000 km CH2, NG 4000 km, ref on-site CH2, NG 4000 km,ref central, pipeline CH2, LNG, ref central CH2, farmed wood, gasifier on-site 0 CH2 LH2 NG wood elec Production & conditioning at source g CO2eq/MJ CH2, farmed wood, gasifier central CH2, EU-mix elec, electrolysis on-site CH2, Coal EU-mix, gasifier LH2, NG 4000 km, ref central LH2, ref remote LH2, LNG, ref central LH2, farmed wood, gasifier central LH2, EU-mix elec, electrolysis central LH2, NG 4000 km, electrolysis central Diesel CNG, 4000 km Electrolysis must be the last resort unless an uncontroversial renewable energy source can be used
WTT Conclusions LH 2 is more energy and GHG intensive than CH 2 Central reforming requires somewhat less energy than on-site Electrolysis is very energy-intensive and can only be justified if genuinely renewable electricity is available Slide 16
TANK-TO-WHEELS Gasoline, Diesel, Natural gas, Hydrogen 2002-2010 Slide 17
Tank-to-Wheels study: Gasoline, Diesel, Natural gas, Hydrogen For the purpose of this study, a virtual vehicle was created, figurable as a VW Golf 1.6 l gasoline (most popular segment of the market) The results do not represent a fleet average The Fuels / powertrains considered here are : - Technologies 2002 are purely Internal Combust. Engines (I.C.E.) - Technologies assessed for 2010 include : I.C.E. & Fuel Cells The engine technologies and fuels investigated do not imply any assumptions with regard to their potential market share ICE hybrid vehicles will be included later Slide 18
Tank-to-Wheels study Performance & Emissions All technologies fulfil at least minimal customer performance criteria For bi-fuel (gasoline-cng) the vehicle performance decay (12% torque down-shift) is accepted. A dedicated CNG engine, upsized at 2 l. to fulfil the required performances is simulated. The H 2 I.C. engine is simulated as extrapolated from single cylinder present studies : 1.3 liter, already turbo-charged to meet the performances. Vehicle / Fuel combinations comply with emissions regulations The 2002 vehicles comply with Euro III The 2010 vehicles comply with EU IV Direct Injection for gaseous fuels is not simulated as still at the level of research with open issues to be adressed (energy penalty or limited range) Slide 19
Tank-to-Wheels study Fuels & adapted technologies for comparable performance Engine Type Gasoline Diesel CNG (Bi Fuels) CNG (dedicated) CGH2 LH2 gasoline diesel PISI SIDI CIDI 1.6 lit. 1.6 lit. 1.9 lit. 1.6 lit.* 2.0 lit. 1.3 lit. TC 1.3 lit. TC Fuel cell F.C. 75 kw 75 kw Objective is to compare vehicles at same level of technology * Reduced performance PISI : SIDI : CIDI : F.C. : Port Injection Spark Ignition Spark Ignition Direct Injection Compression Ignition Direct Injection (Common Rail) Fuel Cells (Direct Hydrogen) Slide 20
Tank-to-Wheels study Comments : state of the art 2002 H2 ICE : Energy efficiency results from simulation are better than gasoline reference : Reason: - The S.I. H2 engine model is, already in 2002, simulated as downsized and turbo charged (DSTC), while the reference gasoline engine is not. - The gasoline ICE will include the same technology in the 2010 version (and therefore be more energy efficient) - The benefit of DSTC will not be accounted twice for H2 in 2010 No GHG are emitted by the H2 powertrain, except the NOx contribution Slide 21
Tank-to-Wheels study Compared Energy Efficiency gasoline diesel CNG bi-fuel CNG dedicated Cold start on NEDC PISI 1,6 SIDI 1,6 DIESEL1,9 CNGBF 1,6 CNG2,0 CGH2 LH2 CO2 (g/km) 166,2 155,3 135 129 130 0 0 ENERGY EFF. (MJ/100km) 223,5 209 183 229 230 180 180 MASS Consump. (kg/100km) 5,21 4,87 4,26 5,08 5,1 1,50 1,50 FUEL Consump. (l /100km) 6,95 6,49 5,1 7,12 7,15 5,60 5,60 Other G.H.G. (g/km) Methane (g/kmco2 eq.) 0,84 0,84 0,25 3,36 3,36 N2O (g/km CO2 eq 0,93 0,93 3,1 0,93 0,93 0,93 0,93 GHG global g/km 168,0 157,0 137,9 133,3 133,8 0,9 0,9 Energy efficiency (MJ / km ) ICE engines STATE of the ART 2002 2,50 2,00 1,50 1,00 0,50 0,00 PISI 1,6 SIDI 1,6 DIESEL1,9 CNGBF 1,6 CNG2,0 CGH 2 LH 2 Slide 22
Tank-to-Wheels study Compared G.H.G. emissions Cold start on NEDC PISI 1,6 SIDI 1,6 DIESEL1,9 CNGBF 1,6 CNG2,0 CGH2 LH2 CO2 (g/km) 166,2 155,3 135 129 130 0 0 ENERGY EFF. (MJ/100km) 223,5 209 183 229 230 180 180 MASS Consump. (kg/100km) 5,21 4,87 4,26 5,08 5,1 1,50 1,50 FUEL Consump. (l /100km) 6,95 6,49 5,1 7,12 7,15 5,60 5,60 Other G.H.G. (g/km) Methane (g/kmco2 eq.) 0,84 0,84 0,25 3,36 3,36 N2O (g/km CO2 eq 0,93 0,93 3,1 0,93 0,93 0,93 0,93 GHG global g/km 168,0 157,0 137,9 133,3 133,8 0,9 0,9 ICE engines STATE of the ART 2002 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Fuels / Vehicles G.H.G. (g/km CO2 eq.) PISI 1,6 SIDI 1,6 DIESEL1,9 CNGBF 1,6 CNG2,0 CGH2 LH 2 CO2 on the NEDC (g/km) cold Other GHG global g/km Slide 23
Tank-to-Wheels study Evolutions 2002-2010 From present State of the Art until 2010, Fuel efficiency evolutions should occur, depending on: - the maturity of the technology - the specific possibilities and constraints of the fuel Car manufacturers globally converge towards assumptions : - Port injection S.I. : + 15 % (includ. Downsizing Turbo Charged) - Direct injection S.I. : + 10 % - Diesel : + 6 % ( or 2 %, only, under Particle Trap) - Hydrogen I.C.E. : + 6 % ( D.S.T.C. already accounted as 2002) - Nat. Gas & H2 : + 1 % supplementary for optimal air - gas mixture DPF w/o DPF PISI SIDI DIESEL DIESEL CNGl H2 2010 improvement 15 10 2 6 16 7 Slide 24
Tank-to-Wheels study Compared Energy Efficiency Gasoline DPF w/o DPF Cold start N.E.D.C. PISI SIDI DIESEL DIESEL CNG CGH2 LH2 CO2 (g/km) 140 138 131 126 107 0 0 ENERGY EFF. (MJ/100km) 190,0 188,0 179,1 171,8 190,8 168,1 168,1 MASS Consump. (kg/100km) 4,43 4,38 4,17 4,00 4,23 1,40 1,40 Cons. NEDC (l/100km) 2010 5,91 5,84 4,99 4,79 5,93 5,22 5,22 Other G.H.G. (g/km) Methane (g/kmco2 eq.) 0,42 0,42 0,21 0,21 0,84 N2O (g/km CO2 eq 0,5 0,5 1,55 1,55 0,5 0,5 0,5 GHG global g/km 140,5 138,9 133,0 127,6 108,8 0,5 0,5 MJ / km on the NEDC (cold) 1,95 Forecast 2010 I.C.E.s 1,90 1,85 1,80 1,75 1,70 1,65 1,60 1,55 PISI SIDI DIESEL DPF DIESEL w.o. DPF CNG CGH2 LH2 Slide 25
Tank-to-Wheels study Compared G.H.G. emissions Gasoline DPF w/o DPF Cold start N.E.D.C. PISI SIDI DIESEL DIESEL CNG CGH2 LH2 CO2 (g/km) 140 138 131 126 107 0 0 ENERGY EFF. (MJ/100km) 190 188 179 172 191 168 168 MASS Consump. (kg/100km) 4.43 4.38 4.17 4.00 4.23 1.40 1.40 Cons. NEDC (l/100km) 2010 5.91 5.84 4.99 4.79 5.93 5.22 5.22 Other G.H.G. (g/km) Methane (g/kmco2 eq.) 0.42 0.42 0.21 0.21 0.84 N2O (g/km CO2 eq 0.5 0.5 1.55 1.55 0.5 0.5 0.5 GHG global g/km 140.5 138.9 133.0 127.6 108.8 0.5 0.5 Fuels/ Vehicles 2010 G.H.G.emissions 2010 s Forecast I.C.E. 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 PISI SIDI DIESEL DPF DIESEL w.o. DPF CNG CGH2 LH2 CO2 on the NEDC (g/km) cold Other GHG global g/km Slide 26
Tank-to-Wheels study Comments : assessments 2010 Hydrogen Fuel Cells : Stack : 80 kw Elect. Motor : 75 kw 200 kg 73 kg Non Hybrid : Fuel : 4.7 kg Pressure Tank : 69 kg (CryoTank : 57 kg ) Hybrid : Fuel : 4.2 kg Pressure Tank : 56 kg Batteries : 20 kg (CryoTank : 51 kg ) Battery Electric range : 20 km Gasoline vehicles : Cycle test weight class : 1250 kg Diesel, Nat.Gas, H2 vehicles : Cycle test weight class : 1360 kg H2 Fuel Cells vehicles : Cycle test weight class : 1470 kg Slide 27
Tank-to-Wheels study Comments : assessments 2010 FC Engine efficiency 60% System Efficiency 50% 40% 30% 20% H2 FC 10% 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % Net Power The Fuel Cell system efficiency maps, implemented in code Advisor, are an average distribution. (Sources : G.M. Opel, European program FUERO, Daimler Chrysler) Slide 28
Tank-to-Wheels study Compared Energy Efficiency Cold start N.E.D.C. PISI DIESEL CNG LH2 ICE CGH2 F.C. CGH2 Hyb. F.C. CO2 (g/km) 140 131 107 0 0 0 ENERGY EFF. (MJ/100km) 190 179 191 168 94 84 MASS Consump. (kg/100km) 4,43 4,17 4,23 1,40 0,78 0,70 Cons. NEDC (l/100km) 2010 5,91 4,99 5,93 5,22 2,92 2,60 Other G.H.G. (g/km) Methane (g/kmco2 eq.) 0,42 0,21 0,84 N2O (g/km CO2 eq 0,5 1,55 0,5 0,5 GHG global g/km 140,5 133,0 108,8 0,5 0,0 0,0 MJ / km on the NEDC (cold) 2,50 Forecast 2010 Direct H2 Fuel Cells 2,00 1,50 1,00 0,50 0,00 PISI DIESEL DPF CNG LH2 ICE CGH2 F.C. CGH2 Hyb. F.C Slide 29
Tank-to-Wheels study Compared G.H.G. emissions Cold start N.E.D.C. PISI DIESEL CNG LH2 ICE CGH2 F.C. CGH2 Hyb. F.C. CO2 (g/km) 140 131 107 0 0 0 ENERGY EFF. (MJ/100km) 190,0 179,1 190,8 168,1 94,0 84,0 MASS Consump. (kg/100km) 4,43 4,17 4,23 1,40 0,78 0,70 Cons. NEDC (l/100km) 2010 5,91 4,99 5,93 5,22 2,92 2,60 Other G.H.G. (g/km) Methane (g/kmco2 eq.) 0,42 0,21 0,84 N2O (g/km CO2 eq 0,5 1,55 0,5 0,5 GHG global g/km 140,5 133,0 108,8 0,5 0,0 0,0 Forecast 2010 Direct H2 Fuel Cells 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 PISI DIESEL DPF CNG LH2 ICE CGH2 F.C. CGH2 Hyb. F.C. CO2 on the NEDC (g/km) cold Other GHG global g/km Slide 30
WELL-TO-WHEELS Slide 31
Well-to-Wheels analysis SELECTED PATHWAYS The following WTW integration aims at comparing: 2002 / 2010 technologies Gasoline, Diesel, NG Conventionals and H 2 ICE, Direct & Hybrid FC Diesel & Gasoline Fossil Fuel CNG 4000 km Fuelled by for Conventionals Compressed H2 CH 2,NG 4000 km, on-site reforming CH 2 and LH 2, NG 4000 km, central reforming CH 2, LNG, central reforming CH2, farmed wood, gasifier on-site CH2, farmed wood, gasifier central CH 2, EU-mix electricity, electrolysis on-site CH2, EU-mix coal, gasifier central Liquid H2 LH 2, NG 4000 km, central reforming LH2, remote reforming LH 2, LNG, central reforming LH2, farmed wood, gasifier central LH 2, EU-mix electricity, electrolysis central LH2, NG 4000 km, CCGT, electrolysis cent for ICE, Direct & Hybrid FC Slide 32
10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 LH2, NG 4000 km, electrolysis central Well-to-Wheels analysis ICE H2 vs conventional pathways WTW, 2010 technologies, hydrogen ICE ICE ICE ICE Conventionals Compressed H 2 Liquid H 2 Slide 33 Gasoline SIDI Diesel CIDI dpf Diesel CIDI CNG, 4000 km CH2, NG 4000 km, ref on-site 2002-2010 performance range TTW WTT CH2, NG 4000 km,ref central, pipeline CH2, LNG, ref central CH2, farmed wood, gasifier on-site CH2, farmed wood, gasifier central CH2, EU-mix elec, electrolysis on-site CH2, Coal EU-mix, gasifier LH2, NG 4000 km, ref central LH2, ref remote LH2, LNG, ref central LH2, farmed wood, gasifier central LH2, EU-mix elec, electrolysis central Gasoline PISI MJ/km
450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Well-to-Wheels analysis ICE H 2 vs conventional pathways WTW, 2010 technologies, Hydrogen ICE ICE ICE ICE Conventionals Compressed H 2 Liquid H 2 Gasoline SIDI Diesel CIDI dpf Diesel CIDI CNG, 4000 km CH2, NG 4000 km, ref on-site CH2, NG 4000 km,ref central, pipeline CH2, LNG, ref central CH2, farmed wood, gasifier on-site CH2, farmed wood, gasifier central CH2, EU-mix elec, electrolysis on-site CH2, Coal EU-mix, gasifier LH2, NG 4000 km, ref central LH2, ref remote LH2, LNG, ref central LH2, farmed wood, gasifier central 2002-2010 performance range TTW WTT LH2, EU-mix elec, electrolysis central LH2, NG 4000 km, electrolysis central Slide 34 Gasoline PISI g CO2eq/km
Well-to-Wheels assessment Fuels / Vehicles assumptions 2010 Remarks for ICE Global Primary Energy Intensity: for all fossil energy sources, used in ICE: LH2 > CGH2 > Conventional fuels Highest energy use ------------------------------------------------------------------------Lowest energy use GHG global impact : Direct use of NG as CNG better than hydrogen Hydrogen ICE more GHG-intensive than conventional engines/fuels Electrolysis worst option unless electricity is from renewable source Coal could only compete with CO 2 sequestration Renewable sources obviously give best GHG but Are there alternative use for these? Slide 35
6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Well-to-Wheels analysis Fuel Cell vs conventional pathways WTW, 2010 technologies, hydrogen FC ICE FC FC Conventionals Compressed H 2 Liquid H 2 Diesel CIDI CNG, 4000 km CH2, NG 4000 km, ref on-site CH2, NG 4000 km, ref on-site, Hybrid CH2, NG 4000 km,ref central, pipeline CH2, LNG, ref central CH2, farmed wood, gasifier on-site CH2, farmed wood, gasifier central CH2, EU-mix elec, electrolysis on-site CH2, Coal EU-mix, gasifier LH2, NG 4000 km, ref central LH2, ref remote LH2, LNG, ref central LH2, farmed wood, gasifier central 2002-2010 performance range LH2, EU-mix elec, electrolysis central LH2, NG 4000 km, electrolysis central TTW WTT Slide 36 MJ/km Gasoline PISI Gasoline SIDI Diesel CIDI dpf
250 200 150 100 50 0 Well-to-Wheels analysis FC vs conventional pathways WTW, 2010 technologies, Hydrogen FC ICE FC FC Conventionals Compressed H 2 Liquid H 2 2002-2010 performance range TTW WTT Slide 37 Diesel CIDI dpf Diesel CIDI CNG, 4000 km CH2, NG 4000 km, ref on-site CH2, NG 4000 km, ref on-site, Hybrid CH2, NG 4000 km,ref central, pipeline CH2, LNG, ref central CH2, farmed wood, gasifier on-site CH2, farmed wood, gasifier central CH2, EU-mix elec, electrolysis on-site CH2, Coal EU-mix, gasifier LH2, NG 4000 km, ref central LH2, ref remote LH2, LNG, ref central LH2, farmed wood, gasifier central LH2, EU-mix elec, electrolysis central LH2, NG 4000 km, electrolysis central g CO2eq/km Gasoline PISI Gasoline SIDI
Well-to-Wheels assessment Fuels / Vehicles ICE - F.C. 2010 Remarks Global Primary Energy Intensity: for all fossil sources: LH 2 /FC ~ conventional ICEs > CH 2 /FC Highest energy use ------------------------------------------------------------------------Lowest energy use GHG global impact : H 2 Fuel Cells, even with H2 from NG, compare favourably with conventional fuels ICE s Worst option remains Electrolysis from EU-mix power ICE hybrids still to be calculated Slide 38