case simulation and users q&a

Case Simulation and Users Q&A: Petroleum, Ethanol, Pyrolysis and Plug-in Hybrid

Electric Vehicles

Jeongwoo Han, Amgad Elgowainy

and Jennifer Dunn

Systems Assessment Group

Center for Transportation Research

Argonne National Laboratory

The GREET Training Workshop

Argonne National Laboratory

December 7-8, 2011

Color Scheme for the GREET Model

Clear cells are primarily for calculations and secondary assumptions

Yellow cells are key input assumptions that users can change for their own simulations

Peach cells are key options that users can select for their own simulations from drop-down menu

Green cells are key input assumptions with probability distribution functions built in

Blue cells are GREET forecast cells for running stochastic simulations

Gray cells are placeholder pathways

2

What not to do

Change values in white cells unless you know well enough

Change values in yellow cells of any time series tables and recalculate (pressing F9)

Open GREET with another Excel file

– Especially from one whose calculation setting does not look like …

3

Outline

Petroleum

Pyrolysis

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Ethanol

4

Available at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es201942m

and http://greet.es.anl.gov/publications

Supporting Document: Journal Article and Technical

Memo

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es201942m

http://greet.es.anl.gov/publications

System Boundary of Petroleum Pathways

6

Well Drilling

Crude Oil Recovery

Crude Refining

Fuel T&D

Crude Transport

Fuel Combustion

in Vehicle

Energy and emissions calculated in GREET2

Inputs

Fuel_Prod_TS Petroleum

Fuel_Prod_TS Petroleum

Car_TS LDT1_TS LDT2_TS

Oil Sand Recovery (Surface)

Oil Sand Recovery (In-Situ)

Bitumen Upgrading

Bitumen Upgrading

Updated Crude Refining Model

7

1. Combustion emissions (e.g., engines, boilers,

turbines, etc.)

2. Non-combustion emissions (e.g., SMR, GTL, etc.)

3. Other emissions (from internally produced fuels)

Combustion Process Fuel 1

Chemical

Conversion

Process Fuel 2

internally

produced fuel

Main

Product

Oil Sand-based gasoline and diesel generate 15%

more GHG emissions than conv. crude-based ones

8

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Co

nve

nti

on

al C

rud

e

Oil

San

d

U.S

. Ave

rage

Co

nve

nti

on

al C

rud

e

Oil

San

d

U.S

. Ave

rage

Gasoline LSD

g CO

2e/g

gePTW

WTP

Demo

Change efficiencies in the Fuel_Prod_TS tab

– Crude recovery efficiency

– Oil sands recovery and upgrading efficiencies (in-situ and surface mining)

– H2 use for upgrading oil sands (in-situ and surface mining)

– Share of surface mining process in oil sands recovery

– Share of oil sands products in crude oil blend

CO2 emissions for crude recovery in the Petroleum tab

Non-combustion CH4 Emissions are defined in the Petroleum tab

PTW assumptions can be found in the Car_TS, LDT1_TS or LDT2_TS tabs

WTW Results can be found in the Results tab

9

Outline

Petroleum

Pyrolysis


Ethanol

10

Available at http://greet.es.anl.gov/publications

Supporting Document: WTW Analysis Report

http://greet.es.anl.gov/publications

Pyrolysis Process Description

12

Pyrolysis

Hydrotreating 1) Integrated Bio-refinery

Bio-char Fuel Gas Steam

Pyrolysis Oil Recovery

Cyclone

Pyrolysis Oil

Pyrolysis Oil Reforming

External NG

External H2

Fuel Gas/NG Reforming

H2 ① ②

③

Transport

2) Distributed Bio-refinery

3) Petroleum Refinery

System Boundary of Pyrolysis-based Fuel Pathways

13

Fertilizer Production

Corn Stover Collection &

Transportation

Gasoline/ Diesel T&D

Vehicle Operation

Forest Residue Collection &

Transportation

Pyrolysis, Hydrotreating & Refining

Bio-char

Steam Fuel Gas

Power Generation

Electricity

Conventional

Electricity

Generation

Conventional LPG

Production

Conventional

Steam Production

Conventional

Fertilizer

Production

Soil Application

Reduced Fertilizer C Sequestration

Ag_Inputs EtOH

EtOH

Pyrolysis

GHG emissions reduce with lower yield, biogenic

H2 and bio-char applied to soil

14

High yield process based on PNNL study with forest residue Low yield process based on ISU study with corn stover

Higher yield increases petroleum savings

15

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Petr

oleu

m S

avin

g (m

mB

tu/t

on ) Low Yield High Yield

Biochar Elec.Generation Biochar Sequestration

Demo

Key input parameters (biomass use, process energy inputs and shares and product slates) for each scenario in Section 10 of the Inputs tab

Methods for dealing with co-products in Section 2 of the Pyrolysis tab

– Steam use

– Effects of biochar applied to soil

16

Outline

Petroleum

Pyrolysis


Ethanol

17

PHEVs WTW Pathway

Upstream

Oil

1%

Gas

20%

Coal

47%

Nuclear

21%

Renewable

11%

18

PHEV

Electricity

Emissions

Crude

Recovery Crude

Transportation Fuel

Transportation

Crude

Refining

Gasoline

19 19 19

Key Issues for WTW of PHEVs

PHEV performance evaluation

Fuel economy by vehicle design (e.g., power-split or series design)

Vehicle electric range (ER) in charge depletion (CD) mode

On-road adjusted fuel economy and electricity consumption for each mode of operation (i.e., Charge Depletion [CD] and Charge Sustaining [CS])

On-road adjusted electric range (ER)

PHEV mileage shares by power source

Determined VMT shares by grid power and on-board power

Electricity generation mix to charge PHEVs

PHEV market penetration projections

Charging level and charging scenarios (starting time, # of charges, etc.)

Generate PHEVs load profiles for corresponding charging scenarios

19

20 20

Fuel and Electricity Consumption of PHEVs and

VMT Share Split Between CD and CS

Adjusted Fuel Economy and Electricity Consumption

(Midsize Vehicle Class)

21

*Electricity consumption does not include charging losses; charging efficiency assumed at 85%

PHEV 10 PHEV20 PHEV30 PHEV40

ICEV HEV CD CS CD CS CD CS CD CS

Gasoline Fuel

Economy (mpg) 29.5 44.3 113 47.5 111 47.3 N/A 37.6 N/A 37.2

Electricity

Consumption*

(Wh/mi) N/A N/A 188 N/A 185 N/A 319 N/A 323 N/A

Power-split Series Design

22 22 22

PHEVs with 20-Mile ER Account for 40% of Daily VMT,

PHEVs with 40-Mile for more than 60%

22

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles Driven on CD Mode

% o

f D

aily

VM

T o

n C

D M

od

e (

Uti

lity

Fa

cto

r)

fuel consumption for charge depleting and charge sustaining operations were combined

using the utility factor (UF)

(FCCDGrid + FCCDICE )* UF + FCCS * (1-UF)

23 23

Charging Scenarios and Their Impact on

PHEVs Load Profiles

PHEVs Load Profile Can Vary Considerably with Charging

Scenario (Figure Shown for WECC)

24

PHEVs Load is Relatively Small Even at 10% Penetration in

the LDV FLEET (Figure Shown for WECC in 2030)

25

26 26

Electricity Generation Mix

for PHEV Recharging

27

Alternative Charging Scenarios of PHEVs in WECC (including California)

Fuel Technology

Charging Starts at End of

Trip

Charging Ends Before Time

of Departure

Charging Ends Before Time

of Departure + Opportunity

Charge at Work or Home

Coal Utility Boiler /

IGCC

0% 0% 0

Natural Gas Utility Boiler -0.5% 0.2% 0.9%

Combined Cycle 96.5% 97.2% 92.0%

Combustion

Turbine

3.5% 1.8% 6.5%

Residual Oil Utility Boiler 0% 0% 0%

Nuclear Utility Boiler 0% 0% 0%

Biomass Utility Boiler 0% 0% 0%

Renewable Hydro/Wind/Solar 0.5% 0.8% 0.6%

Total 100% 100% 100%

The Marginal Mix for PHEV Recharging is Dominated by NGCC For All Considered

Charging Scenarios

(Table Shown for WECC in 2030)

28 28

WTW Petroleum Use and GHG Emissions

Results

29

WTW Petroleum Use by PHEVs Relative to ICEV and HEVs

(Figure Shown for Unconstrained Charging in WECC)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

CD CS CD CS CD CS CD CS

ICEV HEV PHEV10 PHEV20 PHEV30 PHEV40

Pe

tro

leu

m U

se [

Btu

/mi]


30

WTW GHG Emissions of PHEVs Relative to ICEV and HEVs


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

CD CS CD CS CD CS CD CS

ICEV HEV PHEV10 PHEV20 PHEV30 PHEV40

GH

G E

mis

sio

ns

[g/m

i]


31

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

GH

G E

mis

sio

ns (

rela

tive to

GV

)

Petroleum Use (relative to GV)

Regular HEV

Baseline Gasoline ICE Vehicle (GV)

Combined CD and CS OperationsCD operation only

PHEV10

PHEV30 PHEV40

PHEV20

Power-Split

Design

Series (EREV)

Design

PHEV30

PHEV40 PHEV10

and

PHEV20

Significant WTW Petroleum Savings for PHEVs Relative to ICEV and HEVs But

WTW GHG Emissions Comparable to HEVs


32

Report available at:

http://greet.es.anl.gov/publication-

xkdaqgyk

Acknowledgment

This work has been sponsored by Vehicle

Technologies and Fuel Cell Technologies

programs of EERE, DOE

Outline

Petroleum

Pyrolysis


Ethanol

33

Life Cycle of Corn Ethanol

34

CCLUB

Inputs

Fuel_Prod_TS

Fuel_Prod_TS

EtOH Inputs Inputs

Ag_Inputs

T&D

Ethanol Life Cycle Supporting Documentation

35

Available at: www.greet.es.anl.gov/publications and journal websites

http://www.greet.es.anl.gov/publications

Key factors in corn ethanol life cycle

Nitrogen is a customizable mix of Ammonia, Urea, and Ammonium Nitrate (Ag_Inputs)

Ethanol facility process fuel and co-products (Inputs)

Allocation method (Inputs)

– Displacement

– Energy

– Market value 36

Fertilizer Energy Use (Btu/g) CO2 emissions (g/g)

Nitrogen 47 2.6

P2O5 14 0.97

K2O 8.4 0.65

CaCO3 7.7 0.59

Trend of 35 Studies in the Past 35 Years: Energy

Use in U.S. Corn Ethanol Plants Has Decreased

Significantly

37

Fertilizer Use in U.S. Corn Farming Has Reduced

Significantly in the Past 40 Years

38

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Fer

tili

zer

Use

Per

Bu

shel

of

Co

rn (

rela

tiv

e to

19

70

)

Nitrogen

K2O

P2O5

Wang et al. (2007) from

USDA

Sugarcane Ethanol Life Cycle

39

Fuel_Prod_TS

Inputs

Ag_Inputs

Inputs

Fuel_Prod_TS

T&D

Sugarcane life cycle data updates

In the field (Fuel_Prod_TS):

– Field burning reductions exceeding mandated levels

– Harvest mechanization increasing, resultant increase in harvest energy

At the mill:

– Electricity exports increasing (Inputs)

– Adjusted embodied energy in equipment and buildings (EtOH)

40

Cellulosic Ethanol Life Cycle

41

Fuel_Prod_TS

Inputs

Ag_Inputs

Inputs

T&D Inputs EtOH

Cellulosic Ethanol Feedstock Supporting

Documents

42

Available at:

www.greet.es.anl.gov/publications

Feedstock Data

(per dry ton) Corn Stover Switchgrass Forest Residue

N application rate (g) 7,700 7,000 0

P application rate (g) 2,000 100 0

K application rate (g) 12,000 200 0

Farming Energy (Btu) 188,500 123,700 230,000

Herbicide application rate (g) 0 28 0

Pesticide application rate (g) 0 0 0

43

Life Cycle Results for Ethanol

44

Case studies

Feedstock for cellulosic ethanol

– Switchgrass

– Forest Residue

– Corn Stover

Ethanol facility

– Dry mill with only DDGS as co-product and NG as process fuel

– Dry mill with only WDGS as co-product and coal as process fuel

– Dry mill with only WDGS as co-product and biomass as process fuel

Embodied energy

– Derive sugarcane ethanol numbers with and without embedded energy of mill buildings and equipment

– Derive corn ethanol numbers with and without farming equipment

45

Backup Slides

46

System Boundary of Ethanol Pathways

Six options for feedstock are available

– Corn, Farmed Tree, Switchgrass, Corn Stover, Forest Residue and Sugar Cane

– Selection can be made in the Fuel_Prod_TS tab (Shares of Ethanol Production)

47

Fertilizer Production

Biomass Farming, Harvesting & Transport

Ethanol T&D

Ethanol Production

Fuel Combustion in Vehicle

Key Input Parameters for Fertilizer Production and

Biomass Farming Total Energy Inputs and Non-combustion

Emissions for fertilizer and pesticide production can be defined in the Ag_Inputs tab

Farming Energy Use and Fertilizer use

– Farming Energy Use: Corn and Biomass Farming in the Fuel_Prod_TS tab

– Fertilizer Use: Corn and Biomass Farming in the Fuel_Prod_TS tab and 7.2) in the Inputs tab

– Pesticide Use: 7.2) in the Inputs tab and Corn and Biomass Farming in the Fuel_Prod_TS tab

48

Key Input Parameters for Fertilizer Production and

Biomass Farming (Cont’d) CO2 Emissions from Land Use Change

– Defined in Carbon Calculator for Land Use Change from Biofuels (CCLUB) tool

– Linked in the Fuel_Prod_TS tab

N2O Emissions from Fertilizer Applications (7.4 in the Inputs tab)

Other Farming Assumptions

– Corn Stover Removal (7.5 in the Inputs tab)

– Sugar Cane Straw Burning (7.6 in the Inputs tab)

– Inclusion of Production of Farming Equipment (7.7 in the Inputs tab)

49

Ethanol Production Processes

50

Corn Ethanol Production

Farmed Tree Switchgrass Corn Stover

Forest Residue Sugar Cane

Fermentation Ethanol

Dry Milling Plant

Wet Milling Plant

Corn NG

Coal Biomass

Electricity

Dry DGS, Wet DGS

CGM, CGF, Corn Meal

DGS: distillers grains with solubles CGM: corn gluten meal CGF : corn gluten feed

Ethanol

Displace animal feed

Electricity

Key Input Parameters for Ethanol Production

Key input parameters (yields, energy use and co-produced electricity) for ethanol production from corn, farmed tree, switchgrass, corn stover and forest residue can be found in the Fuel_Prod_TS tab

The co-product yields of U.S. average corn ethanol production and the details of plant specific assumptions are listed in Section 7.9 of the Inputs tab.

Co-product handling methods for corn ethanol are also presented in Section 7.9

The displacement ratios of corn ethanol co-products to animal feed are calculated in Section 1.3c in the EtOH tab

Sugar cane-based ethanol production is specified in Section 7.12 in the Inputs tab

51

WTW Results for Ethanol Pathways

Share of ethanol in the fuel can be specified in Section 11 of the Inputs tab: Ethanol, Methanol, Biodiesel, FT diesel, Renewable diesel, Renewable gasoline, butanol, E-diesel

WTW Results for selected feedstock can be found in the Results tab

52

Displacement method

– Data intensive: need detailed understanding of the displaced product sector

– Dynamic results: subject to change based on economic and market modifications

– May not be reliable with a large amount of co-product

Backup: Co-Product Methods

53

Fuel

Main Product 80%

Co-product 20%

Energy & Emission Burden

80% 20%

Fuel

Main Product

Co-product

Energy & Emission Burden

100% 0%

Production of displaced product

Displacing conv. product

Conventional product

Fuel (Credit)

Allocation methods: based on mass, energy, or market revenue

– Easy to use

– Frequent updates not required for mature industry

– Mass based allocation: not applicable for certain cases such as electricity

– Energy based allocation: results not entirely accurate, when co-products are used in non-fuel applications such as animal feeds

– Market revenue based allocation: subject to price variation

Displacement method

Allocation method