Current and Future Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Electricity Generation in China: Implications for Electric Vehicles

Transcription

1 Supporting Information for: Current and Future Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Electricity Generation in China: Implications for Electric Vehicles Wei Shen 1*, Weijian Han 2, Timothy J. Wallington 2 1 Asia Pacific Research, Ford Motor Company, Unit 4901, Tower C, Beijing Yintai Center, No.2 Jianguomenwai Street, Beijing , China 2 Research & Advanced Engineering, Ford Motor Company, Village Road, Dearborn, Michigan 48121, USA *Correspondence to: wshen5@ford.com 11 pages, including 2 figures and 7 tables Figure S1 Share of fossil-fired generation capacity and electricity generated from fossil-fired power plants in China ( ) Figure S2 WTW GHG emissions of selected traditional and electric vehicle pathways Table S1 Mainstream parameters of thermal power generation unit Table S2 Key parameters of coal long-distance transportation Table S3 Key parameters of NG transportation and distribution S1

2 Table S4 Key parameters of crude oil and fuel transportation and distribution Table S5 Major parameters of uranium ore recovery, transportation and processing Table S6 Electricity consumption and GHG burdens for different grid in 2012 Table S7 Electricity consumption and GHG burdens for selected cities (2012 & 2020) S2

3 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% Share of fossil-fired power capacity Share of electricity generated by fossil-fired power 50% Figure S1. Share of fossil-fired generation capacity and electricity generated from fossil-fired power plants in China ( ) S3

4 Table S1 Mainstream parameters for coal-fired power generation units HP VHP SubC SC USC Temperature ( ) pressure (MPa) First Introduction Year in China Share of Chinese total coal-fired power capacity 10% 15% 49% 20% 6% Source: China Electricity Council S4

5 Table S2 Key parameters for coal long-distance transportation Waterway Railway Truck Mode Share (%) Distance (km) Fuel type Fuel oil Diesel Electricity Diesel Energy intensity (kj/t km) ,480 Source: China Energy Statistical Yearbook 2012; China Transportation Statistical Yearbook 2012 Note: The numbers listed include the energy expended for the return trip of the empty vehicle and vessel. For power plants, coal transport is comprised of 45% railway, 40% highway and 15% waterway. The average transport distance is 640 km for railway and 1500 km for waterway (a large amount of coal for power generation is transported by barge from ports in North China to the seven southeast provinces). There are no statistical data available and we estimate the highway transportation distance is 500km. The energy intensity of different transportation modes in China are calculated based on our study and listed in above table. Although the energy intensity of transportation by truck is much higher than other modes, its impact on total GHG emissions of the BEV pathway is small. For example, for electricity from an USC coal-fired power plant with transportation of coal by truck of 500 km, the total GHG emissions of BEV pathway is gco 2e /km. If the distance is doubled to 1,000 km, the total GHG emissions of the BEV pathway increase by only 1% to gco 2e /km. The reason is that GHG emissions during the feedstock stage represent only about 10% of the total GHG emissions (see Figure S2) and emissions associated with transportation and distribution are only 10%-20% of those during the feedstock stage. S5

6 Table S3 Key parameters for NG transportation and distribution NG Pipeline Ocean tanker (LNG) Distance (km) 4,000 6,000 Fuel type NG & electricity LNG & fuel oil Energy intensity (kj/t km) 1, Note: The numbers listed include the energy expended for the return trip of the empty vessel. Two NG transportation cases are considered in this study. First, NG is transported from west resource regions to the east coast by pipeline with a total distance of 4,000 km. Second, LNG is transported by ocean tanker with a capacity of 147,000 cubic meters from Dampier port, Australia, to Yangshan port of Shanghai, a total distance of about 6,000 km. The energy intensity of different transportation modes in China are calculated based on our study and listed in above table. S6

7 Table S4 Key parameters for crude oil and fuel transportation and distribution Ocean tanker Waterway Railway Oil Pipeline Truck Distance (km) 11,000 1, Fuel type Fuel oil Fuel oil Diesel Electricity Oil & Elec. Diesel Energy intensity (kj/t km) ,480 Source: China Energy Statistical Yearbook 2012; China Transportation Statistical Yearbook 2012 Note: The numbers listed include the energy expended for the return trip of the empty vehicle and vessel A total of 476 million tonnes of crude oil were used in China in 2012 and 57% of this was imported. More than 85% of imported crude was shipped from overseas, primarily from the Middle East and Africa. The weighted average shipping distance is 11,000 km. The balance of imported crude was delivered through pipelines from the former-soviet-union countries. The specific energy consumptions incurred by the respective pathways are generally high compared to the best available corresponding practices. The energy intensity of different transportation modes in China are calculated based on our study and listed in above table. S7

8 Table S5 Major parameters of uranium ore recovery, transportation and processing GREET This study Energy Use for Uranium Mining: million Btu/ton of yellowcake Transportation of Ore: mile 1,360 (by truck) 3,150 (by ocean tanker) 200 (by truck) Electricity Use of Uranium Enrichment: kwh/swu Gaseous Diffusion 2,400 2,630 Centrifuge Source: Life-Cycle Energy Balance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Energy in Australia; GREET 2012 As more than 90% of Chinese Uranium ore came from Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Namibia, and Australia in 2011, we use data from a published case study for Australia to replace the parameters in original GREET model. S8

9 Table S6 Electricity consumption and GHG burdens for different grids in 2012 North NorthEast NorthWest East Central South Electricity consumption (TWh) GHG burden (gco 2e /kwh) Table S7 Electricity consumption and GHG burdens for selected cities (2012 & 2020) Beijing Shanghai Pearl River Delta Beijing Shanghai Pearl River Delta Electricity consumption (TWh) GHG burden (gco 2e /kwh) S9

10 WTW GHG Emissions (gco2e/km) Feedstock Stage Fuel Stage Vehicle Operation Stage 2015 NEV 2020 NEV 2020 New Car Average Figure S2. WTW GHG emissions of selected traditional and electric vehicle pathways Each solid bar denotes an average value with upper and lower bounds. Thus each pathway represents a range reflecting differences in technologies and operational conditions in energy feedstock recovery, transportation, and storage, fuel production, transportation and distribution, and electricity generation, transmission and charging. The WTW GHGs emission of the baseline PISI gasoline car is 229 gco 2e /km. The direct injection gasoline pathway will cut 10% of the baseline WTW GHG emissions, while the hybrid pathway can further reduce the WTW GHG emissions to 153 gco 2e /km, matching the emission target for new car average level in There are no GHG emissions from BEVs during vehicle operation. Therefore WTW GHG emissions of BEVs depend on differences in power generation technologies. As shown in Figure S2, with electricity coming from HP and VHP coal-fired units, BEVs emit 3%-18% more GHGs than traditional gasoline cars. When electricity is generated from mainstream generation units in next 10 years, such S10

11 as SubC (300MW/600MW), SC and USC units, the WTW GHG emissions of BEVs are respectively 7%, 10%, 14% and 18% lower than traditional gasoline cars but higher than diesel cars and hybrid gasoline cars. CCS technology must be employed for coal-fired power generation to meet the GHG emission target for new car average level in When electric vehicles are powered by NG-based electricity, nuclear power, or renewable power, their WTW GHG emissions will meet not only new car average target but also the NEV target in S11