Appendix C
Scenarios

Chapter 4 of this report compares scenarios for light-duty vehicles between 2010 and 2050. This appendix provides details of how that analysis was performed. It also analyzes the transition costs to achieve cost-effectiveness. Finally, it provides more detail on the decarbonized grid discussed in Chapter 4.

SCENARIO ANALYSIS

The first three cases, which do not include plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), are taken directly from the 2008 Hydrogen Report. They provide a point of comparison for the PHEV cases. They also allow us to analyze portfolio cases, where a strategy of introducing PHEVs is combined with improving efficiency in the gasoline ICEVs and HEVs and with the introduction of biofuels.

Hydrogen Report Cases
  • Reference Case (same as the 2008 Hydrogen Report Reference Case). Gasoline internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) continue to dominate the light-duty sector (Figure C.1). Gasoline HEVs gain about 10 percent fleet share by 2050. The fuel consumption of ICEV and HEV vehicles follows projections from the EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2008, meeting CAFE standards by 2020, with only modest improvements in fuel economy beyond this time (Figure C.2).

  • ICEV Efficiency Case (2008 Hydrogen Report Case 2). Improvements in internal combustion engine technology are implemented, and HEVs comprise 60 percent of the fleet by 2050 (Figure C.3). Fuel economy increases for both ICEVs and HEVs (Figure C.4).

  • Biofuels Intensive Case (2008 Hydrogen Report Case 3). Biofuels are introduced at a rapid rate. Over time, lower carbon biofuel supply is implemented (Figure C.5).

PHEV Cases
  • PHEV Case 1. PHEVs introduced according to Figure 4.1 (Chapter 4 in this report); total vehicles remain at Reference Case levels.

  • PHEV + ICEV Efficiency (PHEV Case 2). Same as PHEV Case 1, but gasoline ICEVs and HEVs improve according to ICEV Efficiency Case (Hydrogen Report Case 2). Vehicle mix is shown in Figure C.6.

  • PHEV + ICEV Efficiency + Biofuels (PHEV Case 3). Same as PHEV Case 2, but biofuels are rapidly introduced, replacing some of the fuel used by ICEVs and HEVs. Vehicle mix is shown in Figure C.6.

ESTIMATING PHEV PERFORMANCE

As illustrated in Figure C.7, while the battery is above a minimum state of charge (SOC), the PHEV operates in a charge-depleting (CD) mode, in which it draws down the onboard battery to meet vehicle power demands. Once it reaches this minimum SOC, the vehicle switches to charge-sustaining (CS) mode, which is functionally equivalent to conventional HEV operation. During this mode, the vehicle maintains the SOC within a limited operating envelope, using stored battery energy and capturing regenerative braking energy to optimize ICE operation.

For vehicles with a single source of stored energy, such as gasoline, hydrogen, or electric battery, modeling the energy consumption is fairly straightforward once the influencing factors (vehicle weight, frontal area, aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, engine and drive-train component performance and efficiency, and drive cycle) are specified.

For plug-in hybrid vehicles, however, there are two sources of stored energy onboard, gasoline and electricity, adding complexity to the energy-modeling task. The model must include estimates of the fraction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on electricity and the VMT on gasoline and how



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 44
Appendix C Scenarios PHEV Cases Chapter 4 of this report compares scenarios for light-duty vehicles between 2010 and 2050. This appendix provides • PHEV Case . PHEVs introduced according to Fig- details of how that analysis was performed. It also analyzes ure 4.1 (Chapter 4 in this report); total vehicles remain at the transition costs to achieve cost-effectiveness. Finally, it Reference Case levels. provides more detail on the decarbonized grid discussed in • PHEV + ICEV Efficiency (PHEV Case ). Same as Chapter 4. PHEV Case 1, but gasoline ICEVs and HEVs improve according to ICEV Efficiency Case (Hydrogen Report SCENARIO ANALYSIS Case 2). Vehicle mix is shown in Figure C.6. • PHEV + ICEV Efficiency + Biofuels (PHEV Case ). The first three cases, which do not include plug-in hybrid Same as PHEV Case 2, but biofuels are rapidly introduced, electric vehicles (PHEVs), are taken directly from the 2008 replacing some of the fuel used by ICEVs and HEVs. Vehicle Hydrogen Report. They provide a point of comparison for mix is shown in Figure C.6. the PHEV cases. They also allow us to analyze portfolio cases, where a strategy of introducing PHEVs is combined ESTImATING PHEV PERFORmANCE with improving efficiency in the gasoline ICEVs and HEVs and with the introduction of biofuels. As illustrated in Figure C.7, while the battery is above a minimum state of charge (SOC), the PHEV operates in Hydrogen Report Cases a charge-depleting (CD) mode, in which it draws down the onboard battery to meet vehicle power demands. Once it • Reference Case (same as the 00 Hydrogen Report reaches this minimum SOC, the vehicle switches to charge- Reference Case). G asoline internal combustion engine sustaining (CS) mode, which is functionally equivalent to vehicles (ICEVs) continue to dominate the light-duty sector conventional HEV operation. During this mode, the vehicle (Figure C.1). Gasoline HEVs gain about 10 percent fleet maintains the SOC within a limited operating envelope, using share by 2050. The fuel consumption of ICEV and HEV stored battery energy and capturing regenerative braking vehicles follows projections from the EIA Annual Energy energy to optimize ICE operation. Outlook 2008, meeting CAFE standards by 2020, with only For vehicles with a single source of stored energy, such as modest improvements in fuel economy beyond this time gasoline, hydrogen, or electric battery, modeling the energy (Figure C.2). consumption is fairly straightforward once the influencing • ICEV Efficiency Case (00 Hydrogen Report Case ). factors (vehicle weight, frontal area, aerodynamic drag, Improvements in internal combustion engine technology are rolling resistance, engine and drive-train component perfor- implemented, and HEVs comprise 60 percent of the fleet by mance and efficiency, and drive cycle) are specified. 2050 (Figure C.3). Fuel economy increases for both ICEVs For plug-in hybrid vehicles, however, there are two and HEVs (Figure C.4). sources of stored energy onboard, gasoline and electricity, • Biofuels Intensive Case (00 Hydrogen Report Case adding complexity to the energy-modeling task. The model ). Biofuels are introduced at a rapid rate. Over time, lower must include estimates of the fraction of vehicle miles trav- carbon biofuel supply is implemented (Figure C.5). eled (VMT) on electricity and the VMT on gasoline and how 

OCR for page 44
one-column size below 0 (billi one-column size below 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 010 2020 C 2030 2040 400 No. of vehicles (millions) 2050 GasolineYearV ICE  APPENDIX Gasoline HEV Year ICEV 300 70 No. of light-duty vehicles (millions) 400 TOTAL Fuel economy (mpg) 60 HEV 350 50 300 200 Gasoline ICEV Gasoline ICEV 40 PHEV 250 Gasoline HEV Gasoline HEV 30 200 Figure C-5 HFCV Figure C-2 20 150 Total R01653 100 R01653 Total 10 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 100 editable vectors 0 50 editable vectors 2010 2020 2030 size below one-column 2040 2050 2000 0 2000 ear 2020 2030 2040 2050 Y2010 one-column size below 0 Year Year 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 FIGURE C.4 Fuel economy for the ICEV Efficiency Case (Hydro- FIGURE C.1 Number of vehicles in the Hydrogen Report Refer- gen Report Case 2). SOURCE: NRC, 2008. Year ence Case. SOURCE: NRC, 2008. 50 (billion gallons fuel per year) 70 Figure C-3 45 60 Fuel economy (mpg) 40 Biofuel production R01653 Corn ethanol 50 35 replaced Cellulosic ethanol 30 40 Gasoline ICEV 25 Biobutanol editable vectors 30 Gasoline HEV 20 Biodiesel 20 one-column size below 15 Figure C-6 10 10 R01653 5 0 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 vectors editable 2040 2050 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 one-column size below Year Year FIGURE C.5 Biofuel supply for the Biofuels-Intensive Case (Hy- FIGURE C.2 Fuel economy for vehicles in the Hydrogen Report drogen Report Case 3). SOURCE: NRC, 2008. Reference Case. SOURCE: NRC, 2008. 400 No. of vehicles (millions) 400 # Vehicles (millions) ICEV 300 300 Gasoline ICEV HEV Gasoline HEV 200 200 PHEV (max) TOTAL 100 Total 100 0 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Year Year FIGURE C.3 Number of vehicles in the ICEV Efficiency Case FIGURE C.6 Numbers of light-duty vehicles for portfolio approach, (Hydrogen Report Case 2). SOURCE: NRC, 2008. where PHEVs are combined with efficient ICEVs and HEVs. much electricity and fuel are consumed over a drive cycle, • Pattern of driving. The fraction of miles traveled on both of which are influenced by three factors: electricity can also vary, depending on the driver’s pattern of trips. If the driver takes only short trips (less than the • The size of the battery. The larger the PHEV battery, all-electric range of the battery), all the miles could all be the greater the fraction of the car’s energy use that can be traveled on electricity. For longer trips, the driver will deplete provided by electricity. Battery size is sometimes expressed the battery and will have to use the engine. as all-electric range (AER), the distance that could be trav- • Control strategy of the PHEV when driven in CD mode. eled on just the battery if the car is operated in CD mode Some PHEVs (the PHEV-40 in this report) use an all-electric without using the engine. strategy, where the battery is depleted to a minimum SOC.

OCR for page 44
 TRANSITIONS TO ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES—PHEVS Minimum SOC FIGURE C.7 PHEV operating modes. SOURCE: Kromer and Heywood, 2007. Figure C-7 R01653 vehicle oper-bitmapped image uneditable At this point, the engine is turned on and the use values were then combined with the estimated fraction one-column size below ates in CS mode, similar to a gasoline hybrid. Other PHEVs of miles spent in CD and CS modes from Step 1 to estimate (the PHEV-10) use a “blended” strategy, where the engine electricity and fuel use over the whole drive cycle. is engaged when additional power is needed for acceleration Figure C.9 illustrates the energy consumption of gasoline or hill climbing as well as when the battery is discharged. and electricity over the combined FTP/HWFET drive cycle for various types of advanced hybrid and plug-in hybrid Vehicle simulation models were not used in this study. vehicles. As battery size increases, gasoline consumption Minimum SOC However, several recent studies have simulated a range of falls and electricity increases. The overall energy efficiency vehicles on a self-consistent basis, including gasoline ICEVs, of the vehicle is higher with larger batteries. HEVs, PHEVs, EVS, and HFCVs (Kromer and Heywood, 2007; Elgowainy et al., 2009; Simpson, 2006; Plotkin and Step 3. Estimate Energy Consumption for Singh, 2009). These studies employ varying assumptions All-Electric and Blended Vehicles about PHEV design and control strategies. To span the range of control strategies, the committee PHEV energy use over a drive cycle depends on the modeled a PHEV-40 with an all-electric drive strategy and a degree of blending assumed during CD mode. For an all- PHEV-10 with a blended strategy. Both PHEVs are midsize electric strategy, petroleum consumption over a drive cycle sedans with 100 kW power output. The committee drew is lower than for a blended strategy. This is illustrated in on the results of the referenced studies to approximate the Figure C.10. performance of the PHEVs modeled. This was accomplished Electricity use is about the same for various degrees of in four steps. blending, but gasoline use increases at higher blending ratios. Blended-26 percent represents the maximum possible blend- ing. Blended-55 percent represents all-electric operation. Step 1. Estimate Fraction of miles Only one study (Kromer and Heywood, 2007) evalu- Driven in CD and CS mode ated both blended and all-electric-range operation, and the The committee used a chart similar to Figure C.8 which committee used that study for estimating PHEV energy use. estimates the utility factor—the fraction of miles that could Although a PHEV-40 was not specifically evaluated in the be traveled on electricity in the United States—as a function study, linear interpolation between PHEV-30 and PHEV-60 of the PHEV’s all-electric range, or battery size. For a PHEV- results provided estimated energy use for PHEV-40s. 10, 23 percent of the nation’s miles traveled could be on PHEV gasoline and electricity energy use are expressed electricity. For a PHEV-40, the utility factor is 63 percent. as fractions of the gasoline energy used in an HEV, as shown in Table C.1. These ratios put PHEV energy use on the same basis as the 2008 Hydrogen Report. Step 2. Estimate PHEV Gasoline and Electricity Use over Drive Cycle The committee took the energy-use values for PHEVs in CD and CS modes from the referenced reports. The energy-

OCR for page 44
uneditable bitmapped image one-column size below  APPENDIX C Step 4. Estimate PHEV Gasoline and Electricity Use over Time The committee reasoned that PHEV engine and vehicle technologies (e.g., aerodynamics and rolling resistance) would improve at the same rate as fuel economy technolo- gies in the ICEV Efficiency Case: 2.7 percent per year from 2010 to 2025; 1.5 percent per year from 2026 to 2035; and 0.5 percent per year from 2036 to 2050. Combining these improvement rates and the derived energy-use ratios in Table C.1, the committee then developed assumed values Figure C-9 for gasoline and electricity use vs. time for the PHEV-10 and R01653 PHEV-40 from 2010 to 2050. All-Electric Range (Miles) uneditable bitmapped image Figure C.11 shows the resulting gasoline use for PHEV-10 and PHEV-40 vehicles for the Optimistic technology case. National VMT fraction available e below one-column siz for substitution by FIGURE C.8 Gasoline ICEV and HEV gasoline use in the Reference a PHEV using 100 percent electric charge-depleting mode. Case and high-efficiency cases are shown for comparison. SOURCE: Elgowainy et al., 2009. Figure C.12 shows the estimated electricity use for both the PHEV-10 and the PHEV-40. TABLE C.1 Ratio of Energy Use in PHEVs Compared to Energy Use in Gasoline HEVs Figure C-10 R01653 FIGURE C.9 Tank-to-wheels energy use in advanced vehicles, as- Energy Use in PHEVs vs. Gasoline Use in HEVs uneditable bitmapped image suming 44 percent blending during charge-depleting operation. SOURCE: Kromer and Heywood, 2007. PHEV-10 PHEV-40 one-column size below Ratio (Blended CD) (All-Electric CD) Gasoline use in PHEVs: 0.81 0.45 gasoline use in HEVs Electric energy use in PHEVs: 0.09 0.24 gasoline energy use in HEVs NOTE: The PHEV-10 is assumed to operate in blended mode and the PHEV-40 in all-electric mode during CD operation. As a check, the com - mittee also calculated ratios for PHEV electrical energy use and gasoline use as compared to a hybrid vehicle for two other PHEV modeling studies (Elgowainy et al., 2009; Simpson, 2006). The results were broadly similar for the PHEV-10 (gasoline use was 85-88 percent of HEV gasoline use and electricity energy use was 4-5 percent of HEV gasoline energy use). For the PHEV-40, these two studies estimated gasoline consumption ratios of 55-60 percent, and electricity use 12-15 percent (higher gasoline use and lower electricity use than Kromer and Heywood). Part of the difference may be because Elgowainy et al. (2009) and Simpson (2006) simulated FIGURE C.10 Energy consumption in a PHEV-30 as electric- only blended-mode CD operation, while Kromer and Heywood (2007) ity and gasoline for different blending strategies in CD mode. considered all-electric mode. SOURCE: Kromer and Heywood, 2007. SOURCE: Adapted from Kromer and Heywood (2007).

OCR for page 44
R01653 Cash flow (b –100 $B/yr editable vectors Year one-column size below Cash flow –150  TRANSITIONS TO ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES—PHEVS –200 100 12 ICEV (Reference Cumulati Case) 10 ICEV (High Efficiency) Fuel consumption 0 –250 (Reference flow, $B Fuel cost diff. (L per 100 km) Figure C-12 8 (gas−PHEV), $B HEV R01653 Case) per yr 6 Cash flow (billion $) –100 HEV (High Efficiency) Vehicle cost diff. editable vectors PHEV-10 Optimistic 4 –300 (gas−PHEV), $B per yr one-column size below -40 Optimistic 2 –200 Cash flow, $B PHEV 0 per yr –350 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 –300 Year Cumulative cash flow, $B 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 FIGURE C.11 Estimated on-road, fleet-average gasoline consump- –400 tion for ICEVs, HEVs, and PHEVs in this study. Electricity use in Year 2020 PHEVs not included. –500 2010 2030 2040 Year Figure C-14 180 R01653 160 FIGURE C.13 Cash flow analysis for PHEV-40, Maximum Practi- Electric consumption 140 cal case, Optimistic technical assumptions. The break-even year is editable vectors (Wh per km) PHEV-10 Optimistic 120 2040, and the buydown cost is $408 billion. one-column size below 100 80 PHEV-40 Optimistic 60 40 100 20 0 50 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Fuel cost diff. Year (gas−PHEV), 0 Cash flow (billion $) $B/yr FIGURE C.12 Estimated fleet-average electricity use over drive –50 Vehicle cost diff. cycle for PHEVs in this study. (gas−PHEV), –100 $B/yr Cash flow, $B/yr –150 TRANSITION COST ANALYSIS –200 Cumulative cash –250 A transition cash flow analysis was conducted to deter- flow, $B mine the investment costs required for PHEVs to reach cost –300 competitiveness with Reference Case gasoline vehicles. For –350 each year, the committee estimated the incremental cost of 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 buying PHEVs instead of gasoline reference vehicles. The Year incremental investment for vehicles is (Reference vehicle price − PHEV price) times the number of PHEVs sold each FIGURE C.14 Cash flow analysis for PHEV-40, Probable case, year. Then the committee estimated the annual cost of fuel Probable technical assumptions. The break-even year is 2047, and the buydown cost is $303 billion. for all the PHEVs in the fleet and the cost of fuel for an equal number of gasoline reference vehicles. The breakeven is the year when annual fuel cost savings balance annual purchase cost differences. All cases assume that charging electricity SENSITIVITY STUDIES costs 8 cents per kWh and that gasoline prices, as in the hydrogen study, increase from $2.70 per gallon in 2010 to The sensitivity of the transition analysis was explored $4.00 per gallon in 2050 (see Figure 4.9). for four key parameters: the price of electricity, the price of Results are shown in Figures C.13 through C.16 for gasoline, and the incremental costs of the PHEV-10 and the PHEV-10s and PHEV-40s. “Maximum Practical” is the PHEV-40 relative to those of a reference vehicle. Base case market penetration rate with Optimistic technical progress values are shown in Table C.2. Each variable is normalized and “Probable” is the market penetration rate with Probable to the base case value in Table C.3, which allows the sensi- technical progress. In addition, a mixed case, where 30 per- tivity results to be plotted on the same graph. Results for the cent of the market is captured by PHEV-40s and 70 percent break-even year and buydown cost for the two PHEVs are by PHEV-10s, is also included (Figures C.17 and C.18). shown in Figures C.19 through C.22. These figures supplement the results presented in Chapter 4 The buydown cost and break-even year for the PHEV-10 (Table 4.3). are not very sensitive to electricity prices, because most of

OCR for page 44
Figure C-17 Cash flow (gas−PHEV), 20 R01653 Cash flo R01653 editable vectors $B/yr editable vectors one-column size below 0 Cash flow, $B/yr one-column size below  APPENDIX C Cumula –20 100 100 flow, $B 80 Cumulative cash Fuel cost diff. Fuel cost diff. –40 60 50 flow, $B (gas−PHEV), (gas−PHEV), Cash flow (billion $) $B/yr Cash flow (billion $) $B/yr 40 Vehicle cost diff. Vehicle cost diff. (gas−PHEV), 0 20 (gas−PHEV), –60 flow, $B/yr $B/yr $B/yr Cash 0 Cash flow, $B/yr 2010 20200 2030 2040 –5 –20 Cumulative cash Year Cumulative cash flow, $B –40 2020 2030 2040 flow, $B –100 –60 Year –80 2010 2020 2030 2040 –150 Figure C-18 2010 2020 2030 2040 Year YearR01653 Figure C-16 FIGURE C.15 Cash flow analysis for PHEV-10, Maximum Practi- editable vectors R01653 cal case, Optimistic technical assumptions. The break-even year is FIGURE C.17 Cash flow analysis for mixed case (70 percent PHEV-10s andone-column size below Practical case, 2028, and the buydown cost is $33ectors editable v billion. 30 percent PHEV-40s), Maximum one-column size below Optimistic technical assumptions. The break-even year is 2032, and the buydown cost is $94 billion. 100 100 80 Fuel cost diff. (gas−PHEV), Cash flow (billion $) 80 60 Fuel cost diff. $B/yr (gas−PHEV), Cash flow (billion $) Vehicle cost diff. 40 $B/yrr 60 (gas−PHEV), Vehicle cost diff. $B/yr 20 (gas−PHEV), 40 Cash flow, $B/yr $B/yr 0 Cash flow, $B/yr 20 Cumulative cash –20 flow, $B 0 Cumulative cash –40 flow, $B –20 –60 2010 2020 2030 2040 –40 Year 2010 2020 2030 2040 Year FIGURE C.18 Cash flow analysis for mixed case (70 percent FIGURE C.16 Cash flow analysis for PHEV-10, Probable case, PHEV-10s and 30 percent PHEV-40s), Probable Case, Probable Probable technical assumptions. The break-even year is 2028, and technical assumptions. The break-even year is 2034, and the buy- the buydown cost is $15 billion. down cost is $47 billion. the fuel used by the PHEV-10 is gasoline. The PHEV-40 $4-$6/gallon gasoline in the timeframe 2010-2030), the results show a higher sensitivity to electricity price, as these PHEV-40 would break even in 2029 (instead of 2040), and vehicles travel over half their miles on electricity. Even if the buydown costs would be reduced to about $100 billion (from electricity price was 12 cents per kWh instead of the base $400 billion). case (8 cents per kWh), breakeven for the PHEV-40 would Finally, the break-even year and the buydown cost are be delayed only about 2 years. sensitive to the assumed vehicle price and the rate of learn- The results for both PHEV-10 and PHEV-40 are sensi- ing. In the low-cost case, the committee assumes that DOE tive to the assumed oil price. If oil prices rose 50 percent goals are met by 2020. This implies an earlier break-even compared to our base case (price of $120-$180/bbl or year and a much lower buydown cost for both the PHEV-10

OCR for page 44
one-column size below 250 Buydown cost $B 2020 TRANSITIONS TO ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES—PHEVS icty 0 Electr 200 Input Variables for Sensitivity Study 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 $/kWh TABLE C.2 2045 Break-even year Value/base value Oil Price 2040 Parameter Low Base High 150 Electricity price Electricity price, 0.06 0.08 0.15 2035 ($/kWh) $ per kWh Oil price 2030 0.5 × Base 1.0 × Base 2.0 × Base PHEV Inc Gasoline Price Incremental price of 100 2025 PHEV $ per gala Figure C-20 2020 R01653 Vehicle Incremental DOE Goal 2015 editable vectors retail price, $b (2020) Optimistic Probable 50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 Value/base value one-column size below PHEV-10c 4,500 7,700 (2010) 8,800 (2010) 5,100 (2030) 5,700 (2030) FIGURE C.19 PHEV-10: Sensitivity of break-even year to changes 0 in input variables. PHEV-40d 7,600 19,800 (2010) 25,500 (2010) 12,300 (2030) 15,500 (2030) DOE’s High Price Case (EIA, 2008, Annual Energy Outlook). See0.50 0.00 1.00 1.50 2.00 a 2050 Figure 4.9, which shows gasoline prices ranging from $2.75 to $4.00 per gallon from 2010 to 2050. Corresponds to oil at $80 to $120 per barrel Value/base value (2010-2030). Break-even year Electricty Price bSee Table 4.2. 2040 $/kWh cOEM cost of battery, $ per usable kWh: 2020, $500 (DOE goal); 2030, base, $720; 2030, high, $950. Oil Price dOEM cost of battery, $ per usable kWh: 2020, $300 (DOE goal); 2030, base, $720; 2030, high, $1000. PHEV Increm Price 2030 Figure C-21 R01653 2020 0.5editable v.5 1 ectors TABLE C.3 Range of Inputs Normalized to Base Value 0 1 2 one-column lue e below siz (divide values in Table C.2 by base value) Value/base va FIGURE C.20 PHEV-40: Sensitivity of break-even year to changes Variable Low Base High in input variables. Electricity Price 0.75 1 1.875 $ per kWh 0.5 × Base 1.0 × Base 2.0 × Base Gasoline Price 300 $ per gala 250 Vehicle Incremental Buydown cost $B Electricty Price retail price, $b DOE Goal Optimistic Probable 200 $/kWh PHEV-10c Base 0.87 1 Base 1.13 Oil Price 150 PHEV-40d Base 0.62 Base 1.25 PHEV Increm Price 100 aBaseis DOE’s High Price Case (EIA, 2008, Annual Energy Outlook). 50 See Figure 4.9, which shows gasoline prices ranging from $2.75 to $4.00 per gallon from 2010 to 2050, corresponding to oil at $80 to $120 per barrel 0 (2010-2030). 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 bSee Table 4.2. cOEM cost of battery, $ per usable kWh: 2020, $500 (DOE goal); 2030, Value/base value base, $720; 2030, high, $950. FIGURE C.21 PHEV-10: Sensitivity of buydown cost to changes dOEM cost of battery, $ per usable kWh: 2020, $300 (DOE goal); 2030, base, $720; 2030, high, $1000. in input variables.

OCR for page 44
Hydrogen GH (g CO2e per M R01653 editable vectors editable vectors one-column size below 40 one-column size below  APPENDIX C 20 700 700 GHG emissions (gCO 2e per kWh) 600 600 0 Buydown cost $B Electricty Price 500 $/kWh 500 2000 2010 2020 2030 2008 high 2040 400 Oil Price EIA 400 300 pric e Year PHEV Increm Price EPRI/NRDC 200 300 100 200 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 100 Value/base value Figure C-24 0 R01653 FIGURE C.22 PHEV-40: Sensitivity of buydown cost to changes 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 editable vectors in input variables. Year one-column size below FIGURE C.23 GHG emissions from the future electric grid. and, especially, the PHEV-40. The PHEV-40 would reach breakeven in 2024 at a total buydown cost of about $25 bil- lion instead of $400 billion. In the high case, the committee used both the probable cost values and the probable market 120 penetration rate. This delays the break-even year for both (g CO2e per MJ fuel energy) Hydrogen GHG emissions 100 PHEVs but can result in a lower buydown cost (because of the delay in buying PHEVs until costs have dropped). 80 With high oil prices or rapid success in meeting DOE’s battery goals, break-even years for PHEV-40s could occur 60 10 to 15 years sooner and the buydown costs would be much 40 lower than in the base case. 20 LOW-CARBON GRID 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)/Natural Year Resources Defense Council (NRDC) scenario used to esti- mate GHG emissions for a future low-carbon grid assumes FIGURE C.24 Hydrogen GHG emissions per megajoule of wide adoption of advanced low-carbon technologies. The energy. cost for charging electricity is assumed to be 8 cents/kWh for nighttime electricity. Figure C.23 compares the GHG emissions from two future electric grids: the low-carbon EPRI/NRDC case and the EIA business-as-usual Annual Energy Outlook high-price case. For the latter case, GHG emissions were extrapolated beyond 2030, assuming that electricity demand and GHG emissions for electric generation continue to grow at the same rate as between 2006 and 2030. Figure C.24 shows the hydrogen GHG emissions per unit of fuel energy assumed for hydrogen in the 2008 Hydrogen Report.