# Presentation: 190596

## Analyzing Transitions to Hydrogen Powered Vehicles with HyTransProgress Report & Preliminary Results

**Paul N. Leiby****	****        David Bowman**
***ORNL                             Econotech***
**David L. Greene****	****	****Elzbieta Tworek**
***ORNL                               Strata-G***
**April 12, 2005**
**EIA Midterm Energy Outlook**
**& Modeling Conference**
**Washington, DC**

## HyTrans works! But it also needs work.

**From:** “Don’t believe this!”
**To: ****	**“This is dependent on key data, key 	assumptions, and model limitations.”
**Agenda**
**Brief** overview of HyTrans
- Key Issues
- Preliminary Results from 3 Scenarios
- Vehicle Technology Case 1:
- DOE Freedom Car Program Goals Met
- Vehicle Tech. Case 2:
- Alternative Technology Evolution
- Carbon Emissions Limits
- Lessons
- Future Development

## The results I will present today are preliminary and should not be interpreted as conclusions about the hydrogen transition.

- HyTrans is still under development.
- Have not yet incorporated HFCIT program goals via H2A models but will do so soon.
- NAS production technologies used; results presented below based on restricted sets of production options.
- Geographical regions, several major improvements to come.
- Results illustrate feasibility of optimization methodology, kinds of analyses that will be possible.

## HyTrans Design Approach:  Simulate a Market Solution

- Successor to successful TAFV model
- National model, with high, medium & low (intercity) fuel-demand-density-regions
- Integrates all main H2 market components
- from fuel and vehicle production
- to distribution pathways
- through final consumer choice and demand
- Determines a market equilibrium solution
- Maximizes total consumption benefit minus production, distribution, and other costs
- Assumes consumers & producers have perfect information and perfect foresight.
- Currently benchmarked to AEO2004 Reference Case oil and gasoline price forecasts.  AEO2005 markedly higher.

## A H2 Supply Pathway (Supply Chain)

- Delivery

- Forecourt

**Centralized SMR**
**Coal Gasification**
**Biomass, etc.**

**Forecourt SMR**
**Forecourt Electrolysis**
**Many Others...**

- Pipeline

- Truck Compressed Gas

- Truck Liquefied

**Retailing of**
**Compressed**
**Gas**

**Includes: Compression/Liquefaction+Storage+Dispensing+**
**	****  ****Transporting+Storage+Compression/Vaporization**

**(Store + Dispense)**

**A H2 Supply Pathway (Supply Chain)**
-  is comprised of three parts.

**Notes:**
Our prod date still from NAS
Delivery still our own delivery model, H2A un-available

## Demand density affects the competitive positions of production/delivery pathways.(H2 delivered to vehicle excl. taxes) 

**Notes:**
At higher density now pipelines

## Vehicle technologies improve through 3 distinct mechanisms.

**Learning & Unlearning w/ Stock on Road**

**   ****Scale w/ Annual Production/Plant**

**  ****Tech Change w/ Passage of Time (Yr)**

**Retail Price   =**
**   ****Scale**** ****× ****Learning**** × ****Tech Change**** **
**           ****× ****Scenario Price**

**Notes:**
Tech progress occurs strictly as a function of time.
Tech change curves are for large scale advance level of learning.
Cheaper to produce later, all else equal.

Learning and unlearning curve.
Done as a function of stock on the road.

Q: What are elasticities related to?

Q: [Santini] Can you mark where you are on Scale and Learning curves with X’s

## I will show some preliminary results from three scenarios.

- Based on AEO 2004 Reference Case & extrapolated.
- Two policy drivers
- Vehicle subsidies
- Fuel subsidies
- 1: DOE Freedom Car Goals Met
- 2: Alternative Technology Evolution
- 3: Carbon Emissions Limitations
***ALL scenarios here rely on NAS (2004) production cost estimates – H2A  models will be incorporated in the near future.***

## SCENARIO 1The DOE Vehicle Technology Program Goals scenario anticipates rapid progress for all technologies.

**SCENARIO 1**The DOE Vehicle Technology Program Goals scenario anticipates rapid progress **for all technologies**.

**Future FCV**

**Gasoline SI ICE**

## Given no new policies, HyTrans sees a shift to gasoline hybrids in scenario 1.

- Total Vehicle Stock

- (Scenario 1: DOE Freedom Car Goals)

- PRELIMINARY

**Total Vehicles**

**Gasoline ICE**

**Gasoline HEV**

**Notes:**
No new policy, veh stock goes to HEVs.
Q: [Jeff Dowd] In GPRA analysis, we see some small (FCV) activity even with no new policy.
A: Perhaps because analysis does not include scale, learning, etc.

## Given a temporary H2-vehicle subsidy in Scenario 1 ($2,000 until 2030, $0 afterwards), HyTrans finds a sustainable transition to hydrogen-powered light-duty vehicles.

- Total Vehicle Stock

- PRELIMINARY

**All Vehicles**

**Gasoline ICE**

**H2 FCV**

**Notes:**
Q: [Phil Patterson] Should say “Tried lower number ($1500) but did not get transition.”
Q: [Fred] are you saying that FCVs are comparable in attributes.
A: Included benefits for FCV, and for electricity.
Q: [Fred] Need to point this out. (we did)
Q: [Santini] Include key assumptions list on every slide.  Replace legend with details.
Q: [Patterson] This is a bit of a rosy scenario.  Putting all good/positive stuff first.

## The transition to H2 reduces vehicle fuel use in the face of steadily growing travel demand.(Scenario 1:  $2,000 H2 Vehicle Subsidy, $0 After 2030)

- Light-Duty Vehicle Fuel Use

- PRELIMINARY

**Total Fuel**

**Gasoline**

**H2 fuel total**

**Notes:**
Add slide showing vehicle travel.
Fuel use comes down because H2 vehicles more efficient.

## Delivered H2 costs for central coal gasification fall over time with technological progress, scale economies and market share.(Scenario 1:  $2,000/H2-Veh Subsidy, $0 After 2030)

- H2 Average Unit Cost ($/kg) (excl. tax)

- PRELIMINARY

**Low Density Region**

**High Density Region**

**Medium Density**

**Notes:**
Q: Even getting $1.50 for low density region.
A: Yes, cryo truck have considerable scale intensities (due to liquefaction).

## With H supplied by coal gasification, high and medium density regions start with truck and shift to pipeline as hydrogen’s market share grows.(Scenario 1:  $2,000/H2-Veh Subsidy, $0 After 2030)

- H2 Delivery Modes: High Density Region

- PRELIMINARY

- 0

- 20,000

- 40,000

- 60,000

- 80,000

- 100,000

- 120,000

- 2000

- 2010

- 2020

- 2030

- 2040

- 2050

- Coal Gasification.

-  by Pipelines

- Tube Trucks

-  Cryogenic trucks

- Total H2 Production (1000 Kg H2/day)

- Case: SH2VS02Y30Zero_V235DG_VHFB_CT00

## The low density (intercity) region relies on cryogenic-trucking throughout.(Scenario 1:  $2,000/H2-Veh Subsidy, $0 After 2030)

- H2 Production by Path: Low Density Region

- PRELIMINARY

- 0

- 20,000

- 40,000

- 60,000

- 80,000

- 100,000

- 120,000

- 2000

- 2010

- 2020

- 2030

- 2040

- 2050

- Central Coal Gasification

-    by Pipelines

-    Tube Trucks

-    Cryogenic trucks

- Total H2 Production (1000 Kg H2/day)

- Case: SH2VS02Y30Zero_V235DG_VHFB_CT00

## SCENARIO 2We derived the Alternative Vehicle Technology Case from published studies.  It is less favorable for some technologies, certainly for FCVs.

- Alternative scenarios may provide a basis for estimating the benefits of accelerating technological progress.

**Future FCV**

**Gaso SI ICE**

**Notes:**
For Alt went to literature [MIT on the Road in 2020, Ricardo study, Joan Ogden study.

## The Alternative Vehicle Technology Assumptions imply continued dominance of (advanced) gasoline-ICEs.(Scenario 2:  No New Policy)

- Total Vehicle Stock

- PRELIMINARY

**Notes:**
One of the assumptions is that gasoline CVs improve fairly rapidly in this case.
Q: Are fuel economy measures for FCVs subject to density.  FCVs (and hybrids)
A: No.
Note AEO 2004  prices for gasoline are being used.

## Scenario 2 requires twice the removable-subsidy to produce a sustainable transition.(Scenario 2:  $4,000 H2-Veh Subsidy, $0 After 2030)

- Total Vehicle Stock

- PRELIMINARY

**Notes:**
Continue to see FCVs going up, not ICEs.

## Given the same fuel subsidy policy, the hydrogen transition occurs later in scenario 2.(Scenarios 1 & 2:  $0.90/GGE H2 Fuel Subsidy)

- Total H2 FCV Vehicle Stock

**Scenario 1**
**Freedom Car Goals**

**Scenario 2**
**Alternative Technology Evolution**

- PRELIMINARY

**Notes:**
Greater rate of tech progress in DOE Tech Goals.

Q: [Fred] What is “Alt Vehicle Technology Assumption”
A: One set of prices from EERE office (Patterson) and work by S> Das.
[Phil says we should just call Scenarios 1 & 2]
This is interesting, indicating what might be gained by achieving tech goals.

Q: [Fred] Can you say what this is equivalent to (in terms of fuel subsidy)
Q: [Phil] Do you have a case with a removable fuel subsidy?  Would it behave similarly.

Discussion about why no HEVs in the interim. Why not?  What are we missing?  Could it be shared components or learning?  
Q

## SCENARIO 3: Carbon emission LimitsHow do the vehicle technology program goals change the ability to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles?

- GREET 1.6 Supplemented by other sources (GREET update in Spring)
- Represent carbon limits in the form of carbon taxes (cap and trade)
- Add vehicle subsidies, as well
- DOE Vehicle Technology Program Goals

## Sequestering C from H2 production yields major reductions in C emissions.

- PRELIMINARY

- (Scenarios 1 & 3 w/ and w/o CO2 Charge)

**Notes:**
Phil: Label axis “bill KG CO2/year”
Frances: Good to show $40/t CO2 _w/o_ FCVs (no FCV subsidy.  What would other techs do in response to CO2 charges.

## HyTrans is making significant progress.

- Plausible answers to:
- Is a stable transition achievable?
- When?
- How long will it take?
- Can begin to test key policies
- Will be able to produce potentially useful cost and benefit measures
- Close to useful visions of the transition
- Beginning to generate insights about R&D goals
- Good enough?
- Effects of competing technologies

**Notes:**
Fred: My recommendation, given NAS production, is to focus on vehicle.
Given that distributed doesn’t come in.
Don’t want to show this in the context that it is a DOE program.
If do not incorporate MYPP (Model Year Prpgram Plan) goals. If just say “coal,” we will have a problem.

[See ”Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Techn Program, Multiyear Research, Dev. And Demo Program,” 2005.  Also see MYPP FreedomCar and Vehicle Technologies,” Aug. 2004.

A: Noted we do not yet have delivery representation from H2A.
Also do not have H2A assumptions on what key 
Also there is no scaling factor for different size plants.

## Several important deficiencies remain to be addressed.

- Market has multiple equilibria: Challenging model search
- Lack of geographic regions makes it difficult for renewable H sources.
- Fixed station size assumption appears to be excluding distributed production.
- Still reflects NAS rather than H2A production and delivery.
- Representation of learning & unlearning still not satisfactory.
- Should be asymmetric
- Technologies should be linked by shared components
- Need to improve representation of fuel availability
- Intercity (Melaina methodology)
- Variable station sizes

**Notes:**
Phil: Note sure that NHA people will care about modeling issue of mult equilibria.
Fixed station size also 
Q: [Phil] If not going to show sources of H2, then do not need this point.

## THANK YOU.