Well-to-Wheels investigation of future car powers and powertrains in the European setting

Well to wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the european context l.jpg
1 / 38
0
0
1407 days ago, 487 views
PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Presentation Transcript

Slide 1

WTW Well-to-Wheels examination of future car fills and powertrains in the European setting A joint study by EUCAR/JRC/CONCAWE Overview of Results

Slide 2

Outline WTW consider goals and degree Critical vehicle suspicions Hydrogen Pathways Hydrogen vehicles (ICE and FC) Hydrogen from characteristic gas Liquid v. Packed Hydrogen from biomass Hydrogen by means of electrolysis Costs Potential hydrogen generation from biomass Hydrogen v. other option energizes CNG Biomass-inferred powers Cost correlation Alternative employments of biomass

Slide 3

Study Objectives Establish, in a straightforward and target way, a consensual well-to-wheels vitality utilize and GHG discharges evaluation of an extensive variety of car fills and powertrains applicable to Europe in 2010 and past. Consider the feasibility of every fuel pathway and gauge the related large scale monetary expenses . Have the result acknowledged as a source of perspective by every single applicable partner.  Focus on 2010+  Marginal approach for vitality supplies

Slide 4

Tank-to-Wheels Matrix

Slide 5

Well-to-Tank Matrix

Slide 6

Vehicle Assumptions Simulation of GHG discharges and vitality utilize computed for a model vehicle Representing the European C-fragment (4-seater Sedan) Not completely illustrative of EU normal armada New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) For every fuel, the vehicle stage was adjusted to meet least execution criteria Speed, increasing speed, gradeability and so on Criteria reflect European client desires Compliance with Euro 3/4 was guaranteed for the 2002/2010 case No suspicions were made as for accessibility and piece of the pie of the vehicle innovation choices proposed for 2010+ Heavy obligation vehicles (truck and transports) not considered in this study

Slide 7

Time slack 0-50 km/h Acceleration < 4 s > 4.0 m/s 2 Time slack 0-100 km/h < 13 s > 180 km/h Top speed > 600 km < 13 s Time slack 80-120 km/h in 4 th equip Range > 30 % Gradeability at 1 km/h Common vehicle least execution criteria All advances satisfy at any rate negligible client execution criteria "Vehicle/Fuel" mixes consent to emanations controls The 2002 vehicles agree to Euro III The 2010+ vehicles follow Euro IV

Slide 8

HYDROGEN PATHWAYS

Slide 9

Characteristics of hydrogen ICE vehicles 1.3 l cut back turbocharged motor Engine outline from test seat information Same vitality proficiency delineate both packed and fluid hydrogen Lean-copy mode and high rate of turbo charging gives same torque bend as gas

Slide 10

Characteristics of hydrogen FC vehicles Fuel cell powertrain productivity

Slide 11

Characteristics of hydrogen FC vehicles

Slide 12

Overall picture: GHG versus add up to vitality Hydrogen 2010+ vehicles Most hydrogen pathways are vitality escalated

Slide 13

ICE v. Energy component, Liquid v. Compacted Hydrogen from characteristic gas Fuel cells can possibly convey a vast productivity increase Liquid hydrogen is less vitality effective than packed hydrogen 2010+ vehicles

Slide 14

Impact of hydrogen generation course Direct hydrogen creation by means of transforming Figures for 2010+ non-half and half FC vehicles Hydrogen from renewables gives low GHG But correlation with different uses is required Source: WTW Report, Figures 8.4.2-1a/b

Slide 15

Impact of hydrogen creation course Hydrogen creation through electrolysis Figures for 2010+ non-cross breed FC vehicles Ely=electrolysis Electrolysis is less vitality proficient than direct hydrogen generation

Slide 16

Impact of hydrogen generation course: on-board reformers 2010+ vehicles On-board improving of gas/naphtha is superior to anything direct use in an ICE yet not comparable to direct power device Could give supply adaptability amid energy component presentation

Slide 17

CO 2 catch and capacity (CC&S) The idea of confining CO 2 delivered in ignition or transformation forms and infusing it into reasonable topographical arrangements has been picking up believability in the most recent couple of years There is significant degree for capacity in different sorts of geographical arrangements CO 2 catch and transport advances are accessible Easier when CO 2 is delivered in about unadulterated shape Transport in supercritical state (compacted) by pipeline or ship The fundamental issues are Long-term respectability and wellbeing of capacity Legal angles Cost The entire innovative bundles are a work in progress CO 2 expulsion potential given here is just demonstrative Preliminary appraisal in light of information from the IEA nursery gas assemble and other writing sources Cost information excluded as accessible data not considered adequately solid and predictable

Slide 18

CO 2 catch and capacity (CC&S) CC&S requires some extra vitality (basically for CO 2 pressure) It is most alluring for Processes that utilization a lot of high-carbon vitality (CTL) Processes that "decarbonise" the fills (hydrogen)

Slide 19

Cost of fossil energizes substitution and CO 2 kept away from Some cost components are subject to scale (e.g. dispersion foundation, number of option vehicles and so forth) As a typical computation premise we expected that 5% of the significant vehicle armada (SI, CI or both) believers to the option fuel This is not a gauge, basically a method for looking at every fuel choice under similar conditions If this bit of the EU transportation request were to be supplanted by option powers and powertrain advancements, the GHG funds versus incremental expenses would be as demonstrated Costs of CO 2 stayed away from are computed from incremental capital and working expenses for fuel creation and circulation, and for the vehicle The expenses, as ascertained, are legitimate for an unfaltering state circumstance where 5% of the significant ordinary fills have been supplanted by an option. Extra expenses are probably going to be acquired amid the move time frame, particularly where another conveyance framework is required.

Slide 20

Costing premise We considered the cost from a large scale monetary perspective (cost to "EU inc.") The cost of globally exchanged items is the market cost whether imported or created inside Europe (unless the generation cost in Europe is higher) The 12% capital charge bars the assessment component (inward) Cost components considered For powers delivered inside Europe Raw material cost Production cost (capital charge + settled working expenses + vitality/chemicals costs) For imported energizes: showcase value Distribution and retail costs Additional cost of option vehicles (contrasted with best in class gas PISI)

Slide 21

Costing premise: oil value Oil cost is vital on the grounds that It sets the cost of fossil powers It impacts the cost of essentially all different materials and administrations We have considered two oil value situations 25 €/bbl (30 $/bbl) 50 €/bbl (60 $/bbl) All other cost components are balanced by "Oil Cost Factor" (OCF) speaking to the part of the cost component that will take after the oil cost

Slide 22

Additional cost of option 2010+ vehicles Base: Gasoline PISI

Slide 23

Cost v. potential for CO 2 evasion Hydrogen Oil value situation: 50 €/bbl

Slide 24

Cost of CO 2 shirking v. cost of substitution Oil value situation: 50 €/bbl Hydrogen

Slide 25

Cost of substitution v. CO 2 shirking Oil value situation: 50 €/bbl Hydrogen

Slide 26

Hydrogen generation potential from biomass Max hydrogen situation Woody biomass from all accessible land to hydrogen (utilized as a part of a power device vehicle) Surplus sugar beet and wheat straw to ethanol Organic waste to biogas 2012 projections including: Set-asides Sugar beet surplus Agricultural yield changes Wheat straw surplus Unused wood squander Organic waste to biogas But barring Currently not developed land Pastures

Slide 27

HYDROGEN v. OTHER ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Slide 28

Conventional powers from unrefined petroleum Continued advancements in motor and vehicle innovations will decrease vitality utilize and GHG outflows Spark start motors have more potential for development than diesel Hybridization can give advance GHG and vitality utilize benefits

Slide 29

Hydrogen v. CNG 2010+ vehicles If hydrogen is delivered from NG, GHG discharges reserve funds contrasted with direct use as CNG are just accomplished with power device vehicles

Slide 30

Ethanol All figures for 2010+ PISI vehicles Conventional creation of ethanol as honed in Europe gives unobtrusive fossil vitality/GHG investment funds contrasted and gas Existing European pathways can be enhanced by utilization of co-era as well as utilization of by-items for warmth Choice of product and field N 2 O emanations have basic influence Advanced procedures (from wood or straw) can give much higher funds

Slide 31

Bio-diesel All figures for 2010+ DICI+DPF vehicle Bio-diesel spares fossil vitality and GHG contrasted with traditional diesel Field N 2 O outflows have huge influence in the GHG adjust and are in charge of the vast vulnerability Use of glycerine has a generally little effect Sunflower is more ideal than assault

Slide 32

Syn-diesel and DME 2010+ vehicles Diesel amalgamation requires more vitality than customary diesel refining from unrefined petroleum Syn-diesel from NG (GTL) is about GHG unbiased contrasted with ordinary diesel, syn-diesel from coal (CTL) creates extensively more GHG The utilization of biomass (BTL forms) includes almost no fossil vitality and in this manner creates little GHG emanations in light of the fact that the combination procedures are fuelled by the biomass itself

Slide 33

Hydrogen remains impressively more costly than different courses Oil value situation: 50 €/bbl

Slide 34

The capability of biomass in Europe: outline 2012 projections including: Set-asides Sugar beet surplus Agricultural yield upgrades Wheat straw surplus Unused wood squander Organic waste to biogas But barring Currently not developed land Pastures Conventional Biofuels: Wheat and sugar beet to ethanol, oilseeds to bio-diesel, wheat straw not utilized All different situations: Surplus sugar b

SPONSORS