energy and emission impacts of advanced vehicle technologies and fuels 1

[josephv]

Hello all,

Good afternoon, I noticed that there are now many threads debating the benefit of hybrid, electric cars and new fuels; as well as their impact on the environment.

FYI

"To fully evaluate energy and emission impacts of advanced vehicle technologies and new transportation fuels, the fuel cycle from wells to wheels and the vehicle cycle through material recovery and vehicle disposal need to be considered. Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Argonne has developed a fuel-cycle model called GREET (Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation). It allows researchers and analysts to evaluate various vehicle and fuel combinations on a full fuel-cycle basis."

You can actually download the GREET model and compare different vehicles (it's free):

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/software/GREET/

Here are some sample results:

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/software/GREET/sample_results.html

Using this model there are studies that show that a plug-in electric (with 50% power coming from coal) still has lower CO2 emissions that a regular gas car. But, I don't want to start yet another debate right now. What I wanted to do is share this link with everyone here.

Have a great weekend.

 

[jmw]

Firstly, how do we define what fuel is used to supply the electricity?
Can I plug a car into the socket and claim I'm only using elecricity from wind turbines?

Per the threads on electric cars, the graphs (sample results) appear to show some options as having no Greenhouse gas emissions which means that these charts are not telling the whole story. See the thred "Time to give SUV drivers a break?"

The trick in presenting any data is what you include and what you don't.

So why do HEV in the sample charts show no greenhouse gas emissions? The chart isn't telling the whole story, just part of it and it is misleading. I hope that these charts are not the whole story but I would suggest that they have chosen a poor way to illustrate their software.

It would be interesting to compare to the CNW research:

http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[GregLocock]

Suppose we put a 10000% tax on GH emissions. Does the actual cost of running a so-called zero-GHG-emissions vehicle increase?

I rather think it will.

Unless the entire chain of manufacture and infrastructure and replacement battery packs as well as energy generation is zero emissions then no vehicle can be zero, except to a child, a liar, or a politician. Pick one of two.


Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[dcasto]

Until we go all nuclear, their will be GH emmisions from all energy used. And we are not going to get enough wind, solar, tidal sources to make a significant dent in CO2 emmisions.

If we want to start to put a dent in the GH emmissions we must first increase fuel mileage in real terms, not with hybreds, desiel, or electric cars. This means smaller cars with smaller engines. There is no such thing as free lunch when it comes to thermodynamics. Adding weight to cars (like huge batteries) doen't not make them any more efficient.

 

[moltenmetal]

Greg: since right now there is ZERO tax on greenhouse emissions, you'd be wrong. 10 000% of zero is still zero.

Yes, there are taxes on the fuels themselves, but no tax on emissions per se. In fact, the opposite is true: coal is cheaper per joule of energy derived than natural gas, for instance.

Your other point is of course accurate. The entire lifecycle of the vehicle has to be taken into consideration in the analysis if we're to do any good for the environment as a whole. And the challenge, of course, is that the most energetically and environmentally sensible thing to do isn't necessarily the one that will "sell"- until the lifecycle emissions are taxed properly so that the owner/purchaser stops getting a "free ride" at others' expense.

 

[josephv]

Thanks

Everyone makes very good points.

One suggestion:

The GREET model is an Excel spreadsheet that you can download for free. I believe you can modify it and add coal as a source of electricity (as JMW pointed out), and the real costs of batteries (as Greg pointed out).

cheers

 

[Comcokid]

It ultimate issue on GH emissions is this - is it a GH emission from a source that was previously isolated in eons past? Or, is a GH emission from a source that is currently in the environmental cycle.

In other words; is it Coal, Oil, or Natural Gas, or is it from Bio Diesel, Ethanol, or methane (i.e. waste derived)?

One puts previously 'sequestered' carbon into the environment, and the other just reuses carbon already in the environment.

 

[owg]

jmw asked - Firstly, how do we define what fuel is used to supply the electricity?
Can I plug a car into the socket and claim I'm only using electricity from wind turbines?

In some jurisdictions the answer is yes. Pay the local utility at the renewable rate, and they will allocate some renewable power to you. At this stage, the power is usually from wind turbines.


HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[0707]

“The following barriers will be addressed by the Technology Validation Program element to pave the way for commercialization of fuel cell and hydrogen infrastructure technologies by 2015.

A. Vehicles. In the public domain, statistical data for vehicles that are operated under both controlled and real-world conditions is very limited (i.e., data such as FCV system fuel efficiency and economy, thermal/water management integration, durability (stack degradation), and system durability). Most or all the information is proprietary. Vehicle drivability, operation, and survivability in extreme climates (particularly low temperature start-up and operation in hot/arid climates), are also barriers to commercialization. The interdependency of fuel cell subsystems is an important element that must be considered when developing individual subsystems. Development and testing of complete integrated fuel cell power systems is required to benchmark and validate targets for component development.

B. Storage. Innovative packaging concepts, durability, fast-fill, discharge performance, and structural integrity data of hydrogen storage systems that are garnered from user sites need to be provided for the community to proceed with technology commercialization. Current technology does not provide 300+ mile range without interfering with luggage or passenger compartment spaces, nor does it provide reasonable cost, efficiency and volume options for stationary applications. An understanding of composite tank operating cycle life and failure mechanisms and the introduction of potential impurities is lacking. Cycle life, storage density, fill-up times, regeneration cycle costs, energy efficiency, and availability of chemical and metal hydride storage systems need to be evaluated in real-world circumstances.

C. Hydrogen Refueling Infrastructure. The high cost of hydrogen production, low availability of the hydrogen production systems, and the challenge of providing safe systems including low-cost, durable sensors are early penetration barriers. Shorter refueling times need to be validated for all the storage concepts. Integrated facilities with footprints small enough to be deployed into established refueling infrastructures needs to be conceptualized and implemented. The overall hydrogen production efficiency and the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions in well-to-tank scenarios are not well understood in real world conditions. Interface technology to fast-fill tanks requires reliable demonstrations. Small factory-manufactured, skid-mounted refueling systems need to be proven reliable options in low-volume production systems, for sparsely populated areas with low anticipated vehicle traffic. Other concepts for energy stations, power parks, and mid-sized plants (i.e., 25,000 kg/day), including pipelines or mobile refuelers, need to be verified with respect to system performance, efficiency, and availability.

D. Maintenance and Training Facilities. Lack of facilities for maintaining hydrogen vehicles, personnel not trained in handling and maintenance of hydrogen and fuel cell system components, limited certified procedures for fuel cells and safety, and lack of training manuals are all barriers that must be overcome. Lack of real-world data in the public domain on refueling requirements and operations and maintenance (O&M), including time and material costs, of FCVs are additional barriers.

E. Codes and Standards. Lack of adopted or validated codes and standards that will permit the deployment of refueling stations in a cost-effective and timely manner must be addressed. A database also needs to be assembled that is relevant to the development of codes and standards to ensure that future energy systems based on these technologies can be efficiently installed and operated. Data on the impact of constituent hydrogen impurities on fuel cell and storage systems needs to be validated under real-world operating conditions.

F. Centralized Hydrogen Production from Fossil Resources. There are few data on the cost, efficiencies, and availabilities of integrated coal-to-hydrogen/power plants with sequestration options. Hydrogen delivery systems from such centralized production systems need to be validated and operated. Hydrogen separations at high temperature and high pressure and their integrated impact on the hydrogen delivery system need to be demonstrated and validated.

G. Hydrogen from Nuclear Power. Validate data on reaction rates, non-equilibrium reactions and material properties for the high-temperature production of hydrogen through thermochemical and electrochemical processes are limited. The cost and O&M of such an integrated system needs to be assessed before high-temperature nuclear reactors are designed and developed for hydrogen production. Hydrogen delivery options need to be determined and assessed as part of the system demonstration. Validation of integrated systems is required to optimize component development.

H. Hydrogen from Renewable Resources. There is little operational, cost, durability, and efficiency information for large integrated renewable electrolyzer systems that produce hydrogen. The integration of biomass and other renewable electrolyzer systems needs to be evaluated.

I. Hydrogen and Electricity Coproduction. Cost and durability of hydrogen fuel cell or alternative-power production systems and reformer systems for coproducing hydrogen and electricity need to be statistically validated at user sites. Permitting, codes and standards, and safety procedures need to be established for hydrogen fuel cells located in or around buildings and refueling facilities. These systems have no commercial availability, or operational and maintenance experience. “

For more go to

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/tech_validation/

Cheers

Luis

 

[jmw]

Thanks OWG but what does that mean?
Does it mean that if insufficient people ask for wind energy that fossil energy will be provided instead?

Surely, where there is 10% of electricity generation possible from wind turbines surely that 10% is fully utilised to replace fossil fuels. Or are you suggesting that wind energy will only be utilised when it is asked for and otherwise the wind turbines will be feathered?

Unless of course, wind energy will cost the consumer more, but that is why there are tax subsidies to compensate for the higher costs of wind energy.



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[ewh]

I'm not sure of the details, but you can sign up here in south Texas for "clean energy" to be provided, most likely from the wind farms in west Texas. I'd imagine that if it isn't all allocated to those who sign up, the excess will supply the normal power grid. Of course, the energy would be in "credits", as it would be cost prohibitive to build a parallel power distribution network.

 

[YoungTurk]

As it is explained on my energy bill, the extra cost associated with the clean energy option is put into a fund used to expand and maintain the alternative energy grid (mostly wind). Though I can appreciate the concept, I just can't bring myself to just give the power company extra money with blind faith that they will use it for clean energy. I'd rather make a charitable contribution to an appropriate organization. Of course, the question then is, is my donation dollar best spent building wind turbines or doing something more immediate; whether it be for environmental protection or something else.

Back on topic, I'm interested in figures showing the trade-off between efficiency lost due to extra weight of batteries and efficiency gained by having batteries on board (regen braking, no engine idle, etc.), anybody have related comments or info?

 

[GregLocock]

Yes, I've seen a paper from Argonne that discussed the effect of extra weight on the energy consumption of various architectures.

Roughly speaking if a 10% increase in mass increases the fuel consumption of a normal car by X%, then it increases the fuel consumption of a strong parallel hybrid (Prius) by X/2 %, primarily due to regen. Irritatingly I can't remember what X was. It used to be 3%, a long time ago.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[owg]

jmw - The wind energy costs the consumer more. I remember reading in the last year or so, that BP's head office in Calgary, Canada, used only green power. They were criticized for this since it was reported to be their only green initiative in Canada, a very small step Beyond Petroleum.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[ewh]

I think wind energy costs about $3.00/100kWh additional here in Texas.

 

[Comcokid]

So what if wind energy cost a little more. North American drivers seem to be hooked on SUVs, and they cost the drivers a LOT more! Now I hear about automakers comming out with a hybird SUV.

Beam me up Scotty. There's no intelligent life here!

I think they ought to tax vehicles on their weight, and use the tax to fund research and to build alternate energy sources. After all, isn't vehicle weight directly related to gas milage and road wear?

And users of smaller hybrid vehicles have no excuse either - you can get better fuel efficiency out of a better designed engine. Car makers like to sell hybrids not because they are more efficient, but because they can then sell a more expensive car. My son's 4-door Saturn gets 40 MPG highway, but it's a discontinued inexpensive model - just an indication that Detroit doesn't want to make more efficient cars which are associated with 'cheaper' and 'less profits'. Plenty of cars used in Europe get better milage than the hybirds here in the US.

The size of your vehicle has become almost an arms race here in the US. Or maybe more like the cold war MAD policy - Mutually Assured Destruction. However, the MAD policy of bigger cars bought for their crash protection may ultimately result in a MAD policy of fuel resource destruction.

 

[MikeHalloran]

Uh, Kid, they already tax cars based on weight, with license fees, and with fuel taxes. You basically want to redirect the revenue for social goals. That's already been done; the fuel tax, originally intended solely for road system improvements and maintenance, has been redirected to general funds, where it can be rediverted into the politicians' favorite pockets. Talk to them about your social goals.

I didn't buy an Explorer for crash protection. I bought it because my mother and my wife's aunt, aged 86 and 95 respectively, can get in and out of the back seat without breaking a leg. All the smaller vehicles my wife and I tested, and some larger vehicles, are cramped in the backseat and/or don't allow a person to swing his/her legs around the corner of the seat without additional rotation of the ankles. In other words, the Explorer is, accommodations-wise, pretty much like a '55 Chevy station wagon. Since those are scarce now, lots of people buy Explorers and similar vehicles.

North America is not like Europe. It's a lot bigger, and the people are spread out more. The population density doesn't support a good system of passenger trains. So we drive. We drive to work, we drive to visit friends and relatives. Which means, in our case, 1500 miles each way, at least once a year. Do that in the back of a small car, and you'll be ready to buy a bigger car.



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[Comcokid]

Where I live, vehicles are not taxed on weight unless it is a commercial truck or semi.

You have a real reason for your Explorer. On a recent business trip to Atlanta (200 miles away), there were lots of oversize Dodge Ram truck, large SUVs, and Hummers with single occupants driving during rush hour. But only the HOV lane for 2 or more occupants had a higher percentage of smaller cars!

I have a Olds 98 with a 403cuin engine that I keep as a spare care - a real lead-sled who's resale value is only equal to it's weight as scrap metal. When it was made in the late 70's, it had the largest engine Oldsmobile made and was perhaps had a vehicle weight greater than any standard pickup truck at the time. However, today even when I drive it, I am seriously intimidated by the size of the vehicles around me. The average size of new vehicles is probably larger than any time since the early 60's.

My normal daily driver is a small Acura. Should I ever have a wreck, it'll probably be easier for them to leave me in it and use it as my casket.

I don't know about other areas of the country but here, in a medium size city in the Eastern US, many go for the biggest thing they can get - even to the point of buying large 4WD pickups equipped with dual tire rear ends and jacking them up. Just down the road, the Hummer dealer is doing more business than ever. Most of these vehicles will never be off road and probably never see so much as a gravel road. They are bought primarily for their ability to crush the other vehicle in a wreck.

The EPA may soon require testing due to pollution in my area. There is a drive to tax all vehicles equally to pay for the testing stations. But what they need to do is tax based on weight.

 

[jmw]

Comcokid,
please do see the thread on "Time to give SUV drivers a break" and the links I posted earlier here.
The voxpop view is that SUVs are gas guzzlers, which they are, and that hybrids and electric are not, which they are not. But that isn't the end of it.
The "dust to dust" value is, in the case of 60 plus vehicles - including various jeep models and land rovers, better than the Prius.

Question 1: Can battery cars ever overcome their problems?
Question 2: Can the benefits of the gas gusslers be transferred to a more economical vehicle?

This begs the question just why gas gusslers last so well as to generate a better overall carbon footprint than an electric car. Is it because the big engines do so little hard work they can last forever? Whcih are the features that can be harnessed to give us a low energy cost of manufacture and re-cycling, and low consumption during a long long life.

PS check the Humvee in the list!

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[josephv]

Thank you to everyone for your insights. There is much that I have learned from this thread. And many things to consider when doing this type of study.

I'll download the GREET spreadsheet over the holidays and see what it can do.

Happy holidays to everyone.