Capital requirements and fuel-cycle energy and emissions impacts of potential PNGV fuels.
Our study reveals that supplying gasoline-equivalent demand for the low-market-share scenario requires a capital investment of less than $$40 billion for all fuels except H{sub 2}, which will require a total cumulative investment of $$150 billion. By contrast, cumulative capital investments under the high-market-share scenario are $50 billion for LNG, $90 billion for ethanol, $100 billion for methanol, $160 billion for CNG and DME, and $560 billion for H{sub 2}. Although these substantial capital requirements are spread over many years, their magnitude could pose a challenge to the widespread introduction of 3X vehicles. Fossil fuel use by US light-duty vehicles declines significantly with introduction of 3X vehicles because of fuel-efficiency improvements for 3X vehicles and because of fuel substitution (which applies to the nonpetroleum-fueled alternatives). Petroleum use for light-duty vehicles in 2030 is reduced by as much as 45% relative to the reference scenario. GHG emissions follow a similar pattern. Total GHG emissions decline by 25-30% with most of the propulsion system/fuel alternatives. For those using renewable fuels (i.e., ethanol and H{sub 2} from solar energy), GHG emissions drop by 33% (H{sub 2}) and 45% (ethanol). Among urban air pollutants, urban NOX emissions decline slightly for 3X vehicles using CIDI and SIDI engines and drop substantially for fuel-cell vehicles. Urban CO emissions decline for CIDI and FCV alternatives, while VOC emissions drop significantly for all alternatives except RFG-, methanol-, and ethanol-fueled SIDI engines. With the exception of CIDI engines fueled by RFD, FT50, or B20 (which increase urban PM{sub 10} emissions by over 30%), all propulsion system/fuel alternatives reduce urban PM{sub 10} emissions. Reductions are approximately 15-20% for fuel cells and for methanol-, ethanol-, CNG-, or LPG-fueled SIDI engines. Table 3 qualitatively summarizes impacts of the 13 alternatives on capital requirements and on energy use and emissions relative to the reference scenario. The table clearly shows the trade-off between costs and benefits. For example, while H{sub 2} FCVs have the greatest incremental capital needs, they offer the largest energy and emissions benefits. On the basis of the cost and benefit changes shown, methanol and gasoline FCVs appear to have particularly promising benefits-to-costs ratios.
- Research Organization:
- Argonne National Lab., IL (US)
- Sponsoring Organization:
- US Department of Energy (US)
- DOE Contract Number:
- W-31109-ENG-38
- OSTI ID:
- 12414
- Report Number(s):
- ANL/ES/CP-98571; TRN: AH200120%%331
- Resource Relation:
- Conference: 32nd International Symposium on Automobile Technology and Automation, Vienna (AT), 06/14/1999--06/18/1999; Other Information: PBD: 11 Mar 1999
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Assessment of PNGV fuels infrastructure. Phase 1 report: Additional capital needs and fuel-cycle energy and emissions impacts
Well-to-wheels analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.