Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

''How Green Are Electric Vehicles - ''

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 10

i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 6 0 5 3 e6 0 6 2

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

“How green are electric vehicles?”

C.E. Sandy Thomas*


2941 Viewpoint Road, Alexandria, VA 22314, USA

article info abstract

Article history: Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) are often
Received 28 September 2011 labeled “green”, implying that they will significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emis-
Received in revised form sions. But actual GHG reductions will depend on two factors: the number of electric
14 December 2011 vehicles that can be sold to Americans that are fond of driving large vehicles long
Accepted 18 December 2011 distances, and the GHGs emitted by the electrical power plants that charge the EV batteries.
Available online 14 January 2012 This article evaluates the maximum potential of EVs to cut GHG emissions and oil
consumption in the U.S. and compares them with the GHG and oil reduction potential of
Keywords: hydrogen-powered fuel cell electric vehicles. Even if all US light duty vehicles (LDVs) (cars
Electric vehicles and trucks) were replaced by a combination of battery EVs for small vehicles and plug-in
Fuel cell vehicles hybrids for all other LDVs, then GHGs could at most be reduced by 25% and oil
Greenhouse gas emissions consumption could be reduced by less than 67%. But if all LDVs in the U.S. were replaced by
Oil consumption fuel cell electric vehicles powered by hydrogen made from natural gas, then GHGs would be
Plug-in hybrids immediately reduced by 44% and oil consumption by nearly 100%.
Copyright ª 2011, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights
reserved.

1. Introduction below 2009 levels, and LDV emissions would have to be


reduced by 83.1% below 2009 levels in the US as summarized
Major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the light in Table 2. Since sectors such as rail, aviation and ships may
duty vehicle (LDV) transportation sector will be required to be hard-pressed to achieve their “fair-share” reductions of
achieve the climate change community goal of reducing GHGs 70%e82%, the LDV sector may have to achieve more than an
by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050; to achieve this goal, 83% reduction to reach the overall goal.
McKinsey & Company [1] postulated that the GHGs from road In the United States, battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and
transport in Europe would have to be reduced by 95%, since plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) have replaced fuel cell
other sectors are constrained in their ability to cut GHGs as electric vehicles (FCEVs) as the alternative vehicles promoted
summarized in Table 1. and funded by the Federal government to cut GHGs and oil
In the United States, the light-duty vehicle (LDV) sector consumption. President Bush enthusiastically promoted and
[cars and trucks] accounted for 17.7% of all GHG emissions1 in supported the development of FCEVs, but President Obama
2009 according to the latest EPA GHG inventory [2]. In order to has set a goal of placing one million “electric vehicles2” on the
reach the goal of cutting GHGs to 80% below 1990 levels, all US road by 2015, and the US Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu,
transportation emissions would have to be reduced by 83% declared in a 2009 interview that FCEVs would require “four

* Tel.: þ1 703 507 8149.


E-mail address: Thomas@cleancaroptions.com.
1
Passenger cars accounted for 9.4%, and light duty trucks (vans, SUVs, pickups) emitted 8.3% of all US GHGs in 2009.
2
While FCEVs are “electric vehicles,” as used by the Obama administration, “electric vehicle” refers exclusively to battery EVs and
PHEVs.
0360-3199/$ e see front matter Copyright ª 2011, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.12.118
6054 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 6 0 5 3 e6 0 6 2

optimistic assumptions regarding battery weight and cost, the


Table 1 e GHG reduction percentages by sector postulated
by McKinsey Company to achieve an overall 80% GHG range and cost limitations appear to constrain the BEV to the
reduction below 1990 levels in Europe. status of a niche vehicle over the time horizon of this study.”
Later they wrote that “The technical challenges are too steep
Power 95% to 100%
for the BEV to succeed in the mass market in the next several
Road Transport 95% decades.” In a later report, Bandivadekar et al. from MIT
Air Sea Transport 50%
(including Kromer & Heywood) [9] analyzed three different
Industry 40%
alternative vehicle scenarios: a market mix scenario,
Buildings 95%
Waste 100% a scenario dominated by turbocharged ICE vehicles, and one
Agriculture 20% dominated by HEVs; they also considered a scenario adding
FCEVs to the mix, but again did not consider any market
penetration for BEVs. A. Elgowainy et al. [10] from the Argonne
National Laboratory (ANL) evaluated the GHGs and oil
miracles” to succeed [3], attempting to eliminate all funding consumption for a range of alternative vehicles, with a focus
for FCEVs in 2009.3 The Obama administration is counting on on PHEVs. They concluded that BEVs would generate more
BEVs and PHEVs as the primary option to cut greenhouse gas GHGs than gasoline HEVs using the average US grid mix, and
(GHG) emissions and oil consumption in the light duty vehicle also that PHEV-30’s and PHEV-40’s would both generate more
sector. But even if American drivers were convinced to GHG’s than even (non-hybrid) Gasoline ICVs in Illinois where
purchase only BEVs and PHEVs in the future, what would be most electricity comes from burning coal. They did not,
the impact on GHG emissions and oil consumption? And how however, postulate any market penetration scenarios, so they
would BEVs and PHEVs compare with FCEVs with respect to also failed to address the question of estimating the market
GHGs and oil use? penetration potential of BEVs. Plotkin & Singh (also from ANL)
The reduction of GHGs possible with BEVs depends on two [11] did postulate a series of market penetration scenarios, but
factors; the GHGs generated by the electrical power plants they used vehicle price as the only filter to determine market
used to charge the batteries, and the number of BEVs that penetration, so their high BEV cost estimates led to zero BEV
could be sold to the American public. The first factor (GHGs market penetration in all of their scenarios. FCEVs, on the
from power plants is well-documented by detailed computer other hand, reached a market share of 48.3% by 2050 in one of
programs such as the Argonne National Laboratory GREET the Plotkin & Singh scenarios. MacLean & Lave [12] from Car-
model [4] used for all GHG and oil use calculations in this negie Mellon University analyzed the life cycle costs of various
report. alternative vehicles, but again, did not explore the market
The second factor (BEV market penetration potential) has limitations of any vehicle types such as BEVs. The National
not been explored in the context of American drivers. The Research Council evaluated GHGs and oil use for several
McKinsey & Company report on alternative vehicles in the EU market scenarios [13], including advanced (higher efficiency)
[1] determined that approximately 50% of all European vehi- ICVs, PHEVs, biofuels and FCEVs including combinations of
cles are either too big or travel too far to be comfortably some of these options, but they did not assess any BEV
powered by batteries. They also projected that, by 2030, SUVs scenarios. Finally, the International Energy Agency (IEA)
powered by fuel cells would cost less to own and operate than included an assessment by the World Business Council for
either BEVs or PHEVs. This author developed a detailed Sustainable Development [14] that postulated PHEVs and
computer simulation model [5,6] in the mid-1990’s that was FCEVs to cut GHGs in the mobility sector. They postulated 4
later used by the National Hydrogen Association in their million FCEVs by 2025 in North America and the EU, with 25%
“Energy Evolution” report [7] that compared the GHG and oil FCEVs by 2050, with 25% FCEVs in Japan by 2025 with a shift
reduction potential of most alternative vehicles. We assumed from petroleum to hydrogen by 2050, and they stated that
then without much discussion that all vehicles including large hydrogen has “a significant foothold” in China. But they did not
vans, large SUVs and large pickup trucks could be replaced include any BEVs as part of their global mix to reduce GHGs.
with BEVs, which now seems implausible. Many other orga-
nizations have analyzed the GHG and oil use reduction
potential of various electric vehicles. But none of them have 2. EV market penetration potential
analyzed the market penetration potential of BEVs. Kromer &
Heywood of MIT carefully assessed the attributes of alterna- 2.1. Battery electric vehicle market potential
tive vehicles [8], and they also projected that an FCEV with 236
km (380 miles) range would cost less than a BEV with 124 km Lithium-Ion batteries that are used in BEVs today are too
(200 miles) range and less than a PHEV with 18.6 km (30 miles) heavy and occupy too much volume to be used in very large
all electric range by 2030. They also looked at integrated vehicles that travel long distances. In principle more batteries
market penetration scenarios with combinations of HEV, can be added to any BEV to extend range. But the mass and
PHEVs and FCEVs. But Kromer & Heywood basically rejected volume occupied by these batteries grows non-linearly with
the widespread use of BEVs, stating that “even with very additional range due to a process called “mass compounding.”
For example, to double the range of a BEV from 161 km to
3
The U.S. Congress restored most of the FCEV funding in 2009, 322 km might require the addition of 800 kg of batteries. But
but has since accepted the administration’s plan to cut the FCEV extra structure must be added to support those batteries. This
program. extra mass will in turn require larger motors to provide the
i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 6 0 5 3 e6 0 6 2 6055

Table 2 e GHG emissions (million metric tonnes or terragrams of CO2-equivalent) in 1990 and 2009 for the US
transportation sector and % reductions from 2009 levels to reach the goal of 80% below 1990 level.
1990 2009 LDV % of % change 80% Reduction % Reduction
all GHGs 2009 1990 to 2009 Goal from 2009

Passenger Cars 657.3 622.4 9.4% 5.3% 131.46 78.9%


Light Duty Trucks 336.6 551.1 8.3% 63.7% 67.32 87.8%
All LDVs 993.9 1173.5 17.7% 18.1% 198.78 83.1%
Med Heavy trucks 231.1 365.6 5.5% 58.2% 46.22 87.4%
Buses motorcycles 10.1 13 0.2% 28.7% 2.02 84.5%
Aviation 181.2 139.5 2.1% 23.0% 36.24 74.0%
Ships 45.1 30.5 0.5% 32.4% 9.02 70.4%
Rail 38.9 43.3 0.7% 11.3% 7.78 82.0%
Other 47.8 43.7 0.7% 8.6% 9.56 78.1%
Transport Totals 1548.1 1809.1 27.3% 16.9% 309.62 82.9%
Total all sources 6181.8 6633.2

desired vehicle acceleration, and the brake system must be phones, and now BEVs such as the Nissan Leaf BEV.4 As shown
slightly larger to safely stop the vehicle. The vehicle frame and in Fig. 1, the specific energy for a fuel cell energy storage
suspension systems must also be augmented to carry this system (hydrogen tanks, plus the fuel cell system plus a peak
additional mass, further increasing total vehicle mass. And, power battery system) is better (larger) than even advanced Li-
finally, additional batteries will be required to propel this ion batteries that meet the minimum goals for the U.S.
heavier vehicle the required distance in an iterative, non- Advanced Battery Consortium long-term commercialization
linear feedback process. Malen and Reddy have evaluated goals [16] as summarized in Table 3 along with the Nissan Leaf
the mass compounding effects of 32 late-model (2002e2007) characteristics.
vehicles [15]. They found that adding a load such as 100 kg of Hydrogen systems are shown for two pressures in Fig. 1.
batteries will require an additional 59.8 kg for 12 vehicle 35 MPa (350-bar or 5250 psia) that was used in early FCEVs, and
subsystems such as structure, brakes, and suspension 70 MPa or 10,250 psia used in more recent FCEVs by several car
systems. This added mass will require still more batteries to companies. The higher pressure 70-MPa storage tanks require
provide the desired range. more carbon fiber to hold the higher pressure, so these tanks
The mass for any electric vehicle is limited by the useful are slightly heavier and have lower specific energies than 35-
specific energy (in Whkg1) of the complete storage system. As MPa tanks.
shown in Fig. 1, the specific energy of battery systems has The useful energy density of the storage system deter-
improved over the last few decades, from 35 Wh kg1 for the mines how much space must be occupied on the vehicle to
lead-acid (Pb-A) batteries used to start ICVs for a century to obtain the required range. Fig. 2 illustrates the significant
75 Wh kg1 for nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) batteries used in improvements in battery energy density, but again shows that
the original Prius hybrid electric vehicles, to the advanced a hydrogen/fuel cell/battery system has slightly higher energy
lithium ion (Li-ion) batteries used in laptop computers, cell density than even an advanced Li-ion battery system meeting
the USABC long-term goals, particularly with 70-MPa tank
pressure. However, since the battery system has much lower
specific energy, it will be heavier than a hydrogen & fuel cell
storage system and will therefore have to store more energy
than the hydrogen system for a given range, and the total
volume of the battery system would be larger than the total
volume for the hydrogen/fuel cell system even if the two
systems had equal energy densities.
As a result of the mass and volume required for the battery
system, BEVs will be limited to relatively small vehicles such
as the BEVs sold or under development by auto companies as
summarized in Table 4.
To assess the likely market share for BEVs in the U.S., we
need to know the proportion of vehicles of various sizes and
classes on the road, but we were not able to find such data in

4
Nissan lists their battery pack with a 24 kWh energy storage
capacity. With a mass of 300 kg, this corresponds to a specific
Fig. 1 e Useful specific energy of batteries compared to
energy of 80.2 Whkg1 which we use in this model for the Leaf;
hydrogen/fuel cell energy storage systems; USABC [ U.S. however, this may not be the useful energy capacity, since
Advanced battery Consortium minimum goals for long- batteries can typically only utilize 70% of the stored energy,
term commercialization. which would decrease the specific energy to only 56 kWhkg1.
6056 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 6 0 5 3 e6 0 6 2

Table 3 e Nissan Leaf BEV battery parameters comapared with the USABC long-term commercialization goals.
Specific Energy Specific Power Power Density Energy Density

Wh/kg kW/kg kW/L kWh/L

Nissan leaf Battery 80 0.3 0.3 0.0261


USA BC long-term commercialization goals 150 0.46 0.46 0.230

the literature. We therefore estimated the number of light To determine the possible market penetration of BEVs, we
duty vehicles in the different EPA size classes on the road in assumed that all small cars and wagons could be powered by
the US today by analyzing LDV sales numbers for the last 30 batteries, along with all small vans, all small pickups, and all
years [17]. For each class of vehicle, we then multiplied the small SUVs. We also assumed that half of all midsize sedans
annual sales times the survival rates (See Table 5 for could be powered by batteries, since the Nissan Leaf BEV is
passenger car survival rates) for LDVs to determine the frac- rated as a “midsize sedan” by the EPA, based on its internal
tion of vehicles on the road today [18]; note that survival rates volume of 113 cubic feet.5
are increasing. Thus for model year 1970 cars, only 9.6% would The resulting number of vehicles on the road in this
still be on the road after 20 years, while the 20-year survival “small” category suitable for BEVs, along with the estimated
rates for 1980 model year (MY) cars increased to 13,8% and to VKT and weighted average fuel economies and annual
35.4% for 1990 MY cars. gasoline consumption are summarized in Table 8. We
Table 6 summarizes the results of this analysis showing conclude that BEVs could replace up to 39.6% of all US cars on
the estimated number of vehicles on the road, along with the the road; However, since these smaller vehicles generally
number of vehicles in each class sold in 2010. have higher fuel economy, they account for only 24.9% of all
We conclude that approximately 28.1% of all cars on the gasoline consumed by the US car fleet, and they account for
road today are small passenger vehicles, and 28.1% of all new 27.2% of all VKT. In addition, since petroleum is consumed in
passenger cars sold in 2010 were small vehicles. If we include mining, processing and transporting coal and natural gas to
all small vans, all small pickup trucks and all small SUVs, then the electrical generators to charge BEV batteries, the net
the totals increase to 30.9% of all vehicles on the road and reduction of petroleum consumption from replacing all small
28.7% of 2010 sales. vehicles and 50% of all midsize vehicles with BEVs is equiv-
We also estimated the average vehicle kilometers traveled alent to only a 24.4% reduction in oil consumption in the LDV
(VKT) for each model year, using VKT data provided by the fleet.
Argonne National Laboratory [19], as summarized in Table 7.
Argonne provided the VKT data for the first 16 years
(1994e2010), and we extrapolated the Argonne VKT data 2.2. Fuel cell electric vehicle market potential
curves back to 1982.
While BEVs will most likely be limited to smaller vehicles
traveling relatively short distances per trip, FCEVs are able to
provide the range and refueling times comparable to
conventional gasoline cars. Five major automobile companies
have already demonstrated SUV-size vehicles powered by fuel
cells:

 Toyota has road-tested an FCEV version of their Highlander


SUV. This FCEV has been certified by DOE National labora-
tory engineers with a 693-km (431-mile) on-the-road range
in California [21].
 GM has built and provided 100 of their Equinox cross-over
utility vehicles to ordinary drivers in their “Project
Driveway” road-test program. The Equinox FCEV has an
estimated range between 257 and 322 km (160e200 miles).
 Nissan has developed an FCEV version of their X-Trail SUV.
This FCEV has an estimated range of 500 km (310 miles)
using 70-MPa hydrogen storage tanks.
 Hyundai has developed an FCEV version of their Tucson ix
SUV. This FCEV has an estimated range of 648 km (403 miles)
using 70-MPa hydrogen storage tanks.
Fig. 2 e Useful energy density for battery and hydrogen/
fuel cell systems; USABC [ U.S. Advanced battery 5
The EPA defines a “midsize” sedan as those having between
Consortium minimum goals for long-term 110 and 119 cubic feet of interior space, so the Nissan Leaf falls
commercialization. into the lower 50% of the “midsize” sedan category [20].
i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 6 0 5 3 e6 0 6 2 6057

Table 4 e Current BEVs available or under development.


EPA range Charging Hours

Type (km) (miles) 120-V 240-V

Nissan Leaf 5-passenger 117.5 73 21 8


Ford Transit Connect Small van 128.7 80 27 8
Toyota RAV4 Small SUV 129e193 80e120 28a 12a
Smart Fortwo 2-seater 113e161 70e100 3.5b
Wheego Life 2-seater 160.9 100 5c
Mitsubishi i-MiEV 4-passenger 99.8 62 14 7
Think City 4-passenger 160.9 100 18 8 to 10

a RAV4 charging times for prototype; production unit charging time expected to be shorter.
b Smart Fortwo charging from 20% to 80% SOC; 8 hours for full charge.
c Wheego charging time for 50% to 100% SOC.

 Kia has demonstrated an FCEV version of their Borrego SUV, emissions for these vehicles using the Argonne National
with an estimated range of 750 km (466 miles) using 70-MPa Laboratory GREET model [4]. One important input to the
hydrogen storage tanks GREET model for electric vehicles is the electrical generation
grid mix used to charge BEV and PHEV batteries, which is
We conclude that FCEVs could replace all LDVs, large and currently dominated by burning fossil fuels in the US. For
small. example, the DOE’s Energy Information Agency (EIA) in their
2011 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) [22] estimates that 70.3%
of all US electricity is generated by fossil fuels (46.2% coal
3. Greenhouse gas emissions and 23.1% natural gas and 1.0% oil) in 2010. Furthermore,
given the number of “climate change deniers” elected in
To determine the impact of replacing all small vehicles with 2010, it is unlikely that the US Congress will pass any
BEVs, we calculated the annual greenhouse gas (GHG) climate change legislation in the foreseeable future that
might provide incentives for utilities to switch to cleaner
fuel sources. As shown in Table 9, the 2011 AEO reference
Table 5 e Estimated passenger vehicle survival rates. case projects very small declines in fossil fuel generation
out to 2035, decreasing from 70.3% to 68.6% of all US elec-
Age 1970 MY 1980 MY 1990 MY
tricity [22]. With these average US grid mixes, the estimated
30 0.4% 0.8% 6.6% GHGs for various alternative vehicles calculated by the
29 0.5% 1.1% 8.2% Argonne GREET model is summarized in Table 10 for
28 0.8% 1.6% 10.0%
various alternative vehicles; we used the EIA’s 2011 Annual
27 1.1% 2.2% 12.1%
26 1.6% 2.9% 14.5%
25 2.2% 3.9% 17.1%
24 3.1% 5.2% 20.2%
23 4.2% 6.7% 23.5% Table 6 e Estimated percentage of vehicles on the road
22 5.6% 8.7% 27.2% compared to the percentage of new cars sold in 2010.
21 7.4% 11.0% 31.1%
% on the road % of 2010 Sales
20 9.6% 13.8% 35.4%
19 12.3% 17.0% 39.9% Two-seaters 0.9% 0.8%
18 15.5% 20.8% 44.6% Minicompact 0.5% 0.4%
17 19.3% 25.0% 49.5% Subcompact 8.2% 7.8%
16 23.7% 29.8% 54.6% Compact 16.7% 14.6%
15 28.7% 29.8% 59.7% Small wagons 1.8% 4.5%
14 34.2% 40.8% 64.9% All Small cars 28.1% 28.1%
13 40.3% 46.9% 70.0% Small vans 0.1% 0.1%
12 46.9% 53.3% 75.0% Small pickups 1.1% 0.0%
11 53.8% 60.0% 79.8% Small SUVs 1.6% 0.5%
10 60.9% 66.6% 84.4% All Small Vehicles 30.9% 28.7%
9 68.1% 73.3% 88.7% Midsize sedans 17.6% 21.9%
8 75.2% 79.7% 92.7% Midsize vans 7.2% 3.3%
7 82.0% 85.7% 96.3% Medium wagon 1.2% 0.8%
6 88.4% 91.3% 99.4% Large wagon 0.2% 0.1%
5 94.1% 96.3% 100.0% Midsize pickups 3.6% 1.4%
4 99.0 100.0% 100.0% Midsize SUVs 12.0% 14.0%
3 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Large cars 8.5% 8.0%
2 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Large vans 0.7% 0.1%
1 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Large pickups 10.2% 11.2%
0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Large SUVs 8.0% 10.4%
6058 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 6 0 5 3 e6 0 6 2

Table 7 e Estimated vehicle kilometers traveled by model year.


Year Large Cars Midsize Small cars SUV Vans Pickups

2010 18,583 21,538 20,358 22,048 27,452 27,285


2009 23,747 23,191 22,597 23,699 24,916 25,803
2008 21,779 23,258 22,259 23,736 25,045 23,385
2007 19,875 20,923 18,826 21,580 23,089 21,691
2006 19,277 20,289 18,696 22,202 22,186 20,995
2005 20,683 20,522 19,584 21,446 22,872 20,548
2004 17,832 18,705 19,628 21,477 21,375 19,978
2003 19,199 18,430 17,698 20,469 23,442 19,013
2002 16,666 17,878 17,933 19,309 20,527 20,506
2001 18,503 17,566 17,561 20,427 20,357 17,737
2000 17,935 17,014 18,380 19,631 20,616 18,268
1999 16,475 16,287 17,508 17,762 15,646 18,757
1998 15,369 16,148 18,718 16,890 16,642 17,416
1997 15,532 15,002 16,081 16,528 18,046 16,166
1996 16,026 15,183 15,144 15,529 16,847 15,290
1995 12,320 15,720 16,267 15,899 16,454 15,783
1994 10,746 12,582 14,959 14,864 17,502 13,906
1993 11,910 13,733 15,426 14,472 16,397 15,095
1992 10,797 13,199 15,075 13,595 16,081 14,831
1991 9,618 12,670 14,728 12,678 15,802 14,616
1990 8,374 12,147 14,383 11,722 15,561 14,451
1989 7,065 11,628 14,041 10,728 15,359 14,334 xtrapolate
1988 5,691 11,115 13,701 9,694 15,195 14,266
1987 4,252 10,606 13,365 8,621 15,069 14,247
1986 2,747 10,103 13,031 7,510 14,981 14,277
1985 1,177 9,605 12,700 6,359 14,932 14,357
1984 e 9,112 12,372 5,169 14,920 14,485
1983 e 8,624 12,046 3,940 14,947 14,662
1982 e 8,141 11,724 2,672 15,012 14,889

Energy Outlook data [22] for the average on-the-road pro- for electricity GHG calculations [23]: “An average emission rate
jected fuel economy6 of stock gasoline ICVs (second row of is easy to calculate, but it provides only a rough approxima-
Table 10). tion of marginal displaced emissions.” That is, adding a new
For BEVs with batteries charged by the average US grid load such as a BEV or PHEV will require the utility to ramp up
mix, BEVs through 2035 will generate from 33% to 35% more the electrical generator that is on the operating margin. For
GHGs than FCEVs running on hydrogen made from natural example, the zero-carbon electrical generators, non-
gas according to the GREET model and AEO 2011 projec- dispatchable renewables such as hydroelectric plants and
tions. Notice also that plugging in gasoline-powered nuclear also have the lowest operating cost. With economic
PHEVs increases GHGs in all time periods by 5.8e9% dispatch, utilities run their lowest cost generators first, and
compared to HEVs running exclusively on gasoline. There- only turn on the more expensive generators when demand
fore in most parts of the US, drivers purchasing PHEV-40’s rises. As a result, nuclear and dispatchable renewable power
like the Chevy Volt will minimize GHGs if they never plug plants are run at full capacity whenever possible. Adding
in these PHEVs but run them exclusively on gasoline at all a new load such as a BEV or a PHEV then requires the utility to
times! ramp up other generators, primarily natural gas fired
combustion turbines in California, which do generate signifi-
3.1. California GHGs and marginal grid mix cant GHGs.
McCarthy and Yang [24] determined that up to 40% of the
GHGs are less in some parts of the country with a lower electricity to charge BEV and PHEV batteries would come from
proportion of coal-generated electricity. For example, many natural gas fired combustion turbines. As a result, the large
analysts point to California that has a lower fraction of coal- fraction of nuclear and renewable energy in California has
generated electricity on the average and more zero-carbon little impact on the GHGs from charging batteries. The results
sources (nuclear and renewables, primarily hydroelectric) of their analysis are shown in Fig. 3.
than the rest of the country as shown in Table 11 for 2010. They conclude that even in California with higher zero-
However, the average utility mix is not the appropriate metric carbon electricity,7 FCEVs using hydrogen made from
for calculating GHG emissions. As stated in the GHG Protocol natural gas will generate lower GHGs than either BEVs or
PHEVs. All the other GHG data in this report use the average
6
Fuel economy in Liters of gasoline per 100 km, which is
7
inversely proportional to the fuel economy numbers in miles per “SMR” in Fig. 3 refers to “steam methane reforming,” the
gallon used in the U.S. process of converting natural gas to hydrogen.
i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 6 0 5 3 e6 0 6 2 6059

Table 8 e Estimated number of small vehicles suitable for BEVs on the road, and estimated VKT and gasoline consumption
for those vehicles in US LDV fleet.
No. of vehicles Average fuel Total km traveled ICV Gasoline BEV gasoline Net Oil Savings
on the road economy (VKT-million km Consumed (Million liters (million Liters
(thousands) (Liters per 100 km) per year) (million per year) per year)
1/liters/year)

Vehicles suitable for BEVs


Small cars & wagons 64,525 9.7 511.6 49.5 0.77 (48.74)
Small vans 155 9.3 2.8 0.3 0.00 (0.25)
Small pickups 2,428 9.5 40.1 3.8 0.06 (3.76)
Small SUVs 3,643 9.9 68.4 6.8 0.10 (6.66)
50% of midsize sedans 20,125 10.6 356.7 37.7 0.58 (37.16)
Total or wgt. ave. "small cars" 90,876 9.9 979.6 96.7 1.50 (95.16)
"Small carsþ 50% 39.6% 27.2% 24.9% 0.39% 24.5%
midsize" % of total
Larger cars and trucks
50% of midsize sedans 20,125 10.6 356.7 37.7 0.58
Midsize wagons 2,775 10.9 48.3 5.3 0.08
Midsize vans 16,418 10.1 322.7 32.5 0.50
Midsize pickups 8,141 10.0 144.6 14.4 0.22
Midsize SUVs 27,548 10.4 550.6 57.5 0.89
Large cars 20,057 11.3 341.0 38.5 0.60
Large vans 1,599 13.1 30.4 4.0 0.06
large pickups 23,289 12.4 444.9 55.0 0.85
large SUVs 18,391 11.9 388.8 46.2 0.72

Total or wgt. Ave. large 138,344 11.0 2,628.0 291.2 4.51


cars and LD Trucks
% of total 60.4% 75.1%

3.2. Future GHG reductions


Table 9 e Percentage of US electricity projected by the
EIA’s 2011 Annual Energy Outlook reference case. In the future, both hydrogen and electricity can be made from
lower carbon sources to further reduce GHGs. However, as
2010 2015 2020 2035
discussed above, the low-carbon electricity sources such as
Residual Oil 1.0% 0.9% 1.0% 0.9% nuclear and renewables will most likely be used to displace
Natural Gas 23.1% 20.9% 19.9% 21.9% fossil fuel electricity directly to maximize GHG reductions,
Coal 46.2% 44.6% 45.2% 45.8%
and will not generally be on the margin for charging EV
Total Fossil Fuels: 70.3% 66.4% 66.1% 68.6%
Nuclear 20.3% 21.0% 21.3% 19.0%
batteries.9
Renewables other 9.4% 12.5% 12.7% 12.3% Zero-carbon Hydrogen, on the other hand, is already being
economically generated from renewable sources. For example,
electricity grid as utilized by the GREET model.8 As a result, all the Orange County Sanitation District in Fountain Valley,
the GHG emissions estimated for BEVs and PHEVs in this California has installed a 250-kW molten carbonate fuel cell
report except Fig. 3 are conservative: actual BEV and PHEV system to produce electricity to run their waste water treat-
GHG emissions will be greater than estimated here since ment plant, displacing grid electricity and cutting GHGs. This
marginal grid mixes emit more carbon than the average grid stationary fuel cell runs on the anaerobic digester gas from the
mixes and the GHG advantages of the FCEV described below treatment plant. Excess thermal energy from the fuel cell is
will be greater than stated, used to heat the digester tanks, displacing natural gas previ-
As shown in Table 12, the gasoline-powered ICVs that are ously used to heat the tanks, which further reduces GHGs.
replaced by the BEVs account for 25.1% of all LDV GHG emis- Excess hydrogen produced by the stationary fuel cell is cleaned
sions. But the average US grid used to charge the BEVs would up and used to power FCEVs. The electricity and heat produced
emit 18.5% of the total GHGs, so the net savings in GHGs is by the stationary fuel cell can pay for the equipment in a few
only 6.6%, far short of the goal of reducing GHGs by 80% below years, meaning that the hydrogen price can be cost competi-
1990 levels or 83% below 2009 levels by 2050. tive with gasoline per mile driven. Since hydrogen would only

9
However, intermittent renewables such as wind and solar will
8
Estimating the marginal electricity grid mix is very complex, be on the margin during some periods of the day since they have
which is why average grid mix is often used instead. As stated by to be added to grid as soon as the electricity is generated. But for
the GHG Protocol [23] “A simple average emission rate may be the most part, the average grid mix over emphasizes the benefits
necessary in situations where data are not available to perform of renewables since utilities cannot increase the output from
one of the marginal rate methods described in this chapter.” intermittent renewables to meet new loads.
6060 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 6 0 5 3 e6 0 6 2

be used to fuel FCEVs (as opposed to low-carbon electricity


Table 10 e Fuel economy of conventional gasoline ICVs
and greenhouse gas emissions for various vehicles in being fed to the grid), substantial GHG reductions would be
four time periods. immediately realized with this renewable hydrogen pathway.
Another renewable hydrogen pathway would convert the
2010 2015 2020 2035
methane from landfill gas to hydrogen. Methane escaping from
Fuel Economy (Liters/100 km)¼> 11.3 10.2 9.9 8.7 landfills accounted for approximately 7% of all US GHGs and
GHGs (grams/km) waste water treatment plant digester gas emissions accounted
for just under 2% in 2009. Replacing all US cars with FCEVs
Gasoline ICV 297 301 254 254
running on hydrogen from waste water or landfills could result
Gasoline HEV 213 216 182 182
in a 109% reduction in the transportation GHG level.
Gasoline PHEV-40 232 229 195 195
NGV 283 261 220 220
NG PHEV-40 221 215 184 184
BEV (average US grid) 233 222 184 184 4. Petroleum consumption
FCEV (H2 from NG) 175 169 136 136

The GREET model also calculates petroleum consumption for


various vehicles as summarized in Table 13.
Some readers might be surprised to see that BEVs
“consume” petroleum. The GREET model analyzes complete
“well-to-wheels” GHG emissions and oil consumption. Thus
petroleum is required to mine and process coal and natural gas
and particularly to transport coal to electrical generation
plants. So charging vehicle batteries with electricity produced
by burning fossil fuels will require the consumption of petro-
leum to process and deliver those fuels. Similarly, compressing
hydrogen for FCEVs consumes electricity, so some petroleum
is required to power FCEVs, although BEVs “consume”
approximately four times more petroleum than FCEVs,
Fig. 3 e Estimated GHGs from alternative vehicles in
although both consume less than 4% of regular gasoline cars.
California from McCarthy and Yang [SMR [ steam
methane reformer; a device to make hydrogen from
natural gas.]
5. Four market penetration scenarios

Given these data, we can now calculate the reductions in


GHGs and oil consumption under four scenarios:
Table 11 e Percentage of electricity generated in 2010 by
fuel source in California compared to the entire US.  BEVs-only (BEV market penetration limited according to
Cal US Table 8)
 PHEVs-only (All cars replaced by PHEVs)
Coal 8.1% 46.2%
Oil 0.0% 1.0%  BEVs and PHEVs (BEVs limited according to Table 8, with
Natural Gas 41.0% 20.3% PHEVs replacing all other vehicles)
Total Fossil fuels 49.1% 67.5%  FCEVs-only (All vehicles replaced by FCEVs)
Nuclear 23.1% 20.3%
Renewables 28.0% 9.4% The results are shown in Fig. 4 for GHG reductions for three
time periods: 2015, 2020, & 2035. FCEVs can reduce GHGs in the

Table 12 e Estimated greenhouse gas reductions by replacing all small vehicles (and 50% of all midsize sedans) with BEVs
powered by the average US grid mix in 2015.
ICV GHG ICV GHGs BEV GHGs BEV GHGs Net GHG
(grams per km) (Tonnes per (gram per km) (Tonnes Savings
yr CO2-eq.) per yr CO2-eq.)

Vehicles suitable for BEVs


Small cars & wagons 286 146,265 211 107,965 (38,300)
Small vans 275 761 203 562 (199)
Small pickups 282 11,293 208 8,336 (2,957)
Small SUVs 292 19,990 216 14,755 (5,234)
50% of midsize sedans 304 108,327 224 79,961 (28,366)
Total or wgt. ave. “small cars” 286,636 211,579 (75,057)
“Small cars þ 50% midsize” % of total 25.1% 18.5% 6.56%
i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 6 0 5 3 e6 0 6 2 6061

small vehicles and PHEVs for all other vehicles, which can
Table 13 e Projected average vehicle fuel economy and
petroleum consumption in kJ-kmL1 for various vehicle reduce petroleum consumption by less than 67%.
types in four time periods.
2010 2015 2020 2035
6. Conclusions
AEO Fuel Economy 11.3 10.2 9.9 8.7
(Liters/100 km)¼>
Petroleum Consumption (kJ-km1) Based on the detailed “well-to-wheels” analysis using the
Argonne National Laboratory GREET model, we conclude that:
Gasoline ICV 3,808 3,435 3,317 2,935
To substantially cut greenhouse gas emissions and oil
Gasoline HEV 2,720 2,453 2,369 2,096
dependence, society must curb gasoline and diesel fuel in the
Gasoline PHEV-40 1,761 1,596 1,546 1,377
NGV 21 19 18 16 operation of conventional vehicles. These reductions in
NG PHEV-40 36 33 35 32 transportation GHGs and oil consumption will require a port-
BEV (average US grid) 63 53 55 46 folio of alternative vehicles. No single alternative will suffice.
FCEV (H2 from NG) 16 15 14 13 The Obama administration’s selection of battery electric
vehicles and plug-in hybrids as the only options for their
alternative vehicle strategy is particularly short-sighted and
ill-advised since:
Battery electric vehicles alone, even if they replaced all
small cars, all small vans, all small pickup trucks and all small
SUVs plus 50% of all midsize passenger cars in the U.S. would
only reduce LDV GHGs by less than 7.5%, far less than the 83%
reduction below 2009 levels required to achieve an overall
reduction of 80% below 1990 GHG levels, and they would only
cut petroleum consumption by less than 25%.
Therefore BEVs alone will not be able to make substantial
reductions in GHGs or oil consumption until a) higher specific
power batteries are developed so that BEVs can replace larger
cars with longer driving capacity, and b) almost all carbon is
eliminated from electricity generation.
If, in addition to the small BEVs mentioned above, plug-in
Fig. 4 e Estimated percentage reduction in GHGs (large is hybrids replace all other vehicles, (all gasoline vehicles
good!) for four vehicle scenarios and three time periods. would be replaced by either BEVs or PHEVs) then GHGs would
be reduced by less than 25% and oil consumption by less than
67%.
If, on the other hand, fuel cell electric vehicles replaced all
near-term by over 43% with hydrogen made from natural gas, vehicles in the U.S., then GHGs would immediately be reduced
while the next best option, BEVs and PHEVs could at best by more than 40% and oil consumption would be cut by nearly
100%, even if all hydrogen was still made from natural gas.
reduce GHGs by only 25%.
Greater GHG reductions would be achieved as hydrogen is
Finally, Fig. 5 shows the percentage reduction in petroleum
made from low-carbon sources such as from landfill gas or
consumption for the same four scenarios as Fig. 4. Again, the
from waste water treatment plant anaerobic digester gas, or,
best option is the FCEV case, which eliminates almost all
eventually, from water electrolysis using renewable electricity
petroleum use, while the second-best option is BEVs for all
or nuclear power.
The need to reduce GHGs and oil consumption from the
transportation sector is too urgent to limit our options at this
time. We need to develop all of the above.

references

[1] McKinsey & Company. A portfolio of power-trains for


Europe: a fact-based analysis: the role of battery electric
vehicles, plug-in hybrids and fuel cell electric vehicles.
Available at: http://www.europeanclimate.org/documents/
Power_trains_for_Europe.pdf; 2007 [accessed 23.09.2011].
[2] Hockstad L, Cook B. “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse gas
emissions & Sinks, 1990e2009, EPA report # 430-R-1-005,
April 15, 2011, Available at: http://epa.gov/climatechange/
Fig. 5 e Calculated reductions in petroleum use (large is emissions/downloads11/US-GHG-Inventory-2011-Complete_
good!) for the four vehicle scenarios and three time periods. Report.pdf [accessed 23.09.2011].
6062 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 6 0 5 3 e6 0 6 2

[3] Bullis K. “The secretary of energy talks with Technology & Climate change, ” Available at: http://www.wbcsd.org/
Review about the future of nuclear power post Yucca web/publications/pathways.pdf, [accessed 09.12.2011].
Mountain and why fuel-cell cars have no future, ” [15] Malen DE, Reddy K. “Preliminary vehicle mass estimation
Technology Review, MIT, May 14, 2009. Available at: http:// using empirical subsystem influence coefficients, ”
www.technologyreview.com/business/22651/page1/ University of Michigan, May 9, 2007 (revised June 26, 2007),
[accessed 12.12.2011]. Available at: http://www.a-sp.org/database/custom/Mass%
[4] M. Q. Wang, “The Greenhouse gas, regulated emissions and 20Compounding%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf [accessed
energy use in transportation (GREET), ” Model 1_2011 Energy 12.12.2011].
Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Available at: [16] See USABC Goals for Advanced Batteries for EVs on the U.S.
http://greet.es.anl.gov/ [accessed 09.12.11]. Council for Automotive Research, LLC web page at: http://
[5] Thomas CE. Transportation Options in a carbon-constrained www.uscar.org/guest/article_view.php?articles_id¼85
world: hybrids, plug-in hybrids, fuel cell electric vehicles and [accessed 12.12.11].
battery electric vehicles. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34: [17] Alson J. “Light duty Automotive Technology, carbon Dioxide
9279e98. emissions and fuel economy trends: 1975 through 2010, ”
[6] Thomas CE. Fuel cell and battery electric vehicles compared. Appendix F, US Environmental Protection Agency, Ann
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:6005e20. Arbor, Michigan, Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oms/
[7] The National Hydrogen Association, “The Energy evolution: fetrends.htm#report [accessed 12.12.2011].
analysis of alternative vehicles and fuels to 2100, ” Available [18] Davis SC, Diegel SW, Boundy RG. “Transportation energy
at: http://www.ttcorp.com/work.asp#industryRpts [accessed data Book”, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National
01.05.12]. Laboratory Center for Transportation Analysis, Edition 29,
[8] Kromer M, Heywood J. “Electric Powertrains: Opportunities July 2010, Table 3.11 for passenger vehicles and Table 3.13 for
and Challenges in the US light duty vehicle fleet, ” MIT report light duty trucks, Available at: http://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.
# LFEE 2007-03 RP, May 2007. Available at: http://web.mit. shtml [accessed 12.12.11].
edu/sloan-auto-lab/research/beforeh2/files/kromer_electric_ [19] Private communication with A. Elgowainy at the Argonne
powertrains.pdf, [accessed 09.12.2011]. National Laboratory, 4/25/2011, using data compiled by
[9] Bandivadekar A, Bodek K, Cheah L, Evans C, Groode T, Anant Vyas using the 2009 NHTS survey of households with
Heywood J, et al. “On the Road in 2035: reducing 309,163 vehicles.
transportation’s petroleum consumption and GHG [20] “Vehicle size classes used in the fuel economy guide” the US
emissions, ” MIT report # LFEE 2008-05 RP, July 2008, Environmental Protection Agency, Available at: http://www.
Available at: http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/ fueleconomy.gov/feg/info.shtml (Click on “How are vehicle
documents/fueling-transportation/OTRin2035_MIT_July% size classes defined?”) [accessed 11.12.11].
202008.pdf, [accessed 01.05.12]. [21] Wipke K, Anton D, Sprik S. “Evaluation of range estimates for
[10] Elgowainy A, Han J, Poch L, Wang M, Vyas A, Mahalik M, Toyota FCHV-adv under open-road driving conditions, ”
Rosseau A. “Well-to-Wheel analysis of energy use and Savannah River National Laboratory and National
greenhouse gas emissions of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, Renewable Energy Laboratory, Report # SRNS-STI-
” Argonne National Laboratory report # ANL/ESD/10-1, June 2009e00446, August 10, 2009, Available at: http://www.nrel.
2010. Available at: http://www.osti.gov/greenenergy/ gov/hydrogen/pdfs/toyota_fchv-adv_range_verification.pdf
rddetail?osti_id¼982352, [accessed 09.12.2011]. [accessed 11.12.11].
[11] . Plotkin, Singh M, “Multi-path Futures Study: vehicle [22] The Annual Energy Outlook 2011, The DOE’s energy
characterization and scenario analysis, ” Argonne National Information administration, Available at: http://www.eia.
Laboratory report # ANL/ESD/09-5, Available at: http://www. gov/forecasts/aeo/ [accessed 11.12.11].
transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/614.PDF, [accessed 09.12.2011]. [23] Breoekhoff D, “The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Guidelines for
[12] MacLean H, Lave L. Life cycle assessment of automobile/fuel quantifying GHG reductions from grid-connected electricity
options. Environ Sci Technol 2003;37:5445e52. projects, ” World Resources Council and the World Business
[13] Ramage M. Chairman, Committee on the assessment of Council for Sustainable Development, August 2007. Available
Resource needs for fuel cell and hydrogen Technologies, at: http://pdf.wri.org/GHGProtocol-Electricity.pdf, [accessed
“Transition to alternative transportation Technologies: 11.12.11].
a focus on hydrogen. Available at:. National Research [24] McCarthy R, Yang C. “Determining the marginal electricity
Council http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_ for near-term plug-in and fuel cell vehicle demands in
id¼12222&page¼R6; 2008 [accessed 12/9/2011]. California: impacts on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions, ” J
[14] Riberio S (Brazil), Koborshi S (Japan). Chapter 5, “Transport Power Sources, (2009) doi: 10.1016/j.jpowersour.2000.10.024,
and its infrastructure” in the world Business Council for Available at: http://pubs.its.ucdavis.edu/publication_detail.
Sustainable development project “Pathways to 2050: Energy php?id¼1362, [accessed 11.12.11].

You might also like