Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
h i g h l i g h t s
Operational GHG emissions and energy demand are found for alternative drivetrains.
Well-to-wheel results are compared for several H2/electricity production pathways.
Pluggable electric cars (PECs) yield the lowest WTW GHG emissions and energy demand.
Fuel cell car WTW results are on par with PECs for direct chemical H2 production.
ICE and hybrid cars using biogas and CNG also yield some of the lowest WTW results.
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 4 June 2013
Received in revised form
9 September 2013
Accepted 12 October 2013
Available online 21 October 2013
This study provides a comprehensive analysis of well-to-wheel (WTW) primary energy demand and
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the operation of conventional and alternative passenger vehicle
drivetrains. Results are determined based on a reference vehicle, drivetrain/production process efciencies, and lifecycle inventory data specic to Switzerland. WTW performance is compared to a gasoline internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV). Both industrialized and novel hydrogen and electricity
production pathways are evaluated. A strong case is presented for pluggable electric vehicles (PEVs) due
to their high drivetrain efciency. However, WTW performance strongly depends on the electricity
source. A critical electricity mix can be identied which divides optimal drivetrain performance between
the EV, ICEV, and plug-in hybrid vehicle. Alternative drivetrain and energy carrier production pathways
are also compared by natural resource. Fuel cell vehicle (FCV) performance proves to be on par with PEVs
for energy carrier (EC) production via biomass and natural gas resources. However, PEVs outperform
FCVs via solar energy EC production pathways. ICE drivetrains using alternative fuels, particularly biogas
and CNG, yield remarkable WTW energy and emission reductions as well, indicating that alternative
fuels, and not only alternative drivetrains, play an important role in the transition towards low-emission
vehicles in Switzerland.
2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Well-to-wheel
Vehicle
Emissions
Energy demand
Hydrogen production
Lifecycle
1. Introduction
The transportation sector is the largest contributor to GHG
emissions in Switzerland, accounting for over 30% of annual
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 41 78 881 6274; fax: 41 44 632 1102.
E-mail addresses: mashael.yazdanie@gmail.com, yazdanie@lav.mavt.ethz.ch
(M. Yazdanie), noembrini@lav.mavt.ethz.ch (F. Noembrini), lionel.dossetto@
accenture.com (L. Dossetto), boulouchos@lav.mavt.ethz.ch (K. Boulouchos).
0378-7753/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.10.043
emissions (see Fig. 1a). Passenger cars alone account for nearly 70%
of emissions within this sector (Fig. 1b). The Swiss passenger car
eet today is dominated by gasoline and diesel internal combustion
engine (ICE) vehicles; however, several alternative drivetrain
technologies and energy carriers exist with the potential to reduce
transportation sector emissions. Alternative drivetrains include
hydrogen fuel cell, battery-electric, and hybrid-electric drivetrains;
and alternative energy carriers include hydrogen, electricity,
biogas, and CNG.
334
Fig. 1. Annual GHG emissions in Switzerland by sector (a) [1] and within the transportation sector (b) [2].
gasication. For instance, Huang and Zhang examine the well-towheel energy demand and GHG emissions for hydrogen production via steam methane reforming, coal gasication, and electrolysis for fuel cell vehicles in Ref. [3]. Campanari et al. also perform a
WTW analysis for the same hydrogen production pathways in Ref.
[4], but they consider ICE, electric, and hybrid fuel cell vehicles, in
addition to fuel cell vehicles. Comparative assessments for a similar
range of drivetrains are presented in Refs. [5,6,7,8,9,10], but again,
the range of hydrogen and electricity generation pathways is
limited to conventional means. An exergetic lifecycle assessment
(LCA) focused on hydrogen production via electrolysis and SMR for
automotive applications is also presented in Refs. [11,12].
This study is novel in three respects. First, it provides a
comprehensive, comparative analysis which considers the performance of both commercially-mature and novel hydrogen production processes, multiple electricity generation pathways, and
several alternative drivetrains. Second, it applies directly to the
Swiss situation; and third, the analysis offers a unique comparison
of drivetrain and energy carrier production pathways based on
natural resource categorizations.
2. Objective
The objective of this investigation is to determine the well-towheel primary energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions
associated with the operation of a number of drivetrains, while
considering an array of possible hydrogen and electricity production pathways.
The aim is to identify the drivetrain and production pathways
which demonstrate the greatest potential to reduce operational
WTW energy demand and GHG emissions compared to a conventional gasoline ICE vehicle (ICEV) in the Swiss context. Several
possible natural resource pathways are considered. A reference
passenger vehicle is dened and serves as the basis for this comparison. Vehicle congurations improving upon the WTW energy
demand and GHG emissions of the gasoline ICEV are denoted as
competitive options for the purposes of this study.
3. Background information
The following sections provide information on the hydrogen
production processes and electricity mixes evaluated in this
investigation.
3.1. Hydrogen production processes
3.1.1. Electrolysis
3.1.1.1. Low temperature electrolysis. Electrolysis is a process in
which a direct electric current is applied to water via electrodes in
Concentrated Solar
Energy
Solar Reactor
ZnO = Zn +0.5O2
H2O
0.5 O2
Zn
Hydrolysis Reactor
Zn +H2O = ZnO + H2
ZnO
H2
335
CO H2 O/CO2 H2
Hydrogen is then isolated using a separation technique, such as
pressure swing adsorption.
Two gasication processes are investigated: coal gasication
and biomass gasication.
3.1.4.1. Coal gasication. Coal gasication is one of the oldest fossil
fuel-based methods for hydrogen production. Coal is heated in a
restricted supply of air (a process known as destructive distillation
or pyrolysis), resulting in a mixture of H2, CH4, and CO, together
with tar and coke [20]. Alternatively, heated coal can also be reacted
with steam to produce syngas. Subsequent separation techniques
are then applied, yielding hydrogen gas [20].
The main energy input to this process is coal. The study by Rand
and Dell in Ref. [20] is applied in this investigation. Pittsburgh no. 8
bituminous coal is used in a central, large-scale facility. It is
assumed that the substitution of other coal types does not affect
system efciency.
3.1.4.2. Biomass gasication. Biomass gasication is the most
widely utilized process for biomass to hydrogen gas conversion, as
it has a high process efciency compared to other thermal biomass
conversion methods [21,22].
The main energy inputs to this process are biomass, natural gas,
and electricity. In this study, woody biomass is used with a nal
moisture content between 5 and 17.5 wt% [22]. Electricity is
required for gasication and natural gas is required by the steam
reformer for burner control.
336
CH consumer
mix (%)
3.1
2.2
51.1
38.0
56.6
0.3
2.1
0.0
41.1
33.8
0.1
2.0
20.7
31.6
12.7
3.1
1.4
0.0
Electricity source
1. Low temperature
electrolysis
2. High temperature
electrolysis
3. Solar thermochemical
dissociation of ZnO via
solar
thermal dissociation
4. Direct and indirect
photobiological splitting
using the enzyme
hydrogenase or nitrogenase
5. Coal gasication
6. Biomass gasication
7. Steam methane
reforming
8. Steam ethanol
reforming
9. Partial oxidation
1. Nuclear power
2. Combined cycle plant (CCP)
using natural gas
3. Coal power plant (steam)
4. Oil power plant
5. Waste incineration
6. Combined heat and power
plant (CHP) using wood
7. CHP using diesel
8. CHP using natural gas
9. CHP using biogas (from organic
waste and sewage sludge fermentation)
10. Wind power
11. Photovoltaic power
12. Hydropower
13. Pumped storage
14. Swiss (CH) production mix
15. CH consumer mix
16. Union for the Coordination of the
Transmission of Electricity (UCTE) mix
Table 3
Vehicle drivetrain denitions.
Abbreviation
Drivetrain denition
ICEVGas
ICEVDies
ICEVCNG
ICEVBio
EV
FCV
HEVGas
HEVCNG
HEVBio
PH-ICEVGas
PH-FCV
(LCA) analyses according to International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) guidelines in Refs. [32,33].
The following assumptions have been made in this study
regarding secondary energy inputs.
4.2.1.1. Methane. Methane is not explicitly dened in Ref. [31].
However, natural gas consists of approximately 90% methane and is
therefore assumed as the methane source in this study [34].
4.2.1.2. Ethanol. Ethanol is assumed to derive from the fermentation of biomass (wood chips) in this study. The ethanol production
process is assumed to have an efciency of 28.12% according to
Ref. [35]. By applying this efciency to the primary energy factor for
wood chips (1.14 MJPE/MJ), the primary energy factor for the production of ethanol can be estimated as:
PEethanol
1:14
MJPE
4:05
0:2812
MJethanol
Gray energy for ethanol production has not been taken into
consideration; hence, this value slightly underestimates the true
primary energy factor.
E_
hH2 Pn H2 _
Ei
i1
Table 4
Reference vehicle denition.
Base vehicle mass including powertrain (excluding
addition of battery/fuel cell system):
Equivalent ICE power:
Manufacturing year:
Battery-electric range for plug-in hybrid vehicles:
Electric range for full battery-electric and fuel
cell vehicles:
Li-ion battery specic energy density:
Fuel cell specic weight:
Total distance driven by a vehicle in its lifetime:
337
where:
1350 kg
70 kW
2010
60 km
180 km
150 Wh kg1 [29]
3 kg kW1 [30]
150 000 km
338
Section 4.2.2
Hydrogen Production
Process Efficiency (H2)
Power
Generation
& Energy
Conversion
Primary
Energy
Secondary
Energy
(electricity,
fuels, etc.)
Hydrogen
Production
Process
Section 4.2.1
Primary Energy Demand & GHG
Emissions for Secondary Energy
Production
PEsec [MJPE / MJeq]
GHGsec [kg CO2-eq / MJeq]
Section 4.2.4
Drivetrain Consumption (cDT)
Hydrogen
Section 4.2.3
Primary Energy Demand &
GHG Emissions for
Hydrogen Production
PEH2 [MJPE / MJH2]
GHGH2 [kg CO2-eq / MJH2]
Vehicle
Drivetrain
Propulsion
Energy
Section 4.2.5
Primary Energy Demand &
GHG Emissions for Vehicle
Propulsion (Drivetrain)
PEDT [MJPE / km]
GHGDT [kg CO2-eq / km]
Fig. 3. PE demand and GHG emissions ow diagram for vehicle drivetrains from resource extraction to vehicle propulsion; lightly shaded energy ows do not apply in all cases.
PEH2
n
X
Wi PEsec;i
i1
hH2
where:
PEH2 is the primary energy demand for the hydrogen production
process (MJPE/MJH2)
PEsec,i is the primary energy demand for the secondary energy
input i (MJPE/MJsec)
Wi is the weight of input i, as a fraction of the total input energy.
That is:
E_
Wi Pn i
_
j 1 Ej
Analogously, the greenhouse gas emissions for the given
hydrogen production process is given by:
GHGH2
n
X
Wi GHGsec;i
i1
hH2
where:
GHGH2 is the greenhouse gas emission for the hydrogen production process (kg CO2-eq/MJH2)
GHGsec,i is the greenhouse gas emission for the secondary energy input i (kg CO2-eq/MJsec)
The source of electricity is assumed to be the Swiss production
mix for all non-electrolysis hydrogen production processes which
require electricity as an input. (Electricity accounts for less than 5%
of the total energy input in these cases.) Several electricity sources
are investigated for electrolysis processes.
Once again, it is noted that not all gray energy associated with
hydrogen production processes has been accounted for (e.g., for
plant construction and maintenance). Hence, this calculation underestimates the true primary energy and GHG emission factors for
hydrogen production.
4.2.4. Energy carrier consumption rates of drivetrains
The gasoline ICE drivetrain consumption rate is approximated
using manufacturer specications for the reference vehicle, which
are calculated according to the EU automotive directive 80/1268/
EEC, Fuel Consumption of Motor Vehicles [37].
Appropriate relative performance factors are applied to the base
consumption rate according to Ref. [38] in order to determine
alternative drivetrain consumption rates. The structural mass increase due to the battery and/or fuel cell system is accounted for. All
vehicles maintain equal power to mass ratios in order to guarantee
comparable performance across drivetrains.
The electric share (ES) of a plug-in hybrid vehicle refers to the
ratio of the distance driven electrically to the total distance traveled
by a vehicle in its lifetime. It is based on the all-electric range (AER)
of the battery and on the distribution of trip lengths made by
the vehicle. For an AER of 60 km, the electric share is assumed to be
46% [39].
Drivetrain consumption rate estimations vary according to
driving cycles and vehicle designs, but these variations are not
critical to overall trends and relative behaviors.
4.2.5. Primary energy demand and GHG emissions for vehicle
propulsion
The WTW primary energy demand and GHG emissions for each
vehicle drivetrain can be determined using the following equation:
PEDT
m
X
PEi Ci
i1
where:
PEDT is the primary energy demand for the given vehicle
drivetrain (MJPE/km)
PEi is the primary energy demand for energy carrier i (this can
be PEsec or PEH2,depending on the drivetrain) (MJPE/
MJenergy_carrier)
89.7%
54.5%
71.9%
64.9%
0.165 GJ/kgH2d (99%)
0.002 GJ/kgH2 (1%)
0.009 GJ/kgH2 (5%)
346,984 GJ/a
(98%)
1408 kJ (100%)
2816 kJ (100%)
2112 kJ (100%)
3520 kJ (100%)
Steam reforming
Thermochemical
dissociation [40]
Photobiological
Direct-hydrogenase
splitting [19]
Direct-nitrogenase
Indirect-hydrogenase
Indirect-nitrogenase
Gasication
Coal gasication [23]
Electricity
Hydrogen production PE demand and GHG emissions are presented rst, followed by drivetrain well-to-wheel PE demand and
GHG emissions.
Electrolysis
Process input
Hydrogen production
process
Table 5
Hydrogen production process efciencies according to sources indicated; input shares shown as percentage of total in brackets.
0.271 GJ/kgH2c,d
(100%)
Biomass
0.251 GJ/kgH2c,d
(96%)
Ethanol
0.12 GJ/kgH2d
0.176 GJ/kgH2c,d 0.12 GJ/kgH2d
(95%)
0.721 MJ/kgH2d,d
0.438 MJ/kgH2e,d
45.6%
0.12 GJ/kgH2d
40.7%
20.3%
27.1%
16.3%
44.3%
GHGi Ci
i1
572.5 kJ
572.5 kJ
572.5 kJ
572.5 kJ
0.12 GJ/kgH2d
m
X
28.3%
GHGDT
100,300 GJ/ac
62.5%
83.3%
339
0.12 GJ/kgH2b
0.12 GJ/kgH2d
340
Table 6
Tank-to-wheel drivetrain consumption ratios based on reference vehicle.
Vehicle
46%
46%
1.71
1.41
1.19
0.62
0.97
0.93
0.89
1.00
0.82
0.69
0.36
0.57
0.54
0.52
1.71
1.41
1.19
ICEVGas/CNG/Bio
ICEVDies
HEVGas/CNG/Bio
EV
FCV
PH-ICEVGas
PH-FCV
a
Electric share
Hydrogen
0.62
0.97
0.67
0.26
0.33
0.56
Charging and discharging efciencies have been considered for battery-electric vehicles.
Table 7
Drivetrain mass and power.
Vehicle
Mass (kg)
Power (kW)
ICEVDies
HEVGas/CNG/Bio
EV
FCV
PH-ICEVGas
PH-FCV
1350
1389
1634
1771
1461
1881
70
72
85
92
76
98
600
H2 Production Process
Low Temp. Electrolysis
CP
500
Coal Gasification
OP
Biomass Gasification
Solar Thermal Dissociation
400
CHP D
CP
CHP NG
300
Partial Oxidation
OP
CK
Photobiological Splitting
BQ
CHP D
CHP NG
200
UCTE
CCP NG
UCTE
CCP NG
61
100
P. St
CHP B
100
CHP B
Wst. P
HP
0
0.00
1.00
P. St
CH-CM
PV
CHP W
CH-PM PV
D-H CHP Geo.
PL
Wnd. P
Nuc.
WC
HP
CH-PM
WL
2.00
3.00
4.00
CH-CM
CHP W
IN-H
CHP Geo.
5.00
IN-N
D-N
Nuc.
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
Coal Briquette
P St.:
Pumped Storage
PL:
Pellets
CHP NG:
HP:
PV:
Photovoltaic
CHP W:
Combined Heat
and Power Plant
(CHP) Wood
CH-CM:
Swiss Consumer
Mix
CH-PM:
Swiss Production
Mix
CK:
Coal Coke
CP:
CHP B:
CHP Biogas
D-H:
CHP D:
CHP Diesel
Direct Hydrogenase
Hydropower
61:
Assuming 61%
reactant
conversion
100:
Assuming 100%
reactant
conversion
Wood Log
Fig. 4. PE demand and GHG emissions for H2 production processes; symbols indicate production process; abbreviations indicate energy source and/or process technology.
341
6.1.3. Overall
Process performance is highly dependent on the secondary
energy source utilized. This is especially apparent in the case of
electrolysis. The electricity source or mix plays a critical role in
energy demand and emissions performance.
6.2. Drivetrain WTW primary energy demand and GHG emissions
Well-to-wheel primary energy demand and GHG emissions are
presented for direct and indirect electricity conversion pathways,
followed by direct chemical conversion pathways only.
Direct electricity conversion pathways refer to PEV electrication. Indirect electricity conversion pathways refer to hydrogen
production via electrolysis for FCVs.
250
CP
EV (Ren.)
(
)
200
Reference
Vehicle
R
f
V hi l
ICEV Gasoline
WT
TW GHG Emiss
E
sions
s (g C
CO2-e
eq/km
m)
OP
HEV Gasoline
150
CP
OP
CHP D
CHP NG
CHP D
CHP NG
UCTE
UCTE
100
CCP NG
CCP NG
CH-CM
CHP B
HP
Wst. P
PV
Wnd. P
CH-PM
P. St
CHP W
Nuc.
CHP Geo.
50
P. St
CHP B
CH-CM
CHP W
PV
HP
Wst P
Wst.
0
0.00
0.50
Wnd. P
1.00
CHP Geo.
CH-PM
CH
PM
1.50
2.00
Nuc
Nuc.
2.50
3.00
Combined Cycle
Plant (CCP) Natural
Gas
CH-CM:
CH-PM:
B
CHP B:
CHP Bi
Biogas
CHP D:
CHP Diesel
CHP Nat
Natural
ral Gas
CHP W:
Combined Heat
and Power Plant
(CHP) Wood
CP:
HP:
Hydropower
Nuc.:
OP:
UCTE:
P St.:
Pumped Storage
W
d P
dP
Wnd.
P: Wi
Wind
Power
PV:
Photovoltaic
Wst. P:
Wst
P St
St.::
Pumped Storage
Fig. 5. WTW energy demand and GHG emissions for EV and PH-ICEV drivetrains for various electricity sources based on reference vehicle characteristics; hollow markers indicate
renewable energy source; solid markers indicate non-renewable energy source.
342
(a)
CP
OP
CHP D
CHP NG
UCTE
CP
CCP NG
OP
CHP D
CHP NG
UCTE
CHP B
Wnd. P
Wst. P
Wst. P
(b)
HP
P. St
CCP NG
CHP B
PV
CH-CM
PV
P. St
CHP W
Nuc.
CHP Geo.
CHP W
Wnd. P
CH-CM
HP
CH-PM
CHP Geo.
CH-PM
Nuc.
600
PEV/H Vehicle
FCV (Non-Ren.)
(N R )
FCV (Ren
(Ren.))
EV (Non-Ren.)
500
EV (Ren.)
WTW
W GH
HG Emiss
E
sions
s (g C
CO -e
eq/km
m)
Reference Vehicle
ICEV Gasoline
400
HEV Gasoline
CP
300
OP
CHP D
CP
CHP NG
200
OP
CHP D
UCTE
CCP NG
CHP NG
UCTE
100
CCP NG
CHP B
P St
P.
CHP B
Wnd. P
Wnd. P PV
HP
Wst. P
CH PM
CH-PM
Wst. P
HP
0
0.00
1.00
PV
P
P. St
CHP W
CH-PM
N
Nuc.
CHP Geo.
CH-CM
CH CM
2.00
3.00
CH-CM
CHP W
CHP Geo.
Nuc.
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
Fig. 6. WTW energy demand and GHG emissions for EV and FCV drivetrains for various electricity sources based on reference vehicle characteristics; hollow markers indicate
renewable energy source; solid markers indicate non-renewable energy source. (a): hydrogen production via low temperature electrolysis. (b): hydrogen production via high
temperature electrolysis.
343
300
PEV/H2 Vehicle
CG (CK)
FCV
CG (CK) - CP
PH-FCV
W
WTW
GHG
G Em
missio
ons ((g CO
O2-eq
q/km))
250
CG (BQ)
CG (BQ) - CP
PH-ICEV Gas
CP
EV
200
Reference Vehicle
ICE Gasoline
150
ICE CNG
CP
ICE Biogas
ICE Diesel
100
HEV G
Gasoline
li
HEV CNG
50
0
0.00
HEV Biogas
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
(BQ): C
Coall gasification:
ifi ti
b
i
tt
CG (BQ)
briquette
Fig. 7. WTW energy demand and GHG emissions via direct coal energy conversion pathways for drivetrains based on reference vehicle characteristics.
344
(a)
180
PEV/H2 Vehicle
FCV
WT
TW GHG
G
Emis
ssion
ns (g CO
C 2-e
eq/km
m)
160
PH-FCV
PH-ICEV Gas
140
120
CHP NG
PO (61) - CHP NG
CHP NG
SMR - CHP NG
PO (61)
EV
Reference Vehicle
ICE Gasoline
100
ICE CNG
SMR
ICE Biogas
Bi
80
ICE Diesel
HEV Gasoline
60
HEV CNG
40
HEV Biogas
20
0
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
(b)
180
PEV/H2 Vehicle
FCV
WTW G
W
GHG Emis
ssion
ns (g CO2--eq/km
m)
160
PH-FCV
PH-ICEV Gas
140
EV
PO (61)
120
Reference Vehicle
ICE Gasoline
G
li
PO (61) - CCP NG
100
CCP NG
ICE CNG
SMR - CCP NG
SMR
CCP NG
ICE Biogas
80
ICE Diesel
HEV Gasoline
60
HEV CNG
HEV Biogas
40
20
0
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Fig. 8. WTW energy demand and GHG emissions via direct natural gas conversion pathways for drivetrains based on reference vehicle characteristics. (a): electricity generation via
CHP; exergy-based CHP burden allocation. (b): electricity generation via CCP.
345
350
ICEV Gas
76% Elec / 24% Heat
300
WTW GHG Emissions (g CO2-eq/km)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
180
PEV/H2 Vehicle
V hi l
FCV
160
FCV
PH
PH-FCV
WT
TW GHG
G
Emis
ssion
ns (g CO2-e
eq/km
m)
PH-ICEV Gas
140
EV
Reference Vehicle
120
ICE Gasoline
ICE CNG
100
ICE Biogas
ICE Diesel
80
CHP W
HEV Gasoline
60
HEV CNG
SER
HEV Biogas
SER - CHP W
40
BG (PL)
CHP W
20
BG (WL) - CHP W
BG (WL)
0
0 00
0.00
1.00
1 00
BG (PL) - CHP W
BG (WCH) - CHP W
BG (WCH)
2
2.00
00
3 00
3.00
4
4.00
00
5.00
5 00
6
6.00
00
WTW Energy
gy Demand ((MJPE/km))
Electricity Source
CHP W:
Biomass G
Gasification:
ifi ti
BG (PL)
(PL): Bi
Pellets
SER
SER: St
f
i
Steam Eth
Ethanoll R
Reforming
Biomass Gasification:
Wood Log
Fig. 10. WTW energy demand and GHG emissions via direct biomass (wood) energy conversion pathways for drivetrains based on reference vehicle characteristics.
346
7. Conclusion
This study presents a comprehensive comparison of operational
well-to-wheel energy demand and GHG emissions for different
passenger car drivetrain technologies and energy carrier production pathways. All energy carrier WTW results pertain to end-use in
180
V hi l
PEV/H2 Vehicle
FCV
160
PH
FCV
PH-FCV
PH-ICEV Gas
WT
TW GHG
G
Emiss
E
sions
s (g C
CO2-e
eq/km
m)
140
EV
Reference Vehicle
120
ICE Gasoline
ICE CNG
100
ICE Biogas
ICE Diesel
80
HEV Gasoline
PV
60
HEV CNG
HEV Biogas
PS (IN-N)
PS (IN-N) - PV
40
PS (D-N) - PV
PS (IN-H) - PV
PS (D-H) - PV
PV
20
0
0
0.00
00
1
1.00
00
2
2.00
00
STD - PV
PS (D-H)
(D H)
3
3.00
00
STD
4 00
4.00
PS (D-N)
(D N)
(IN-H)
PS (IN
H)
5
5.00
00
6.00
6 00
7 00
7.00
8
8.00
00
9
9.00
00
WTW Energy
gy Demand (MJ
( PE/km))
Electricity Source
PV: Photovoltaic Power
Hydrogen Production Process and Energy Source
PS (D-H): Photobiological Splitting:
Direct - Hydrogenase
STD:
Fig. 11. WTW energy demand and GHG emissions via direct solar energy conversion pathways for drivetrains based on reference vehicle characteristics.
347
WTW energy demand and GHG emissions of the ICEVGas. ICEV and
HEV drivetrains using alternative fuels, particularly biogas and
CNG, also resulted in remarkable reductions. In the case of biogas,
for example, reductions were over 50% compared to the ICEVGas.
The HEVCNG also resulted in the lowest WTW energy demand and
GHG emissions of all natural gas-based pathways evaluated. Hence,
alternative fuel sources, and not only alternative drivetrain technologies, play a key role in improving WTW energy demand and
GHG emissions. This is a positive outcome in light of the implementation and infrastructure challenges associated with alternative drivetrain technologies.
7.4. Results in context
The results of this study serve as valuable inputs not only
for policy decision-makers and technology experts in Switzerland,
but also internationally. Switzerland differs from other European
and non-European countries in that it enjoys a low-emission
electricity mix due to the predominance of hydro and nuclear power. However, regions using alternative mixes can derive relative
results and benet from key observations from this study given
technical similarities in drivetrain technologies and energy carrier
production processes worldwide.
Several observations in this investigation agree with ndings
from earlier studies performed in the context of both developing
and developed countries. For instance, in the case of fossil fuelbased electrolysis for FCV hydrogen production in China, coal also
yields higher WTW GHG emissions than a gasoline ICE, while steam
methane reforming yields signicant emission reductions [3]. The
sensitivity of PEV energy demand and emissions to the electricity
generation method is also observed in Refs. [6,9,10], and the
sensitivity of FCV performance to hydrogen production processes is
observed in Ref. [8]. Renewable energy-based pathways, including
solar and wind energy-based electrolysis, are suggested as potential pathways to reduce non-renewable resource consumption in
Ref. [11] as well.
Results from prior studies, together with the insights offered by
this investigation into a wider range of energy carrier production
processes and natural resource categorizations, provide a useful
relative analysis with global applications.
In order to build a more comprehensive study, further investigations should additionally consider the WTW energy demand
and GHG emissions for vehicle production, maintenance, and
disposal, as well as costs.
Acknowledgments
The LAV thanks the Swiss Federal Ofce of Energy for its funding
support.
References
[1] Federal Ofce for the Environment, Development of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Various Sectors, 2011. http://www.news.admin.ch/NSBSubs
criber/message/attachments/30296.pdf (accessed 30.04.13).
[2] Federal Ofce for the Environment, Environment Switzerland 2011, 2011.
http://www.bafu.admin.ch/umwelt/10822/10823/index.html?langen
(accessed 30.04.13).
[3] Z. Huang, X. Zhang, Energy 31 (2006) 471e489.
[4] S. Campanari, G. Manzolini, F. Garcia de la Iglesia, J. Power Sources 186 (2009)
464e477.
[5] M.A. Weiss, J.B. Heywood, E.M. Drake, A. Schafer, F.F. AuYeung, On the Road in
2020: a Life-cycle Analysis of New Automobile Technologies, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 2000.
[6] M. Granovskii, I. Dincer, M.A. Rosen, J. Power Sources 159 (2006) 1186e1193.
[7] O.P.R. van Vliet, T. Kruithof, W.C. Turkenburg, A.P.C. Faaij, J. Power Sources 195
(2009) 6570e6585.
[8] M. Wang, J. Power Sources 112 (2002) 307e321.
348
[9] O. van Vilet, A.S. Brouwerb, T. Kuramochib, M. van den Broekb, A. Faaijb,
J. Power Sources 196 (2011) 2298e2310.
[10] A. Elgowainy, A. Burnham, M. Wang, J. Molburg, A. Rousseau, Well-to-wheels
Energy use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles,
SAE Int., 2009.
[11] M. Granovski, I. Dincer, M.A. Rosen, J. Power Sources 167 (2007) 461e471.
[12] M. Neelis, H. van der Kooia, J. Geerlingsb, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 29 (2004)
537e545.
[13] T. Drennen, J. Rosthal, Pathways to a Hydrogen Future, Elsevier Ltd., Heidelberg, 2007.
[14] T. Ramsden, U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen and Fuels Cells Program,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 28 May 2008. http://www.hydrogen.
energy.gov/h2a_prod_studies.html (accessed 01.03.10).
[15] D. Mears, U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program,
Technology Insights, 28 May 2008. http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/h2a_
prod_studies.html (accessed 01.03.10).
[16] A. Steinfeld, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 27 (2002) 611e619.
[17] A.W. Weimer, C. Perkins, P. Lichty, H. Funke, J. Zartman, D. Hirsch, C. Bingham,
A. Lewandowski, S. Haussener, A. Steinfeld, Development of a Solar-thermal
ZnO/Zn Water-splitting. Final Report (DE-PS36e03GO93007), National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1 April 2009, http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/
pdfs/development_solar-thermal_zno.pdf (accessed 03.05.13).
[18] U.S. Department of Energy, Solar and Wind Technologies for Hydrogen Production e Report to Congress (ESECS EE-3060), U.S. Department of Energy,
December 2005. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/
solar_wind_for_hydrogen_dec2005.pdf (accessed 01.05.13).
[19] R.C. Prince, H.S. Kheshgi, Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 31 (2005) 19e31.
[20] D.A.J. Rand, R.M. Dell, J. Power Sources 144 (2005) 568e578.
[21] A.S.F. Tong, K.C.K. Lai, K.T.W. Ng, D.C.W. Tsang, T. Liu, J. Liu, J. Hu, W. Zhang,
I.M.C. Lo, Pract. Period. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste Manage. 11 (2007)
177e183.
[22] K.J. Ptasinski, Int. J. Altern. Propul. 2 (2008) 39e49.
[23] M. Rutkowski, U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 8 May 2008. http://www.hydrogen.
energy.gov/h2a_prod_studies.html (accessed 01.03.10).
[24] G.A. Mills, E.E. Ecklund, Annu. Rev. Energy 12 (1987) 47e80.
[25] U.S. Energy Information Administration, The Impact of Increased use of
Hydrogen on Petroleum Consumption and CO2 Emissions, U.S. Department of
Energy, August 2008. http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/hydro/ (accessed
01.05.13).
[26] S. Rabe, T. Truong, F. Vogel, Appl. Catal. A. Gen. 318 (2007) 54e62.
[27] R. Frischknecht, M. Tuchschmid, M. Faist-Emmenegger, C. Bauer, R. Dones,
Strommix und Stromnetz. Ecoinvent Report No. 6, ESU-services Ltd, 2007,
http://www.poli.br/wcardim/PEC/Ecoinvent%20LCA/ecoinventReports/06_
XVI_Strommix.pdf (accessed 01.05.13).
[28] B. Brunner, P. Farago, Evaluation Einfhrung der Stromkennzeichnung, Bundesamt fr Energie, 1 December 2007. http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/
00612/00614/?langen&dossier_id00667 (accessed 01.05.13).
[29] G. Majeau-Bettez, T.R. Hawkins, A.H. Strmman, Environ. Sci. Technol. 45
(2011) 4548e4554.
[30] P. Dietrich, Expert Interview, 2009. Zurich.
[31] R. Frischknecht, M. Tuchschmid, R. Itten, Primrenergiefaktoren von Energiesystemen, ESU-services Ltd., 2011. http://www.esu-services.ch/leadmin/
download/Energiesysteme_v2.2_2011.pdf (accessed 01.11.11).
[32] International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Environmental Management e Life Cycle Assessment e Principles and Framework, ISO 14040:
2006, second ed., ISO, Geneva, 2006.
[33] International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Environmental Management e Life Cycle Assessment e Requirements and Guidelines, ISO 14044:
2006, rst ed., ISO, Geneva, 2006.
[34] The NEED Project, Natural Gas, 2012. http://www.need.org/needpdf/
infobook_activities/SecInfo/NGasS.pdf (accessed 01.05.13).
[35] E. Jungbluth, F. Dinkel, G. Doka, M. Chudacoff, A. Dauriat, M. Spielmann,
J. Sutter, N. Kljun, M. Keller, K. Schleiss, Life Cycle Inventories of Bioenergy.
Final Report Ecoinvent Data v2.0 No. 17, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dbendorf, 2007.
[36] R. Frischknecht, Expert Interview, 2012. Zurich.
[37] Council of the European Communities, Automotive Directive 80/1268/EEC
Fuel Consumption of Motor Vehicles, European Commission, 1980. http://ec.
europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/documents/directives/directive-801268-eec_en.htm (accessed 03.05.13).
[38] F.G. Noembrini, Modeling and Analysis of the Swiss Energy System Dynamics
with Emphasis on the Interconnection between Transportation and Energy
Conversion. Diss. ETH No. 18469, ETH Zurich, Zurich, 2009, http://e-collection.
library.ethz.ch/eserv/eth:1082/eth-1082-02.pdf (accessed 01.05.13).
[39] M. Kromer, J. Heywood, A Comparative Assessment of Electric Propulsion
Systems in the 2030 US Light-duty Vehicle, SAE Int., 2008.
[40] R. Felder, Well-to-wheel Analysis of Renewable Transport Fuels: Synthetic
Natural Gas from Wood Gasication and Hydrogen from Concentrated Solar
Energy. Diss. ETH No. 17437, ETH Zurich, Zurich, 2007, http://e-collection.
library.ethz.ch/eserv/eth:30096/eth-30096-02.pdf (accessed 01.05.13).
[41] M. Mann, D.M. Steward, U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen and Fuels Cells
Program, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 28 May 2008. http://www.
hydrogen.energy.gov/h2a_prod_studies.html (accessed 01.03.10).
[42] M. Rutkowski, U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 28 May 2008. http://www.hydrogen.
energy.gov/h2a_prod_studies.html (accessed 01.03.10).
[43] B.D. James, U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen and Fuels Cells Program,
Directed Technologies, Inc., 27 May 2008. http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/
h2a_prod_studies.html (accessed 01.03.10).