Prioritizing Climate Change Mitigation Technologies by Cost-Effectiveness: How do transportation options compare with other sectors? Nic Lutsey Ph.D. Candidate Institute of Transportation Studies University of California at Davis California Air Resources Board Chair’s Air Pollution Seminar Series April 30, 2008
30
Embed
Prioritizing Climate Change Mitigation Technologies by ... · PDF filePrioritizing Climate Change Mitigation Technologies by Cost-Effectiveness: How do transportation options compare
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Prioritizing Climate Change Mitigation Technologies by Cost-Effectiveness:
How do transportation options compare with other sectors?
Nic LutseyPh.D. Candidate
Institute of Transportation StudiesUniversity of California at Davis
California Air Resources BoardChair’s Air Pollution Seminar Series
• Findings– Transportation sector– All economic sectors
April 30, 2008 3
Background: Mitigation Policy
• Emission reduction targets – e.g. to 1990 GHG level by 2020, 80% below 1990 GHG level by 2050– 17 states and 700+ cities (represent 53% of the U.S. population)
• Emission mitigation planning– State GHG inventories – 42 states (93% of U.S. GHG)– State “Climate Action Plans” – 30 states (53% of U.S. GHG)– Sector-specific actions (examples)
• Renewable electricity portfolio targets (~half of U.S. elec. generation)• Vehicle GHG regulations (~half of U.S. auto sales)
• Coordination – regional cooperation to establish emissions trading, common mitigation programs
– Northeastern states (RGGI, NEG/ECP pact)– Western states (WCG GWI, WCI)– Climate Registry – coordination on consistent GHG reporting guidelines – Cities – U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement
• Advanced drivetrain technology– Electrified drivetrain (HEV, PHEV, EV)– Fuel cell electric (hydrogen or other fuel)
• Reducing other non-CO2 GHGs:– Air conditioning (HFC-134a)
– Nitrous oxide (N2O), Methane (CH4)
April 30, 2008 11
Austin, T.C., R.G. Dulla, and T.R. Carlson, 1999, Alternative and Future Technologies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Road Vehicles, Sierra Research, Inc., Sacramento, Calif., for Natural Resources Canada.
DeCicco, J.M, F. An, and M. Ross, 2001, “Technical Options for Improving the Fuel Economy of U.S. Cars and Light Trucks by 2012-2015,” forthcoming American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Washington, D.C.
Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc (EEA), 1995, Automotive Technologies to Improve Fuel Economy to 2015, prepared for the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, June.
National Research Council (NRC), 2002, Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., July.
Plotkin, S., D. Greene, K.G. Duleep. 2002. Examining the Potential for Voluntary Fuel Economy Standards in the United States and Canada. ANL/ESD/02-5, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois.
Weiss, M.A., et al., 2000, On the Road in 2020, Energy Laboratory Report MIT EL 00-003, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., Oct.
Transportation
Incremental efficiency technology for light-duty vehicles:
Assumptions: vehicle life of 189k, 17 years; ~$2.35/gallon gasoline (U.S. EIA, 2007); 7% discount factor for future fuel savings. Sources: Austin, et al, 1999 (Sierra); DeCicco et al, 2001 (ACEEE); EEA, 1995; NRC 2002; Plotkin et al, 2002; Weiss, M.A., et al., 2000 (MIT)
“On-road” efficiency technology for light-duty vehicles:
Assumptions: vehicle life of 189k, 17 years; ~$2.35/gallon gasoline (U.S. EIA, 2007); 7% discount factor for future fuel savings. Based on IEA and ECMT, 2006
ShiftIndicator
Light
DualCoolingCircuits
Efficient A/C
TireInflationMonitor
LowRR
Tires
EfficientAlternator
LowFriction
Oil
-$150
-$100
-$50
$0
$50
$100
$150
0% 5% 10%
Percentage point improvement in "on-road" FE correction factor
Mar
gina
l cos
t eff
ectiv
enes
s of
tech
nolo
gy d
eplo
ymen
t ($/
tCO
2)
High costMid costLow cost
Idle start/stop
(42V)
Electric water pump
Heated battery
April 30, 2008 13
Transportation
Hybrid electric vehicle technology for light-duty vehicles:
Assumptions: vehicle life of 189k, 17 years; ~$2.35/gallon gasoline (U.S. EIA, 2008); 7% discount factor for future fuel savings; 0.8 on-road fuel economy degradation factor; U.S. electricity mix Sources: Graham et al 2001 (EPRI); Plotkin et al 2001 (ANL); Lipman and Delucchi, 2003; Weiss et al 2001 (MIT); An et al 2001; Markel et al (NREL), 2006
Moderate HEV
Full HEV
Plug-in HEV
-$100
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percent test cycle gram/mile GHG reduction
Cos
t-ef
fect
iven
ess -
life
time
($20
08/to
nne
CO
2)
April 30, 2008 14
Transportation
Light-duty vehicles GHG cost-effectiveness curve:
Incremental efficiency
(-20% by 2020)
Improved "on-road" efficiency shortfall (from 20% to 10%)
Cellulosic ethanol
(21% by 2030)
Alternative A/C refrigerant
(HFC-134a to CO2)Hybrid-electric vehicles
(50% sales by 2025)
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Cumulative GHG reduction in 2030 (million tonne CO2e/yr)
Cos
t effe
ctiv
enes
s ($
2008
/tonn
e C
O 2e
)Including initial technology and lifetime operating costs
April 30, 2008 15
Transportation
Light duty vehicle GHG-reductions through 2030:
0
400
800
1,200
1,600
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Year
Ligh
t dut
y ve
hicl
e G
HG
em
issio
ns
(mill
ion
tonn
e C
O2e
/yr)
ReferenceIncremental fuel consumption improvement (-20% by 2020)'On-road' fuel consumption factor improvement (20% to 10% by 2020)Cellulosic ethanol increase (21% motor fuel by 2030)Alternative air-conditioning refrigerant (HFC-134a to CO2)Hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles (50% sales by 2025)U.S. 1990 GHG emission level
April 30, 2008 16
Transportation
Commercial truck (Class 2b, Class 3-6, Class 8) GHG-reduction:
Based on An et al 2000; Langer, 2004; Vyas et al 2002; Schaefer and Jacoby, 2006; Muster, 2001; Lovins et al, 2004
Class 7-8 (Heavy Duty)
Efficiency
Biodiesel (B5 by 2020)
Cellulosic ethanol (21% by 2030)
Class 2b (Light Duty)
Efficiency
Class 3-6 (Medium Duty)
Efficiency
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
0 25 50 75 100
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction in 2030(million tonne CO2e/yr)
Cos
t effe
ctiv
enes
s ($
2008
/tonn
e C
O 2
e)
April 30, 2008 17
Building Sector
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Year
Bui
ldin
g G
HG
em
issi
ons
(mill
ion
tonn
e C
O2/
yr)
Reference
With appliance reductions
With building shell (and above) reductions
With HVAC (and above) reductions
With lighting (and above) reductions
With distributed generation (and above) reductions
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Building Sector GHG reductions in 2030 (million tonne CO2e/year)
Cos
t effe
ctiv
enes
s ($
2008
/tonn
e C
O2e
)
Appliance efficiency (18 technologies)
Building shell efficiency (13 technologies)
HVAC efficiency (10 technologies)
Lighting efficiency (10 technologies)
Distributed power (2 technologies)
Technology areas in residential and commercial buildings:
April 30, 2008 18
Electricity Generation
Electricity generation GHG-reductions:
Coal-to-gasshift
Nuclear
Geothermal
Coal IGCC Coal CCS
Natural gas CCS
Solar thermal
Solar photovoltaic
Wind
Biomass
-25
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
GHG reduction in 2030 (million tonne CO2e/year)
Cos
t eff
ectiv
enes
s (2
008$
/tonn
e C
O2
e)
Lifetime cost accounting
April 30, 2008 19
Industry Sector
GHG abatement in other industrial sectors:
High-GWP “F gases”
Steel and iron
Cement
Combined heat and power (CHP)
Landfill gas management
Paper and pulp
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Industry GHG reductions in 2030 (million tonne CO2e/year)
Cos
t eff
ectiv
enes
s ($
2008
/tonn
e C
O2 e)
Initial cost accounting
Lifetime cost accounting Technology Areas:
April 30, 2008 20
Agricultural Sector
GHG abatement in agriculture and forestry:
Afforestation
Forest management
Soil carbon sequestration
Biofuel offsets (biomass for transp. Fuels, power plants)
Reduced fossil fuel inputs
Livestock manure management (enteric ferm. and manure CH4)