Background

1

International Energy Workshop June 21, 2012 Cape Town, South Africa

Transport: Alternatives

Effects of the low nuclear policy on technology competitiveness

among next generation vehicles in Japan

ENDO Eiichi

National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Japan

[email protected]

2

Background

After the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident, new energy mix scenarios have been proposed reflecting public opinion for antinuclear in Japan- by the Science Council of Japan (Sept. 2011)nuclear: 0% (3 scenarios),11.8%,40%,51.6% in 2030 in generated electricity - by the Fundamental Issues Subcommittee, the Advisory Committee for Natural Resources and Energy under the METI for establishing a new “Basic Energy Plan for Japan” (May 2012)nuclear: 0%,15%,20-25% in 2030 in generated electricity

cf. nuclear: 31.4% in 2010 in generated electricity, all nuclear power plants have been stopped since May 6, 2012

The low nuclear policy may affect technology competitiveness among energy technologies.

Purpose

- to analyze effects of technology characteristics, such as vehicle cost, hydrogen cost, on technology competitiveness among next generation vehicles, especially competitiveness between hydrogen FCV and EV, under various scenarios of nuclear and CO2 emissions in Japan

3

4

ApproachEnergy systems analysis by an energy system model of Japan- MARKAL is used

- whole energy system, from 1988 to 2052, 13 periods- 260 energy technologies and 40 energy carriers, around 9000 rows and 11000 columns

- objective function: trade-off between system cost and CO2 emissions, minimized under CO2 emissions constraint

5

Outline of the modeled energy system of Japan.

motor

natural uranium process heat ： boilerpetroleum products ： material

crude oil ： furnacesolar heat ： chemicals ：

coal ：steam coal coke ：coking coal firewood & RDF ： paper & pulp ：

LNG lubricating oil ： others ：methanol fuel oil gasoline ICE vehicle

natural uranium naphtha heatingcrude oil gasoline cooling

steam coal jet fuel hot watercoking coal kerosene cookingnatural gas LPG LPG ICE vehicle

pulp & black liquor diesel oil diesel ICE vehiclebiomass electricity electric vehicle commercial ：

hydro pulp & black liquor railgeothermal hydrogen

solar hydrogen ICE vehiclewind bus&truckwave methanol ship

town gas methanol ICE vehicle airCNG CNG ICE vehicle

LNG:Liquefied Natural Gas, RDF:Refuse Derived Fuel, LPG:Liquefied Petroleum GasCNG:Compressed Natural Gas, ICE:Internal Combustion Engine international ：

ocean thermal energy conversion

resi

de

ntia

l & c

om

me

rcia

l

residentialgasoline hybridelectric vehicle

：

light &appliances

ren

ew

ab

le electric vehiclemini

t

ran

spo

rta

tion

domesticpassenger

passengercar

Useful Energy Demand

ind

ust

ry

iron & steel

imp

ort

conversiontechnologies(to electric

power and heat)

domesticfreight

coal for overseasliquefaction ceramics

& cement：

non-energy

low temperatureheat

processtechnologies(refinement,

transportationand

delivery)

Primary EnergySources

Energy SupplyTechnologies

SecondaryEnergy Carriers

Energy DemandTechnologies

do

me

stic

gasoline ICE vehiclemini

coke oven gas,blast furnace gas hydrogen

fuel cell vehicle

AssumptionsNuclear

N0: promotes nuclear, former “Basic Energy Plan”, 68 GW from 2030 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 N1: maintains present status, 49GW N2: low nuclear, phases out after 40-year life time, near 0 GW in 2050 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　N3: low nuclear, stops immediately, 0 GW from 2015

CO2 emissions

C0: base, stringent constraint, around 15, 35% reduction in 2030, 2050, respectively from the level in 1990, without CCS,

close to the minimum CO2 emissions in the low nuclear N3

C1-C3: for sensitivity analysis, looser constraints

Scenarios for CO2 emissions.

Scenarios for nuclear.

6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Inst

alle

d c

apac

ity (G

W)

(Year)

N0N1N2N3

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050C

O2

emis

sio

ns (1

990=

1)

(Year)

C3

C2

C1

C0

Energy demandgiven by sector based on the governmental outlook (2008) considering population decrease

Fossil fuel pricesbased on the World Energy Outlook, New Policies Scenario by IEA (2011)

PV, Wind energy100GW, 50GW in 2050, respectively based on the technology development roadmaps

7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Fo

ssil

Fu

el P

rice

Ass

um

ptio

ns

(US

D/G

J) in

ye

ar-

20

00

do

llars

(Year)

IEA Crude oil

Japanese LNG

OECD steam coal

Assumed fossil fuel prices.

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Ind

ex

(Year)

iron&steel

chemicals

ceramics&cement

paper&pulp

non-manufacturing

commercial

residential

passenger

freight

Assumed energy demand indices.

outlook assumption

outlook assumption

8

Passenger cars11 types including 2 types of mini-size

gasoline ICEV, gasoline ICEV mini, LPG ICEV, diesel ICEV, hydrogen ICEV, methanol ICEV, CNG ICEV, gasoline HEV, EV, EV mini, and hydrogen FCV

Plug-in HEV: not modeled, assumed as a part of gasoline HEV and EV.

Technology characteristics of passenger carVehicle efficiency: energy efficiency from tank to wheel including regeneration in brake

Vehicle cost (ratio): vehicle cost compared with that of gasoline ICEV, fuel cost is not included

9

Assumed vehicle efficiency (in LHV).

Mini-sized:1/0.75 times of usual gasoline ICEV or EV, diesel: 1.2, hydrogen: 1.2, CNG: 1.14, LPG and methanol: 1.03 times of gasoline ICEV, respectively.

Assumed vehicle cost ratios to gasoline ICEV.Mini-sized: 0.9 times of usual gasoline ICEV or EV,

diesel: 1.2, LPG: 1.1, hydrogen: 1.3, CNG and methanol: 1.3 times of gasoline ICEV, respectively,

hydrogen FCV: parameter, 1.2 or more.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Veh

icle

eff

icie

ncy

(Year)

elctric vehicle

hydrogen FCV

gasoline HEV

gasoline ICEV

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Veh

icle

cos

t (ga

solin

e IC

EV

=1)

(Year)

10

Hydrogen production technologyOn-site steam reforming from town gas at hydrogen filling station

Technology characteristics: investment cost, O&M cost, availability, conversion efficiency, etc., based on the technology development roadmap

Scenarios for hydrogen cost (hydrogen filling station cost): Target, targets in the roadmap are achieved without delay, Delay, 10-20 years behind the target, 10-15% up in hydrogen cost

Electricity for EVnot only from night time power, but also from day time all power generation technologies

Other constraintsNext generation vehicles:

Market penetration target is extrapolated to 2050 by logistic curve, 99% in 2050

Mini-size vehicles (less than 660cc):

Upper bound is estimated applying logistic curve to the data, saturated at 35% Assumed upper bound

for total share of next generation vehicles in Japan.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Y

X

11

Ma

rke

t p

en

etr

atio

n (

%)

(Year)

Driving range

Ve

hicl

e s

ize

short long150 km

smal

lla

rge

EV

hydrogen FCV

analysis

Different roll by driving range and vehicle size of EV and hydrogen FCV.Technology competition in the medium driving range (around 150 km in Japan) and vehicle size is focused on.

12

Analyses

Total system cost is minimized under the CO2 emissions constraint

Sensitivity analyses:

- CO2 emissions: C0, C1-C3 - Nuclear: N0-N1, N2-N3 - Vehicle cost of hydrogen FCV: 1.2, 1.25, 1.3 - Hydrogen cost (hydrogen filling station cost): Target, Delay

13

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Prim

ary

ener

gy

sup

ply

(EJ/

year

)

(Year)

renewable

nuclear

natural gas

coal

oil

0

5

10

15

20

25

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Prim

ary

ener

gy

sup

ply

(EJ/

year

)

(Year)

renewable

nuclear

natural gas

coal

oil

Primary energy supply mix. Power generation mix. in generated electricity

14

N2C0

Difference between N0C0 and N2C0

If nuclear is not available, not only nuclear but also coal are replaced by natural gas.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Po

wer

gen

erat

ion

(EJ/

year

)

(Year)

geo&bio

wind

solar

hydro

nuclear

gas

coal

oil

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Po

wer

gen

erat

ion

(EJ/

year

)(Year)

geo&bio

wind

solar

hydro

nuclear

gas

coal

oil

Results of the analyses

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Inst

alle

d ca

paci

ty (P

J/ye

ar)

（Year）

15

Vehicle mix in the passenger car sector in Japan.N2C0, vehicle cost of hydrogen FCV: 1.2, hydrogen cost: target

diesel ICEV

EVhydrogen FCV

gasoline HEVgasoline ICEV

LPG ICEV

gasoline ICEV miniEV mini

16

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050（年）

(PJ/

)設

備容

量年

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050（年）

(PJ/

)設

備容

量年

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050（年）

(PJ/

)設

備容

量年

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050（年）

(PJ/

)設

備容

量年

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050（年）

(PJ/

)設

備容

量年

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050（年）

(PJ/

)設

備容

量年

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050（年）

(PJ/

)設

備容

量年

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050（年）

(PJ/

)設

備容

量年

hydrogen cost: target

vehicle cost of FCV: 1.2

vehicle cost of FCV: 1.25

Vehicle mix in the passenger car sector in Japan. (CO2 emissions: C0)

Hydrogen FCV has no technology competitiveness under the scenarios N0-N1 or vehicle cost no less than 1.3.

Hydrogen FCV has competitiveness under the scenario N2-N3 and vehicle cost no more than 1.25.

nuclear: N2 nuclear: N3

hydrogen cost: delay

hydrogen cost: target

hydrogen cost: delay

Market penetration of hydrogen FCV delays 5-10 years, if vehicle cost increases from 1.2 to 1.25. It delays 0-5 years, if hydrogen cost reduction delayed.

17

CO2: C2

CO2: C1

Vehicle mix in the passenger car sector in Japan. (vehicle cost of hydrogen FCV: 1.2)

Hydrogen FCV has no technology competitiveness under the scenarios C3, or N0-N1, or vehicle cost no less than 1.25 in C1-C2.

Technology competitiveness of hydrogen FCV: 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 up in low nuclear N2-N3, down in C1-C3, lose by vehicle cost up, down by delay of hydrogen cost reduction.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050（年）

(PJ/

)設

備容

量年

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050（年）

(PJ/

)設

備容

量年

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050（年）

(PJ/

)設

備容

量年

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050（年）

(PJ/

)設

備容

量年

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050（年）

(PJ/

)設

備容

量年

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050（年）

(PJ/

)設

備容

量年

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050（年）

(PJ/

)設

備容

量年

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050（年）

(PJ/

)設

備容

量年

nuclear: N2 nuclear: N3

hydrogen cost: target

hydrogen cost: delay

hydrogen cost: target

hydrogen cost: delay

Summary and ConclusionsTechnology competitiveness among next-generation vehicles, especially that between hydrogen FCV and EV is analyzed.

Effects on technology competitiveness of hydrogen FCV:

Nuclear: no technology competitiveness under N0-N1. Low nuclear policy, N2-N3 increases technology competitiveness.

CO2 emissions: severe reduction C0 increases technology competitiveness. Small reduction C1-C3 decrease technology competitiveness

Vehicle cost: strong impacts. 10-5 points higher vehicle cost completely loses technology competitiveness

Hydrogen cost (hydrogen filling station cost): effects in some conditions. 10-15% higher hydrogen cost (10-20 year delay) decreases technology competitiveness

18

Under the low nuclear policy with severe CO2 emissions reduction, most probable future in Japan,

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 - Technology development of hydrogen FCV is meaningful, because it could have competitiveness with EV.

- Vehicle cost reduction should have priority in the technology development of hydrogen FCV compared with hydrogen cost reduction, because vehicle cost affects competitiveness stronger than hydrogen cost.

- Vehicle cost reduction for hydrogen FCV should target at the same level of EV.

19