© 2007 TIAX LLC

FULL FUEL CYCLE ANALYSES FOR AB1007

Jennifer Pont, Matthew Hooks, Larry Waterland, Michael Chan, Mike JacksonTIAX LLC1601 S. De Anza Blvd., Ste 100Cupertino, California 95014-5363(408) 517-1550

Presented at California Energy Commission

Special Business MeetingJune 27, 2007

2D0179 7714

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Agenda

2 Methodology

3 Example Results

4

1 Introduction

Implications

3D0179 7714

2 Methodology

3 Example Results

4

1 Introduction

Implications

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Agenda

4D0179 7714

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Introduction AB1007

AB 1007 requires CEC, in cooperation with ARB and other state agencies, to develop and adopt a state plan to increase the use of alternative transportation fuels

• One component of the plan is a full fuel cycle assessment of alternative transportation fuels considering emissions of:

– Criteria air pollutants

– Air toxics

– Greenhouse gases

– Water pollutants

– Other substances that are known to damage human health

• “Alternative fuel” means a nonpetroleum fuel, including electricity, ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen, methanol, or natural gas

• The plan shall set goals for 2012, 2017, 2022. CEC and ARB added 2030 and 2050

5D0179 7714

Full Cycle Analyses Goals

• Determine and understand the emissions footprints and other multimedia impacts of alternative fuels and vehicles

• Determine any “net material increases in emissions” (and identify possible mitigation)

• Use as guidance in developing the alternative fuels plan considering GHG emissions and petroleum displacement

• Use as metrics for helping to develop California’s “Low Carbon Fuel Standard” (E.O. S-01-07)

• Assessing GHG emission changes to advance other state policies such as California’s “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006” (AB 32)

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Introduction AB1007

6D0179 7714

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Introduction AB1007

Draft FFCA Results were published in February 2007 and a joint workshop was held on March 2, 2007.

• Many constructive comments were received and can be summarized as follows:

– Provide more documentation and more clearly describe each pathway

– Perform sensitivity analyses on key assumptions

– Provide WTT results on a neat basis

– Analyze additional feedstocks/fuels

– Errors and omissions were identified

– Additional data was supplied to improve analysis accuracy

• TIAX incorporated comments into analysis

• FFCA “Well to Wheels” report posted on CEC’s website on June 22, 2007

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-600-2007-004/CEC-600-2007-004-F.PDF

7D0179 7714

2 Methodology

3 Example Results

4

1 Introduction

Implications

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Agenda

8D0179 7714

Number of emission events throughout fuel cycle

PRODUCTION BULK FUEL TRANSPORTATION

BULK STORAGE TRANSPORTATION AND DISTRIBUTION

VEHICLE

PROCESSINGPRODUCT STORAGE

Out of CA EmissionsOffset CA Emissions

CA Water Impacts

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Methodology Full Fuel Cycle Assessment Components

Marginal CA Emissions

9D0179 7714

GREET (V1.7) Used as Backbone of Analysis Methodology

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Methodology Model Integration

GREETV1.7

Well to TankProcessor

Vehicle ApplicationFuel Economy

Well to WheelProcessor

Tank to WheelProcessor

EMFAC 2007

Offroad Model

Vehicle &ApplicationEmissions

g/mi

EnergyGHGCriteriaToxics

Heating valuesCargo CapacitiesTransportation

ModesEmission Factors

Fleet Avg. Emissions

New Vehicle Emissions

ARB

g/mi

mpg

Toxic

speciation

PathwaysTIAX Modifications

Annual miles/hr of operationCriteria g/miToxics g/mi

J/J fuel

GHG

Criteria

Toxicsg/mi

GREETV1.7

GREETV1.7

Well to TankProcessor

Vehicle ApplicationFuel Economy

Well to WheelProcessor

Tank to WheelProcessor

EMFAC 2007

Offroad Model

Vehicle &ApplicationEmissions

g/mi

EnergyGHGCriteriaToxics

Heating valuesCargo CapacitiesTransportation

ModesEmission Factors

Fleet Avg. Emissions

New Vehicle Emissions

ARB

g/mi

mpg

Toxic

speciation

PathwaysTIAX Modifications

Annual miles/hr of operationCriteria g/miToxics g/mi

J/J fuel

GHG

Criteria

Toxicsg/mi

ANL

10

D0179 7714

Lignin, Protein Feed, Ash, Silica, Metals, Edible oils, Pet.

Coke, Waste Heat

Methanol

DME

FT Diesel

Hydrogen

Diesel

LPG

LNG

Bio-Diesel

Natural Gas

Petroleum

Woody BiomassForest Residue

Corn

Sugar Cane

Soy Beans

Palm Oil

Manure

Renewable Power

Nuclear Energy

Herbaceous Biomass

Gasoline

CNG

Gasification

Pyrolysis

HydrolysisFermentation

Digestion

Combustion

PressingEsterification

Refining

Ethanol

Reforming

CatalystSynthesis

Electricity

Landfill Gas

Coal

59 pathwaysExisting GREET pathway

New pathway

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Methodology Pathways

Rape SeedMustard Seed

11

D0179 7714

Product Terminal

TruckTransport

FuelingStation

CARBOB

California RFG

Ethanol

Imported CARBOB from Middle East to California RFG

Overseas Refinery

Ship TerminalOverseas Oil Well

Crude Pipeline CARBOB CARBOB

Tanker Ship Transport

CARBOB Pipeline

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Methodology Example Pathways

12

D0179 7714

Dry Mill Processing

Plant

Blending Terminal

TruckTransport

Railroad Transport

FuelingStation

Midwest Corn Farm

Midwest Corn Based Ethanol Pathway to E85

CornDenatured

Ethanol

E85

E85

Denatured Ethanol

CARBOB by pipeline from

refinery

(gasoline denaturant)

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Methodology Example Pathways

Pentanes by truck from

refinery

13

D0179 7714

Upward of 94 pathways X 2 vehicle applications X 4 analysis years X 2 vehicle fleets for criteria pollutants, WTT energy, WTW GHG, toxics, and water pollution

• Ten (10) Conventional Fuel Pathways

– California RFG

– California ULSD

• Twenty two (22) Blend Fuel Pathways

– E10

– Biodiesel (BD20)

– FTD (30 percent with Ca ULSD)

– E-Diesel Renewable Diesel (30%)

• Sixty two (62) Neat Fuel Pathways

– CNG – LNG – LPG

– Ethanol – Methanol – DME

– Electricity – Hydrogen – Biodiesel

– Renewable diesel – FTD

Analysis Years:2012, 2017, 2022,

2030

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Methodology Analysis Scope

14

D0179 7714

2 Methodology

3 Example Results

4

1 Introduction

Implications

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Agenda

15

D0179 7714

Assumed Midsized Auto Fuel Economy

Vehicle Fuel EconomyVehicle Fuel Economympg Gasoline Equivalentmpg Gasoline Equivalent

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Example Results Midsize Auto

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Gasoline, ICEV, 2005 LDA Mix

Gasoline, ICEV

Gasoline, HEV

Gasoline PHEV

CA ULSD, DICEV

CNG, ICEV

LPG, ICEV

E85, FFV

E100, ICEV

Hydrogen ICEV/ICHEV

Hydrogen FCV/FCHEV

Battery EV

Fuel Economy (mpgge)

Comparable 2005 Midsize CarsCity/Highway Combined, on-road fuel consumption

all passenger cars, 95th percentile

16

D0179 7714

“Well-to-Wheels” Energy Comparison Midsize Auto

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Example Results Midsize Auto

WTW EnergyWTW EnergyMJ (LHV) per MileMJ (LHV) per Mile

Midsize Cars in 2012MY2010+

Midsize Cars in 2022MY2010+

17

D0179 7714

“Well-to-Wheels” GHG Emissions Midsize Auto

Greenhouse Gas EmissionsGreenhouse Gas EmissionsGrams of COGrams of CO22 Equivalent per Mile Equivalent per Mile

Midsize Cars in 2012MY 2010+

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Example Results Midsize Auto

Midsize Cars in 2022MY 2010+

18

D0179 7714

“Well-to-Wheels” Criteria Pollutant Emissions Midsize Auto

California Urban Criteria Pollutants Emissions Grams per MileCalifornia Urban Criteria Pollutants Emissions Grams per Mile

Midsize Cars in 2012MY 2010+

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Example Results Midsize Auto

Midsize Cars in 2022MY 2010+

19

D0179 7714

Well to Wheel GHG Observations

• GHG emissions depend on both the carbon content of the fuel and process energy inputs. In all cases except hydrogen and electricity, the vehicle GHG emissions dominate WTW emissions.

• GHG emissions from alternative fuels in off-road equipment with IC engines are comparable to the impacts for on road vehicles.

• A wide range of GHG emission factors are achieved for various hydrogen and electric generation pathways. Greater GHG emission reductions are largely due to the higher vehicle efficiency for electric drive technologies.

• An electric generation mix based on natural gas combined cycle power combined with California’s RPS constraint is an appropriate mix for electric transportation and the electricity inputs for fuel production. The use of renewable power allows for the mitigation of GHG emissions from other processes, which is an option for all fuel providers.

• GHG emissions from biofuels production and use depend on agricultural inputs, allocation to byproducts, and the level and carbon intensity of process energy inputs.

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Example Results Summary

20

D0179 7714

Most pathways result in comparable emissions of criteria and toxic emissions for both midsize autos and urban buses

• Emissions from marine vessel and rail transport are the dominant source of fuel/feedstock delivery emissions in California. Agricultural equipment is also a significant source of emissions for biofuels.

• Diesel PM is the major contributor to weighted toxics emissions in California for the marginal fuel production analyses. Fuels that are delivered by ship or rail have the highest weighted toxics impact.

• Criteria pollutant emissions for electric transportation are comparable to, or lower than, those from conventional fuels. The lower emission levels result from efficient new power plants that are required to offset NOx and VOC emissions combined with very efficient vehicles.

• Emissions of NOx, VOC, and in some cases PM would need to be offset from new fuel production facilities in California.

• Fugitive losses and fuel spills are a source of benzene and 1-3 butadiene emissions associated with gasoline as well as PAHs from diesel. These emissions from fuel transport and delivery are largely eliminated with alternative fuels use.

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Example Results Summary

21

D0179 7714

Some Caveats….

• Land conversion effects could be very substantial effectively negating (or substantially lowering) GHG benefits of biofuels

– Existing crop lands

– Converting grasslands

– Converting forests

– Converting wetlands

• Analysis results are indicative of average GHG emission impacts for generic pathways. Detailed analysis needed for specific pathways.

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Example Results Summary

Recommendations

• Continue to improve FFCA methodology

– Revise and update inputs

– Continue to monitor land conversion studies

• Use methodology to provide guidance on lowering carbon emissions from the transportation sector—fuel and vehicle

22

D0179 7714

2 Methodology

3 Example Results

4

1 Introduction

Implications

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Agenda

23

D0179 7714

California Alternative Fuels Goals (on road only)

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

25.0

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

CA

Fu

el D

eman

d (

gg

e)

Gasoline

Diesel

Alternative Fuels Goal2020 4 billion gge

Alternative Fuels Goal2020 6 billion gge

30%

20%

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Implications Petroleum Displacement

24

D0179 7714

GHG and Petroleum Impacts of Low Level Blend Strategies in Light Duty Vehicles

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Eth

ano

l E

10(M

W C

orn

)

Eth

ano

l E

10(C

A P

op

lar)

Eth

ano

l E

15(M

W C

orn

)

Eth

ano

l E

15(C

A P

op

lar)

Bio

die

sel

B5

(MW

so

ybea

n)

Bio

die

sel

B20

(MW

so

ybea

n)

FT

30 (

GT

L)

WTW GHG Reduction Relative to RFG3

WTW Petroleum Use Reduction Relative to RFG3

GHG Impact

• Cellulosic 17-20 million metric tons

• Corn 6 million metric tons

Petroleum Displacement

• E15 2 billion gallons

• E10 1.4 billion gallons

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Implications GHG Reduction & Petroleum Displacement

25

D0179 7714

GHG and Petroleum Impacts of Alternative Fuels in Light Duty Vehicles

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

CN

G

(No

rth

Am

eric

a)

CN

G

(Im

po

rted

LN

G)

Eth

ano

l E30

(M

W C

orn

)

Eth

ano

l E30

(C

A P

op

lar)

Eth

ano

l E85

(M

W C

orn

)

Eth

ano

l E85

(C

A P

op

lar)

PH

EV

20

(NG

/RP

S)

PH

EV

20

(CA

Gri

d M

ix)

Hyd

rog

en F

CV

(B

iom

ass

)

Hyd

rog

en F

CV

(O

n-s

ite

SM

R)

WTW GHG Reduction Relative to RFG3

WTW Petroleum Use Reduction Relative to RFG3

2050 GHG Impact

• PHEV 20 million metric tons

• E30 10-40 million metric tons

• H2 150 million metric tons

2050 PetroleumDisplacement

• PHEV 1 billion

• E30 4.5 billion

• H2 7 billion

Impacts depend on new vehiclepenetration

• 5 million to all vehicles

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Implications GHG Reduction & Petroleum Displacement

26

D0179 7714

Proposed low carbon fuel standard requires at least a 10 percent reduction in carbon in gasoline and diesel fuels by 2020

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Implications Low Carbon Fuel Standard

0

2

4

6

8

10D

ies

el

(CA

UL

SD

)L

DV

: 5

2%

Eth

an

ol

(Co

rn)

LD

V:

67

%

Eth

an

ol

(Po

pla

r)L

DV

: 1

00

%

PH

EV

20

(CA

Mix

)L

DV

: 3

8%

H2

FC

V(S

MR

)L

DV

: 3

5%

H2

FC

V(B

iom

as

s)

LD

V:

23

%

Fu

el C

on

su

mp

tio

n (

bill

ion

gg

e)

Secondary Fuel

Primary Fuel

RFG

Electricity

E15E85

27

D0179 7714

FFCA is a useful tool to judge alternative strategies for reducing GHG emissions from the transportation sector

• Improved efficiency lowers GHG, criteria, and toxic emissions

– Production

– Distribution

– End-use

• A variety of alternative fuel pathways will reduce both GHG emissions and petroleum consumption. Need to focus on those pathways that provide both benefits

• Electricity (depending on generation mix) provides lowest overall impact on GHG, criteria, toxic emissions and water pollution

• Biofuels very effective at recycling carbon and providing low GHG emissions, but land conversion, harvesting, collection, production, and fuel distribution affect GHG and local emissions

• Alternative fuel blends with existing gasoline and diesel fuels is also an effective strategy to reduce GHG emissions

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Implications Final Thoughts

28

D0179 7714

Thank you for your Attention

Full Fuel Cycle Analyses Summary Final Thoughts

Michael D. JacksonTIAX LLC

Jackson.michael@tiaxllc.com408.517.1560