Modeling the Transition to Advanced Vehicles and Fuels: Review & Hydrogen Scenarios

Transcription

1 Modeling the Transition to Advanced Vehicles and Fuels: Review & Hydrogen Scenarios Paul N. Leiby, David L. Greene, Zhenhong Lin, David Bowman, Sujit Das Oak Ridge National Laboratory June 9, 2009 Presented at the MIT-Ford-Shell Workshop, Strategies for Market Transitions to Alternative Energy and Transportation Systems 1 ORNL Research Path for Alternative Vehicle and Fuels Transitions International fuel trade, refinery submodel Other AFVs: Meth/Ethanol, CNG, elec. Alt Fuels Transition Model (AFTM) Transitional Alternative Fuels & Vehicles Model (TAFV) Hydrogen Transition Model (HyTrans) Hydrogen/ PHEV transition Model (HyTrans II) 2009 Long-run (2010) static. Multiple fuels & vehicles market model, international fuel trade. Cost min. Dynamic market model, vehicle scale economies, fuel availability. Intertemporal optimization. H2 FVCs & HEVs, H2 spatial fuel infrastructure, Learning-bydoing 2 PHEVs, PFCVs, international scenarios 1

2 Transition Barriers Matter: Static Vs. Transition Analyses: Differing Conclusions 2010 Alternative Fuel Demand Shares, Base Case, No New Policies No Transitional Barriers Methanol Ethanol LPG Electricity Source: P.N. Leiby, D.L. Greene and Harry Vidas * CNG Gasoline Market Potential and Impacts of Alternative Fuel Use in Light Duty Vehicles: A 2000/2010 Analysis, DOE/PO-0042, Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, January, Gasoline CNG Ethanol Methanol LPG Electricity (AFTM analysis, 1997) 3 Transition Barriers Matter: Static Vs. Transition Analyses: Differing Conclusions 2010 Alternative Fuel Demand Shares, Base Case, No New Policies No Transitional Barriers Methanol Ethanol LPG Electricity Transitional Analysis With Barriers Source: P.N. Leiby, D.L. Greene and Harry Vidas * CNG Gasoline CNG Ethanol Methanol LPG Electricity (AFTM analysis, 1997) Gasoline 4 Market Potential and Impacts of Alternative Fuel Use in Light Duty Vehicles: A 2000/2010 Analysis, DOE/PO-0042, Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, Gasoline January, Gasoline Ethanol LPG (TAFV analysis, 2001) CNG Methanol Electricity 2

3 Key findings that were not well known or not measured Found that transition matters a lot Can ID some of most important barriers Forcing adoption by a few (e.g. fleets) doesn t work unless technology has private appeal Without compelling private advantages, sustained policy intervention is required But Temporary policies can sometimes drive technology to competitiveness Transitional analysis still uncertain, since key factors little-understood How strong is lock-in/out, how many techs can co-exist? 5 The report, published 2008, documents the first integrated national hydrogen transition analysis. Responded to the NAS call to better understand what a transition to H2 powered vehicles would require cta.ornl.gov/cta/publications/reports/ornl_tm_2008_30.pdf 6 3

4 Approach: HyTrans integrates established data and models with new components, to simultaneously represent key agents: 1) fuel supply, 2) vehicle manufacture, 3) consumer choice. HYTRANS Components H 2 Feedstock Supply Curves AEO Energy Scenarios Blue: models from other Team members Yellow: HyTrans unique components H2A H 2 Production Models H2A H2 Delivery Systems Models PSAT ASCM Vehicle Attributes Hydrogen Infrastructure Investment Non-Transport Hydrogen Use Hydrogen Availability Vehicle Supply Model Tech. Change Learning Scale Econ. Price of Hydrogen Hydrogen Use 7 Vehicle Choice Model Vehicle Price & Sales by Technology Vehicle Stock & Fuel Use Costs Make & Model Diversity GREET LDV Sales GHG Emissions White: essential HyTrans outputs HyTrans models the excess transition costs incurred in overcoming the natural market barriers to a new transportation fuel. Fuel infrastructure (density/distance/cost) Limited fuel availability Limited make and model availability Scale (dis)economies Learning-by-doing All are represented in HyTrans 8 4

5 Economies of scale were the chief factor in reducing hydrogen supply costs. $4.00 $3.50 $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 Hydrogen Production and Delivery Costs, Los Angeles, Future #4 ($/kg) $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 SMR Dist. Coal w/o Seq. by Pipeline Biomass w/o Seq. Pipeline $ Demand density and distances strongly affect delivery costs. Reduced Form Cost Curves for Infrastructure Developed From Latest H2A/HDSAM Models E.g. Smooth Delivery and Forecourt Costs as Function of Demand Volume and Area (Very different shapes by mode) $/kg 3.00 $/kg ,300 1,620 1,940 2,260 2,580 2,900 3,220 3,540 3, Demand Volume City H2 Use (Thousands kg/day) Delivery Cost: Pipeline Mode 2,730 2,190 1,650 City Area 1,110 City (square miles) 570 Area ,300 1,620 1,940 2,260 2,580 2,900 3,220 3,540 3, Case: 1000 kg/day station, 31 miles plant to city, 10% Summer Surge, 8% Friday Peak Demand Volume City H2 Use (Thousands kg/day) 2,730 2,190 1,650 City Area 1,110 City (square miles) Area Delivery Cost: Liquid (Cryo) Truck Mode 5

6 In all scenarios FCV costs decline dramatically with reasonable correspondence to the average of the manufacturers estimates. FCV cost estimates discussed with OEMs GM, Ford, DC, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW. Proprietary cost estimates by year & volume provided by GM, Ford & DC. Average used to calibrate HyTrans learning and scale economy functions. Results reviewed by GM, Ford, DC and judged reasonable. RPE of Drivetrain + Glider $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 Fuel Cell Vehicle Retail Price as a Function of Learning, Scale and R&D in Scenarios 2 & 3 $ Assumed Cost Predicted 2 Predicted3 The vehicle cost model calibrated with data provided by three OEMs is a dynamic function of past and current FCV production volumes. Three multiplicative factors: Independent tech-progress (autonomous), Learning-by-doing and Scale economies. Vehicle Price = Glider Cost + Long-run Drivetrain Cost x Technology(time) x Learning-by-doing(stock) x Scale(volume) Independent Technology progress calibrated to DOE 2015 goals in the lab + available in vehicles in 5 years Learning & Scale calibrated to central tendency of manufacturers cost estimates. 12 6

7 Impacts of limited make and model available and limited fuel availability on consumers choices were explicitly included (although uncertain) Substantial progress and convergence of views. Issues: -Home refueling -Interregional Avail. -Station redundancy? Present Value Dollars -$16,000 Make and Model Diversity Cost (Passenger Cars) Cost of Limited Fuel Availability (Passenger Car) $0 -$2,0000% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% -$4,000 -$6,000 -$8,000 -$10,000 -$12,000 -$14,000 Own Region (Nicholas, et al., 2004) Three Regions Greene, 2001 Fraction of Stations Offering Fuel Retail Price Equivalent $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Fraction of Makes and Models Offering Alternative 13 Still leading edge. Issue of flexibility/ customizability of FCV Stakeholder workshops led to Lighthouse strategy. Three Early Vehicle Scenarios intended to span a range that would encompass an efficient transition. Scenario 1: 100s per year by 2012, tens of thousands of vehicles per year by On-road fleet of 2.0 million FCVs by Scenario 2: 1,000s of FCVs by 2012, tens of thousands by 2015 and hundreds of thousands by On-road fleet of 5.0 million FCVs by Scenario 3 (NRC scenario): 1,000s of FCVs by 2012, and millions by 2021, 10 million on the road by Annual Vehicle Sales (thousands) Scenario 1 HEV +15 years Scenario 2 Scenario 3 HEVs +12 years Year Scenarios 1 and 2 are consistent with current and projected HEV penetration rates These scenarios do not 14 represent a policy recommendation. 7

8 The Lighthouse Concept of infrastructure build-out reflects a trade-off between need to concentrate infrastructure and need to maximize hydrogen availability. 15 Scenarios: Premises matter. All DOE FreedomCar program goals met on schedule. Vehicle cost and performance estimates based on PSAT/ASCM analysis (Rousseau et al., 2000). Estimates in DOE Goals scenario based on meeting program goals in 2010 and 2015, with 5-year lag to the first production vehicles. H2A production and delivery models used for H 2 supply costs. CO 2 price impact was investigated in sensitivity cases 2006 AEO oil price scenarios High Oil Price Case used as base case $72/bbl in 2015 Also Reference Case.$43/bbl in 2015 HyTrans constrained to follow scenarios to 2025, then simulate for endogenous market solution. 16 8

9 All three scenarios produced a sustainable transition to hydrogen powered light-duty vehicles without any additional policy measures after Scenario 1 Vehicle Production Share 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Advanced Gasoline 50% Gasoline Hybrid 40% H2 Fuel Cell 30% 20% 10% 0% Scenario 3 Vehicle Production Share 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Advanced Gasoline 50% Gasoline Hybrid 40% H2 Fuel Cell 30% 20% 10% 0% Policies will almost certainly be required for early transition period ( ). ( Assumes High Oil price case and the Hydrogen and FreedomCar Programs achieve full success. Does not consider impact of uncertainty on willingness to invest. 17 The need for transition policies is indicated by the excess costs of the transition scenarios. Without government policies, the entire transition burden would have to be borne by industry. Automotive and energy industries faced with years of billion dollar+ losses without government policy. Investment unlikely until outer years (2045+) Billions of of Dollars Simulated Auto Industry Cash Flow From Sale of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles, No Policy Policy Case Case 2 $3 $5 $2 Scenario3 $4 Scenario3 Scenario2 $1 Scenario2 Scenario1 $0 $3 Scenario $1 $2 -$2 $1 -$3 -$4 $0 -$ $1 18 9

10 Policy Case 2 provides a reasonable assessment of the costs the government might shoulder to induce a transition to hydrogen. Assumes Fuel Cell Success FCV vehicle production costs (vs advanced HEV) shared 50% total vehicle cost through and including 2017 Tax credit covers 100% of incremental cost 2018 to 2025 Station capital cost starts at $3.3 million, declining to $2.0 million Cost share $1.3 million/station, Cost share $0.7 million/station, Cost share $0.3 or 0.2 million/station, H2 fuel subsidy $0.50/kg through 2018 Declines to $0.30/kg by Billions of 2004 Dollars/Yr Billions of 2004 $ (Undiscounted) Cost Sharing and Subsidies, Scenario 3, Fuel Cell Success, Policy Case 2 Scenario3 Station Infr. Scenario3 Fuel Subsidy Scenario3 Vehicles In Policy Case 2, scenario 3 annual costs peak near $5B and cumulative costs rise to $26B by Cumulative Cost Sharing and Subsidies, Scenario 3, Fuel Cell Success, Case 2 Scenario3 Station Infr. Scenario3 Fuel Subsidy Scenario3 Vehicles Billions of Dollars $5 $4 $3 $2 $1 Simulated Auto Industry Cash Flow From Sale of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles, Policy Case 2 Scenario3 Scenario2 Scenario1 $ $1 10

11 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% With no early transition scenario, FCVs do not begin to penetrate the market until after No Policy Scenario Vehicle Production Share 0% AEO Ref., $50/bbl Advanced Gasoline Gasoline Hybrid H2 Fuel Cell In the absence of an early transition FCV deployment, advanced hybrid electric vehicles come to dominate light-duty vehicle propulsion. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Vehicle Production Share Advanced Gasoline Gasoline Hybrid H2 Fuel Cell 0% At a lower AEO oil price of $50/bbl in 2030, a sustainable transition to FCVs occurs but there is stronger competition from hybrid electric vehicles. If DOE 2015 High Tech Goals Met Except Storage Cost, Transition May Falter if Storage Costs Very High ($27/kWh) Preliminary: Results based on Prior (2008 HyTrans Version Vehicle Production Shares 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Advanced Gasoline Gasoline Hybrid H2 Fuel Cell Scenario: 3 USA Case: SVS000S25V265LZPNOBT00HHAHC30O3 Scenario 3, High price, technologies meet DOE 2015 High Goals for all except on board storage costs (which is $27/kWh rather than $2/kWh) 22 11

12 Gigatons (trill kg) CO Meaningful carbon mitigation policy is necessary to achieve dramatic reductions in GHG emissions. CO2 Emissions From LDVs Scenario0, CO2 Tax = $25/MT Scenario3, CO2 Tax = $25/MT Scenario3, CO2 Tax = $00/MT Scenario 0 $25/MT -> no transition policies with a carbon tax. Scenario 3 $00 -> no carbon policy, hydrogen may be produced from carbon-intensive sources such as coal without sequestration.. In Scenario 3 $25/MT -> 2/3 reduction by Carbon emission policy = $10/ton of CO2 in 2010 and $25/ton in Assessment of future market for H2-FCVs involves many of the Central Challenges of modeling introduction of new technologies and their infrastructure. 1. Representation of technological change and its components including cost reductions through technological progress, scale economies, and Learning-by-Doing. 2. Accounting for special for geographic/spatial modeling issues and spatially-related costs and markets, and the evolution of geographically differentiated infrastructure. 3. Describing plausible evolution of demand & infrastructure Semi-rigid capital, slow adjustment, new investment, stranded assets Smooth succession of compatible Technologies or sudden ( disruptive ) change? 4. Specifying the nature and structure of consumer choice among new vehicle types; Capturing the state of knowledge regarding how consumers value fuel availability and diversity of make and model choice; 5. Representation of interactions with other energy markets, especially feedstock supply costs, competition with other fuels/vehicles. 6. Interactions of a national program with global vehicle markets during the transitions stage; and 7. Accounting for impacts of risk and expectations. Source: Paul N. Leiby, David L. Greene and David Bowman, "Issues in Integrated Market Modeling of the Hydrogen Transition, ORNL, Presented at the International Energy Workshop (IEW), Stanford 24 University, Stanford, CA, June 25-27,

13 THANK YOU. 25 Publications and Presentations Greene, D.L. and K.G. Duleep, Bootstrapping a Sustainable North American Fuel Cell Industry: Could a Federal Acquisition Program Make a Difference?, Energy and Transportation Science Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, April 18. Greene, D. L. and P. N. Leiby, B. James, J. Perez, M. Melendez, A. Milbrandt, S. Unnasch, M. Hooks, S. McQueen and S. Gronich, Analysis of the Transition to Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles & the Potential Hydrogen Energy Infrastructure Requirements, ORNL/TM-2008/30, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Greene, David L., Zhenhong Lin, Paul N. Leiby, David Bowman Integrated Market Analysis of the Impacts of Hydrogen Storage Costs on the Transition to Fuel Cell Vehicles, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Presented at H2 Storage Tech Team Meeting, July 17, 2008, Detroit, Michigan. Bunzeck, Ingo (ECN) and Paul Leiby, (ORNL) "HyWays-IPHE Project: Dissemination Task Summary of the Roadmap Workshop in Changsha, China, Aug ," on behalf of the HyWays-IPHE consortium, Workshop on WP4 wrap-up and Further exchange, Washington D.C., September 29, 2008 Greene, David L., Paul N. Leiby, Zhenhong Lin, David Bowman, HyTrans Model: Analyzing the Transition to Hydrogen-Powered Transportation, Supplementary Slides On Impact Of Variations In Vehicle Technology Costs, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, September 26, Leiby, P.N, D.L.Greene, D. Bowman and E. Tworek, Systems Analysis of Hydrogen Transition with HyTrans, Transportation Research Record No. 1983, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Leiby, Paul N. and Jonathan Rubin, July Transition Modeling of AFVs and Hybrids:Lessons Learned