Climate-Neutral Driving in 2050: Options for the Complete Defossilization of the Transport Sector. Considerations Based on Results of the "FVV Fuel Study 2018"

Authors

Dr. U. Kramer, FORD, Cologne; S. Stollenwerk, innogy, Essen; F. Ortloff, DVGW, Karlsruhe; Dr. X. Sava, BASF, Ludwigshafen; Dr. A. Janssen, Shell, Hamburg; S. Eppler, Robert Bosch, Ludwigsburg; H. Schüle, CPT Group, Regensburg; A. Döhler, Opel, Rüsselsheim; R. Otten, Audi, Ingolstadt; Dr. M. Lohrmann, VW AG, Wolfsburg; Dr. L. Menger, BMW, Munich; S. Barth, Honda R&D Europe, Offenbach; W. Kübler, MAN, Nuremberg; R. Thee, FVV, Frankfurt

Year

2019

Print Info

Fortschritt-Berichte VDI, Reihe 12, Nr. 811

Summary

In accordance with the Climate Action Plan 2050, Germany is to become predominantly greenhouse gas-neutral by 2050. The complete defossilization of the transportation sector is not possible when vehicles are still operated with fossil fuels. In order to achieve a complete (100%) carbon neutrality of the transport sector, a cross-industry working group under the coordination of the “FVV Fuels Group”- consisting of automotive, chemical, mineral oil and utility industry - has derived various pathways to defossilize the German transport sector.
In order to enable a simple and fair comparison between the different defossilization options, each scenario assumes the German vehicle population (passenger cars and trucks) to rely on one technology (100% scenarios). Although all of these 100 % scenarios are only theo-retical and therefore rather unrealistic, they are an appropriate tool for a technical and eco-nomical comparison.
The study focuses on a quantitative economic comparison of “mobility costs” (fuel production, expansion of distribution infrastructure, vehicle depreciation) and the primary energy demand of various fuel-powertrain combinations. Renewable energy is exclusively provided by solar and wind power for the following scenarios:
1. Direct use of electrical energy in battery electric vehicles (BEV).
2. Central and decentral hydrogen production for use in fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV).
3. e-fuels (aka PtX fuels) with CO2 from ambient air, for use in combustion engines.
For each scenario minimum and maximum assumptions have been applied, incorporating electricity costs for various production sites (Germany vs. Middle East and North Africa (MENA)), efficiency of electrolysis and PtX synthesis as well as cost variations for the invest in fueling infrastructure, necessary grid extension and vehicle depreciation. Beside the electrical pathway and two H2-FCEV pathways, in total 8 different e-fuel options have been analyzed in detail, including two methane scenarios, methanol, DME, OME, and three Fischer-Tropsch fuels (e-gasoline, e-diesel and e-LPG).
As expected the energy demand is lowest for an all-electric scenario. Based on the 2015 German fuel consumption of 560 TWh, the primary energy demand for or a 100% electric vehicle scenario can be reduced to 249 - 325 TWh per year. Depending on the scenario, the factor “Primary Energy FCEV (central H₂) / Primary Energy BEV” is in the range of 1.8 – 2.0, the factor “Primary Energy e-methane / Primary Energy BEV” in the range of 2.7 – 3.1, and the factor “Primary Energy e-FT-diesel/gasoline / Primary Energy BEV” approximately in the range of 3.3 – 3.8. These factors are calculated without any hybridization of the e-fueled powertrains and without any heating demand during cold periods.
Hybrid technology is already penetrating the vehicle market in considerable volumes and is expected to become a mainstream technology in the near future. Hybridization increases the vehicle efficiency, but also increases the vehicle costs. The fuel economy benefit as well as the on-costs are strongly dependent on the level of hybridization (mild or full hybrid), the vehicle basis and the operation conditions. In a parameter variation of this study an average hybrid system (average between mild and full hybrid) with an assumed 15% efficiency benefit for an on-cost of € 1,460 per vehicle is applied to the passenger cars and delivery vans (up to 3.5 t gross vehicle weight) with internal combustion engine (ICE). Furthermore, the effect of cold-season operation is assessed. So far, the dataset of this study has been limited to operation conditions with ambient temperatures above 20°C, without any cabin heating and battery heating demands.
Considering both, hybridization and cold-season operation, the FCEV pathway requires 1.6 – 1.8 times as much primary energy as the BEV pathway, the e-methane (HPDI) pathway 2.1 – 2.5 times and the e-FT-diesel/gasoline(50/50) pathway 2.6 – 3.0 times.
With respect to overall mobility costs (fuel costs + infrastructure costs + vehicle depreciation), all scenarios achieve comparable costs, as vehicle costs are dominating. Because future surcharges in particular for BEVs and FCEVs are very difficult to predict, there is a significant degree of uncertainty in the assessment of future mobility costs.
Including hybridization and cold-season operation, the FCEV pathway is at the same level of mobility costs as the BEV pathway (factor 1.01 -1.02). Mobility costs for e-methane can be up to about 20% cheaper (factor 0.82 - 0.99) and e-FT-diesel/gasoline(50/50) can be slightly cheaper than the BEV pathway, but also a little more expensive (factor 0.88 - 1.09).
The lowest passenger car (LD) CO₂ abatement costs can be achieved with e-methane at 8 €/tCO₂ (without hybridization), which is 8.4 times lower than the minimum LD CO₂ abate-ment costs for BEV (67 €/tCO₂), even without consideration of a cold-season operation. A 50/50 e-FT-diesel/gasoline mix would require at least 197.5 €/tCO₂. The maximum abatement cost (the cost risk) for BEV amounts to 978 €/tCO₂, which is 1.8 times higher than the cost risk for e-methane (547 €/tCO₂) and 1.3 times higher than for a 50/50 e-FT-diesel/gasoline mix (755 €/tCO₂).
The minimum CO₂ abatement costs for heavy duty trucks (HD) can be achieved with e-DME at 95 €/tCO₂, which is 1.8 times lower than the minimum HD CO₂ abatement costs for BEV (168 €/tCO₂). A 50/50 e-FT-diesel/gasoline mix would require at least 213 €/tCO₂ (1.3 x BEV). The maximum abatement cost (cost risk) for “hybrid overhead pick-up battery electrical HD trucks” (HO- BEVs) amounts to 739 €/tCO₂, which is 1.4 times higher than for e-methane HPDI (541 €/tCO₂), but only 90% of the abatement cost risk for a 50/50 e-FT-diesel/gasoline mix (815.5 €/tCO₂).
The full defossilization of the transportation sector in Germany requires an enormous financial commitment. The decisive difference between the three main pathways (PtX, FCEV and BEV) is the sector in which the investments need to be taken. While for defossilization through hydrogen all involved partners (energy provider, fuel industry, infrastructure operators and the automotive industry/end customer) need to make significant investments, for all PtX path-ways, the additional costs are almost exclusively incurred in electricity generation and fuel production. In the BEV scenario, main investment costs are in the energy production, infra-structure and grid extension as well as surcharges for the vehicles. The required investments in the infrastructure are highly dependent on assumptions and customer behavior.
Depending on the pathway, the total investment costs amounts to € 266 billion - € 1,740 billion. e-methane has the overall lowest minimum investment demand (€ 266 billion). A 100% battery electric fleet requires at least € 364 billion investment. The differences are considerably higher when the “investment risks” (maximum cost scenarios) are considered. The highest investment risks arise for the hydrogen scenario (€ 1,442 billion) and the battery electric scenario (€ 1,317 billion). The lowest investment risks appear for e-methane (€ 796 billion) and e-methanol (€ 818 billion), followed by DME (€ 955 billion) and FT diesel/gasoline (€ 972 billion).