Well-to-Wheels Energy and Emission Impacts of Vehicle/Fuel Systems

Development and Applications of the GREET Model

Michael Wang Center for Transportation Research Argonne National Laboratory

California Air Resources Board Sacramento, CA, April 14, 2003

Vehicle and Fuel Cycles: Petroleum-Based Fuels

Vehicle Cycle

Fuel Cycle

Pump to Wheels

Well to Pump

GHG Emissions (g/mi.)

G as

100

200

300

400

500

600

ol in e Ve hi cl e

C or n E8 5 Ve h ic l e

N at u ra l G as Ve hi c le

G as ol in e Fu el C el lV eh i cl e lC el le c tri c H

M et ha n ol Fu e

Pump to Wheels

Ee

lV eh Ve 2 Fu el hi c

ic l le , C el lV H 2

US

M ix eh i FC V

Well to Pump

cl e (E le

As an example, greenhouse gases are illustrated here

(N G ct ro ly s

WTW Analysis Is a Complete Energy/Emissions Comparison

is )

WTW Analysis for Vehicle/Fuel Systems Has Been Evolved in the Past 20 Years
Historically, evaluation of vehicle/fuel systems from wells to wheels (WTW) was called fuel-cycle analysis Pioneer transportation WTW analyses began in 1980s
Early studies were motivated primarily by EVs Current studies are motivated primarily by FCVs

Transportation WTW analyses have taken two general approaches

Life-cycle analysis of consumer products Transportation fuel-cycle analysis Most transportation studies have followed the fuel-cycle analysis approach

For transportation technologies, especially internal combustion engine technologies, the significant energy and emissions effects occur in the fuel usage stage first and fuel production stage second Consequently, efforts have been in addressing energy use and emissions of vehicle operations and fuel production Since 1995, the U.S. Department of Energy has been supporting the GREET model development at Argonne National Laboratory

The GREET (Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation) Model
GREET includes emissions of greenhouse gases
CO2, CH4, and N2O VOC, CO, and NOx as optional GHGs

GREET estimates emissions of five criteria pollutants

Total and urban separately VOC, CO, NOx, Sox, and PM10 (PM2.5 not included)

GREET separates energy use into

All energy sources Fossil fuels (petroleum, natural gas, and coal) Petroleum

The GREET Model and Its Documents Are Available at: http://greet.anl.gov

At Present, There Are More Than 790 GREET Registered Users Worldwide
Industries, universities, and governmental agencies are major GREET users

Consulting Government Others

Environ Organization Industry University

Most GREET users are in North America

Asia Europe North America Other

The Simplified Calculation Logic for Individual Production Activities in GREET

Inputs
Emission Factors Combustion Tech. Shares Energy Efficiencies Fuel Type Shares Facility Location Shares

Calculations

Energy Use by Fuel Type

Total Emissions

Urban Emissions

The Simplified Calculation Logic for Individual Transportation Activities in GREET

Energy Intensity Energy Intensity (Btu/ton-mile) (Btu/ton-mile)

Transport Transport Distance (mi.) Distance (mi.)

Emission Factors Emission Factors (g/mmBtu fuel burned) (g/mmBtu fuel burned)

Share of Process Fuels

Energy Use by Mode (Btu/mmBtu Fuel Transported)

Emissions by Mode (g/mmBtu Fuel Transported)

Mode Share Mode Share

Energy Consumption (Btu/mmBtu Fuel Transported)

Emissions (g/mmBtu Fuel Transported)

GREET Considers Upn Well-to-Pump Steps Through Iteration Calculations

Feedstock Recovery Feedstock Recovery Feedstock Recovery

Fuel Production

Fuel Production

Fuel Production

Vehicle Operation

n=3

n=2

n=1

GREET Is Designed to Conduct Stochastic Simulations

Distribution-Based Inputs Generate Distribution-Based Outputs

GREET Has More Than 30 Fuel Pathway Groups

Conv. & Reform. Gasoline Petroleum Conv. & Reform. Diesel Compressed Natural Gas Liquefied Natural Gas Natural Gas FT Diesel and Naphtha Gaseous and Liquid H2 Liquefied Natural Gas Flared Gas Landfill Gas Corn Cellulosic Biomass Soybean Various Sources Electricity FT Diesel and Naphtha Gaseous and Liquid H2 Methanol Ethanol Biodiesel Electricity Gaseous and Liquid H2 Dimethyl Ether Methanol Crude Naphtha Liquefied Petroleum Gas Liquefied Petroleum Gas Dimethyl Ether Methanol

Some Additional Fuel Production Pathways Are to Be Added to GREET

Biomass gasification to produce
Ethanol Methanol Hydrogen

Coal gasification to produce hydrogen Hydrogen production from ethanol and methanol at refueling stations Nuclear thermal cracking of water for hydrogen production Sodium borohydride (NaBH4) H2 production and storage Metal hydride hydrogen storage

Two ANL WTW Publications Are Cited by Many Organizations

Petroleum Refining Is the Key Energy Conversion Step for Gasoline

Petroleum Recovery (97%) Petroleum Transport and Storage (99%)

MTBE or EtOH for Gasoline

Petroleum Refining to Gasoline (84.5-86%, Petroleum Refining to Gasoline (84.5-86%, Depending on Oxygenates and Reformulation) Depending on Oxygenates and Reformulation) Transport, Storage, and Distribution of Gasoline (99.5%) WTP Overall Efficiency: 80% Gasoline at Refueling Stations

Key Issues for Simulating Petroleum Fuels

Gasoline sulfur content will be reduced nationwide to 30 ppm beginning in 2004 vs. 150-300 ppm current level Diesel sulfur content will be reduced to 15 ppm in 2006 from the current level of ~300 ppm In addition, marginal crude has high sulfur content Desulfurization in petroleum refineries adds stress on refinery energy use and emissions Ethanol could replace MTBE as gasoline oxygenate
Energy and emission differences between ethanol and MTBE Production of gasoline blend stock for ethanol vs. MTBE

Production and Compression Are Key Steps for Centralized G.H2 Pathways
NA NG Recovery (97.5%) WTP Overall Efficiency: NA NG: 58% nNA NG: 55% nNA NG Recovery (97.5%) nNA NG Processing 97.5%) LNG Production (88.0%) LNG Production (88.0%) LNG Transport via Ocean Tankers 98.5%) G.H2 Production (71.5%) G.H2 Production (71.5%) Steam or Electricity Export
NA: North American nNA: non-North American NG: natural gas

NA NG Processing (97.5%)

NG Transport via pipelines

LNG Gasification in Ports

G.H2 Transport via Pipelines (96.3%) G.H2 Compression at Refueling Stations G.H2 Compression at Refueling Stations (89.5% & 95.0% for NG & Electric) (89.5% & 95.0% for NG & Electric) Compressed G.H2 at Refueling Stations

H2 Liquefaction Has Higher Energy Losses Than H2 Compression

NA NG Recovery (97.5%) nNA NG Recovery (97.5%) nNA NG Processing (97.5%) NA NG Processing (97.5%) G.H2 production G.H2 production (71.5%) (71.5%) H2 Liquefaction H2 Liquefaction (71.0%) (71.0%) L.H2 Transport (98.9%) WTP Overall Efficiency: L. H2 at Refueling Stations NA NG: 43% nNA NG: 42% G.H2 production G.H2 production (71.5%) (71.5%) H2 Liquefaction H2 Liquefaction (71.0%) (71.0%) L.H2 Transport via Ocean Tankers (96.9%)

Resource and Infrastructure Issues Result in Many Potential H2 Pathways

Produced from natural gas via steam methane reforming (SMR) now, and in the foreseeable future SMR plant emissions need to be taken into account Regional or station SMR production
Could reduce or avoid expensive distribution infrastructure But production emissions move close to urban areas

Some amount of central SMR CO2 emissions can be potentially sequestered Energy and emission effects of electrolysis H2 depend on electricity sources Gasification for H2 production
Coal: CO2 and criteria pollutant emissions, but CO2 can be potentially sequestered Biomass: criteria pollutant emissions

Nuclear H2 has zero air emissions, but nuclear waste will continue to be an issue

WTP Energy Efficiency

C om

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0%

pr es se C d ru N G de N ap ht ha LS Di es LS el G as ol M in et e ha no l, N N G G N C ap en ht t ra ha lG H St 2, at NG io n G H2 C en ,N t ra G lL C H el 2, lu N lo G si c Et St ha at no io El n l ec LH tro 2, G NG El H2 ec ,U tro .S L. .M H 2, ix U .S .m ix

WTP Energy Losses Could Significantly Affect Efficiencies and GHG Emissions

GREET Includes More Than 50 Vehicle/Fuel Systems

Conventional Spark-Ignition Vehicles
Conventional gasoline, federal reformulated gasoline, California reformulated gasoline Compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, and liquefied petroleum gas Methanol and ethanol

Compression-Ignition Direct-Injection Hybrid Electric Vehicles: Grid-Independent and Connected

Conventional diesel, low sulfur diesel, dimethyl ether, Fischer-Tropsch diesel, and biodiesel

Spark-Ignition Hybrid Electric Vehicles: Grid-Independent and Connected

Conventional gasoline, federal reformulated gasoline, California reformulated gasoline, methanol, and ethanol Compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, and liquefied petroleum gas

Battery-Powered Electric Vehicles

U.S. generation mix California generation mix Northeast U.S. generation mix

Fuel Cell Vehicles

Gaseous hydrogen, liquid hydrogen, methanol, federal reformulated gasoline, California reformulated gasoline, low sulfur diesel, ethanol, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, and naphtha

Compression-Ignition Direct-Injection Vehicles

Conventional diesel, low sulfur diesel, dimethyl ether, Fischer-Tropsch diesel, and biodiesel

Spark-Ignition Direct-Injection Vehicles

Conventional gasoline, federal reformulated gasoline, and California reformulated gasoline Methanol and ethanol

GREET Fuel Economy Ratios of Vehicle Technologies (Relative to GVs)

4.0 3.5

Fuel Economy Ratio

3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 CNGV

MIT 2003

GM 2001

MIT 2000

LPGV

E85 FFV Gasoline Hybrid

Diesel Hybrid

Gasoline FCV

MeOH FCV

GH2 FCV BP EV

Tailpipe Emissions Will Continue to Decline

Tier 2 Standards (Fully in Effect in 2009, g/mi. for 100K miles)

Bin 10a,b Bin 9a,b Bin 8a Bin 7 Bin 6

NMOG CO NOxc 0.156/0.230 4.2/6.4 0.6 0.090/0.180 4.2 0.3 0.125/0.156 4.2 0.20 0.090 4.2 0.15 0.090 4.2 0.10

PM 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.01

HCHO 0.018/0.027 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018

Bin 5
Bin 4 Bin 3

0.090
0.070 0.055

4.2
2.1 2.1

0.07
0.04 0.03

0.01
0.01 0.01

0.018
0.011 0.011

Bin 2
Bin 1
a b

0.010
0.000

2.1
0.0

0.02
0.00

0.01
0.00

0.004
0.000

The high values apply to HLDTs. The low values applied to cars and LLDTs. Bins 10 and 9 will be eliminated at the end of 2006 model year for cars and LLDTs and at the end of 2008 model years for HLDTs. c Corporate average NOx standard will be 0.07 g/mi. and will be fully in place by 2009.

GREET Takes These Steps to Estimate Vehicular Emissions

Emissions of VOC, CO, NOx, CH4, and PM10
Baseline gasoline and diesel vehicles:
HC, CO, NOx and CH4 are estimated with EPAs Mobile model PM10 is estimated with EPAs Part model

Advanced or alternative-fueled vehicles:

Their emission change rates relative to GVs or DVs are estimated with testing results or engineering analysis Their emission levels are calculated with the estimated emission change rates and baseline GV or DV emissions

SOx emissions for each vehicle type are calculated from sulfur contained in fuels CO2 emissions for each vehicle type are estimated from carbon balance N2O emissions are based on limited testing results; CARB and EPA efforts here will greatly reduce tailpipe N2O uncertainties

Btu/Mile
IC IC

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

EV

EV :C

:C ru de R FG LP G LS D R FG & N G EV :C ru de ru de G as o. LS D FT D N G V: N FC IC E FF G M V: N G G V: N FT D eO H E V: C IC

ru de

IC E H V: C E V: C IC EV :N G EV :C IC IC E H E FC ru de ru de

FC IC E H

Crude oil feedstock Natural gas feedstock

FC

V: C FC FC

V: C el lu V: U

G or n lo si c

2 E8 5

Per-Mile Total Energy Use of Selected Vehicle/Fuel Systems

Electricity and EtOH

Et O .S H .k V: W R en h G ew H 2 .K W h G EV H 2 :U .S .k W h

Btu/Mile
IC EV

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

:C

IC IC EV :C ru de & N G LP G R FG LS D E V: C ru de H ru de IC E :C EV R FG

ru de

FC IC E H E V: C IC EV :N G FT D N G FC V: N FC IC FC E FF V: C G M V: N V: C G or n G V: N FT :C IC IC E H E EV D ru de LS G as o. V: C ru de

Crude oil feedstock

D eO H G H

Natural gas feedstock

2 el E8 lu 5 lo FC si c V: Et U O FC .S H .k V: W R h en G ew H 2 .K W h G EV H 2 :U .S .k W h

Per-Mile Fossil Energy Use of Selected Vehicle/Fuel Systems

Electricity and EtOH

Btu/Mile
IC EV

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

500

Crude oil feedstock

Per-Mile Petroleum Use of Selected Vehicle/Fuel Systems

Natural gas feedstock Electricity and EtOH

:C ru de IC EV R IC FG :C EV ru :C de ru LS de D & IC N E G H E LP V: G C ru FC de V: R C FG ru IC de E H G E as V: o. C ru de LS IC D EV :N G FT D IC EV IC :C E N H G E V: N G FC FT V: D N G M eO FC H V: IC N E G FF G H V: FC 2 C V: or C n el E8 lu 5 lo FC si c V: Et U FC O .S H V: .k W R en h G ew H .K 2 W h G H EV 2 :U .S .k W h

Grams/Mile
IC EV

100

200

300

400

500

600

Per-Mile GHG Emissions of Selected Vehicle/Fuel Systems

Crude oil feedstock Natural gas feedstock Electricity and EtOH

:C ru de IC EV R FG IC :C EV ru :C de ru LS de D & IC N E G H E LP V: G C ru FC de V: R C FG ru IC de E G H as E V: o. C ru de LS IC D EV :N G FT D IC EV IC :C E N H G E V: N G FC FT V: D N G M eO FC H V: IC N G E G FF H V: 2 FC C V: or C n el E8 lu 5 lo FC si c V: Et U O FC .S H .k V: W R h en G ew H 2 .K W h G H EV 2 :U .S .k W h

Per-Mile Urban In-Use VOC Emissions of Selected Vehicle/Fuel Systems

0.25

0.20

PTW

WTP

Grams/Mile

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00 ICEV: Crude RFG ICEV: ICEV: CNG Crude & NG LPG ICE FFV: Corn E85 ICEV: ICEV: ICE Crude NG FTD HEV: LSD Crude RFG ICE ICE EV: U.S. FCV: FCV: HEV: HEV: kWh NG GH2 NG Crude NG FTD MeOH LSD FCV: Crude Gaso.

Per-Mile Urban In-Use NOx Emissions of Selected Vehicle/Fuel Systems

0.12

0.10

PTW

WTP

0.08

Grams/Mile

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00 ICEV: Crude RFG ICEV: ICEV: CNG Crude & NG LPG ICE FFV: Corn E85 ICEV: ICEV: ICE Crude NG FTD HEV: LSD Crude RFG ICE ICE EV: U.S. FCV: FCV: HEV: HEV: kWh NG GH2 NG Crude NG FTD MeOH LSD FCV: Crude Gaso.

Comparison of Five Publicly Available WTW Studies

MIT: On the Road in 2020 (2000) GM, ANL, BP, ExxonMobil, and Shell (2001) Wang of ANL: Journal of Power Sources (2002) MIT: Update of the 2000 Study (2003) Rousseau of ANL: SAE 2003 Congress paper (2003) Studies available but not included in comparison
ADL study for DOE (2002) GM European WTW study (2002)

Studies to be available soon

GM, ANL, ChevronTexaco, and Shell (2003) ANL SUV WTW study (2003)

Comparison of Five Recent WTW Studies: Energy Use Changes

Diesel CIDI ICE MEOH Gasoline Gasoline FCV nonFCV Gasoline Diesel FCV Nonhybrid hybrid SI HEV CIDI HEV hybrid MEOH FCV hybrid Station cH2 FCV nonhybrid Station cH2 FCV hybrid

10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50%

GM 2001 Wang 2002 MIT 2000 MIT 2003 Rousseau 2003

WTW Energy Change

-60%

Comparison of Five Recent WTW Studies: GHG Emission Changes

Diesel CIDI ICE MEOH Gasoline Gasoline FCV nonFCV Gasoline Diesel FCV Nonhybrid hybrid hybrid SI HEV CIDI HEV MEOH FCV hybrid Station cH2 FCV nonhybrid Station cH2 FCV hybrid

10% 0% WTW GHG Change -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% -60% -70%
GM 2001 Wang 2002 MIT 2000 MIT 2003 Rousseau 2003

Conclusions
WTW analysis becomes necessary when comparing vehicle technologies powered by different fuels Advanced vehicle/fuel technologies could significantly reduce energy use and GHG emissions Fuel pathways need to be carefully examined for achieving intended energy and emission benefits by advanced vehicle/fuel systems For criteria pollutants
As vehicle tailpipe emissions continue to decline, WTP emissions could become a significant share of total WTW emissions To reduce vehicle-induced WTP emissions, fuel producers will need to be actively engaged

Limitations of the Current GREET Version

So far, PM emissions have been measured and regulated for PM10. PM2.5 and smaller-size PM are more damaging; relative differences between PM10 and PM2.5 could be very different among vehicle technologies Black carbon emissions contribution to GHG emissions could be potentially large Secondary formation of PM emissions from NOx and SOx could be important ambient PM emission sources Lack of adequate tailpipe N2O emission measurements for vehicles powered by different fuels Fuel consumption and GHG emissions of accessory power systems such as AC could be significant sources

Outstanding Issues in WTW Analyses Need to Be Addressed Continuously Multiple products

System expansion vs. allocation (GREET takes both) System expansion: allocation vs. attribution of effects

Technology advancement over time

Current vs. emerging technologies leveling comparison field Static snap shot vs. dynamic simulations of evolving technologies and market penetration over time

Dealing with uncertainties

Risk assessment vs. sensitivity analysis Regional differences, e.g, CA vs. the rest of the U.S.

Trade-offs of impacts WTW results are better for identifying problems than for giving the answers

On-Going GREET Efforts Adding new fuel pathways Integrating GREET into EPAs MOVES model Assisting DOE in evaluating its vehicle technology portfolio Developing a fully functioning CA version?