Transitions to Alternative Vehicles and Fuels (2013) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix H: Modeling
Appendix H: Modeling
Pages 331-378
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 331... ...
The revised VISION model, referred to here as the VISION-NRC model, includes the most up-to-date assumptions from the committee about vehicle efficiencies, fuel availability, and GHG emissions of specific fuels. The sections below review the scenarios developed for the committee using VISION-National Research Council (NRC)
|
From page 332... ...
Committee estimates of vehicle fuel efficiencies can be found in Table 2.12 of Chapter 2. • Total new vehicle sales each year are drawn from the AEO 2011 Reference Case and do not change with the different runs, only the mix of vehicles changes; VMT per vehicle is from AEO Reference Case forecast and falls over time as vehicles age; total VMT of the fleet is the same for each run and is consistent with the AEO 2011 assumptions about total VMT over time (see Table H.1)
|
From page 333... ...
The Committee defines its own reference case that includes all of the midrange assumptions about vehicle efficiencies, fuel availability, and GHG impact developed by the committee (summarized in Chapters 2 and 3)
|
From page 334... ...
There are four VISION runs for this case that account for differences in assumptions about vehicle efficiency as well as the GHG emissions of the fuel. It is assumed in all runs that the share of BEVs and PHEVs increases to about 35 percent of new car sales by 2030 and 80 percent of new car sales by 2050, in line with the rates put forth in Transitions to Alternative Transportation Technologies: Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (NRC, 2010)
|
From page 335... ...
Low-CO2 grid 80% PEVs in 2050 BEV Emphasis on Natural Gas 1. Midrange Committee assumptions 25% CNGVs in 2030 ICEVs 2.
|
From page 336... ...
139.89 Total Energy use converted to gallon gasoline equivalents Vehicle Miles Traveled million miles 2,687,058 AEO 2007, Table 50, LDV Miles Traveled by Tech. Type Average mpg mpgge 19.21 Calculated as total VMT / Total Energy Average FCI gCO2e/MJ 94.73 Calculated from fuel energy and FCI values below Greenhouse gas emissions MMTCO2e 1,514.23 Calculated as Total Energy × Average FCI Energy Use by Fuel Type Motor Gasoline bgge 123.76 AEO 2007, Table 36, Transportation Sector Energy Use by Mode Ethanol bgge 4.77 Includes 4.757 BGGEs, and subtracted from above Compressed Natural Gas bgge 0.06 Same as above Liquefied Petroleum Gases bgge 0.04 Same as above Electricity bgge 0.01 Same as above Distillate Fuel Oil (diesel)
|
From page 337... ...
In the calculation, it is just the total VMT that increases proportional to the percent of cars or light trucks on the road. Another way of calculating this redistribution might be to allocate proportional to the VMT of any platform type divided by all VMT by cars or light trucks.
|
From page 338... ...
As a consequence, market forces alone cannot be relied on to drive the transition. Securing these benefits may require replacing a conventional vehicle technology that has been "locked-in" by a century of innovation and adaptation with an enormous infrastructure of physical and human capital.
|
From page 339... ...
A relatively large amount of exogenous information is required to carry out a model run. Baseline projections of vehicle sales and energy prices are required to 2050.
|
From page 340... ...
At that point the Vehicle Choice model estimates the shares of ICE, HEV, PHEV, BEV, and FCV or CNG technologies for passenger cars and light trucks and for Innovator and Majority market segments. The market shares are multiplied by the passenger car and light truck sales totals in the Vehicle Sales worksheet.
|
From page 341... ...
to produce estimates of sales by passenger cars and light trucks, by technology type and for innovators and majority. Also calculated in this worksheet are cumulative production, learning-by-doing, scale economies, and choice diversity.
|
From page 342... ...
More complex market segmentation could be added in a subsequent model development effort, if warranted. The LAVE-Trans NMNL model allows a variety of factors, Xij, including make and model diversity and fuel availability, as well as price, energy efficiency, and range to determine the utility, Ui, of each technology, i.
|
From page 343... ...
For example, increasing fuel availability by adding public recharging stations or hydrogen fueling stations will reduce fuel availability costs. This improvement in fuel availability can be translated into an indirect network externality and be given a dollar value per vehicle using the relationships in Equation H.2.
|
From page 344... ...
These coefficients are used to calibrate the choice model to a baseline sales forecast for passenger cars and light trucks. The procedure for calculating inclusive values can be used for any degree of nesting choices by simply passing inclusive values up to the next level.
|
From page 345... ...
Each of the attributes and the method for estimating its NMNL model coefficient is considered below. H.2.3.2.1 Diversity of Choice Among Makes and Models Make and model diversity is represented in the vehicle choice model as the log of the ratio of the actual number of makes and models available, n, to the "full diversity" number, N, represented by the number of makes and models of the conventional technology available in the base year, ln(n/N)
|
From page 346... ...
The following variables determine the present value of future fuel costs: E = a vehicle's energy efficiency in MJ/km, P = the price of energy per MJ, 346
|
From page 347... ...
The term in square brackets is discounted vehicle travel, which is useful in estimating the value of other vehicle attributes, such as range. The variable representing energy efficiency is energy cost per kilometer.
|
From page 348... ...
nationally. The fuel availability term in the choice model combines the effects of range, R, and fuel availability, fj = nj/N0, where nj is the number of stations offering fuel for technology j and N0 is the reference number of stations (i.e., the number of gasoline refueling stations in the base year)
|
From page 349... ...
$600 Present Value per New BEV $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Availability Relative to Gasoline FIGURE H.5 Estimated present value of public recharging for a new battery electric vehicle.
|
From page 350... ...
($30/lost day) $15,000 $10,000 y = 30375e-0.01x R² = 0.9996 $5,000 y = 15000e-0.01x R² = 0.9996 $0 0 100 200 300 400 500 EV Range in Kilometers FIGURE H.7 Present value cost of limited range (range anxiety)
|
From page 351... ...
In policy scenarios, changes in vehicle technology and new policies (e.g., vehicle or fuel taxes or subsidies) can not only change the market shares of vehicle technologies but the split between passenger cars and light trucks and total sales, as well.
|
From page 352... ...
, is assumed to be primarily a function of vehicle technology and vehicle age, but it also varies with energy efficiency to account for the rebound effect and varies with growth in the 352
|
From page 353... ...
Vehicle miles are converted to kilometers by multiplying by 1.609. The resulting typical curves for passenger cars and light trucks are shown in Figure H.8.
|
From page 354... ...
H.2.3.5.1 Adjustment for Changes in the Size of the Vehicle Stock Because the vehicle choice model includes the option to buy or not to buy a new vehicle that depends on the attractiveness of new vehicles relative to other consumer goods, total LDV sales and stock size may change from one scenario to another. If annual kilometers traveled per vehicle (by age)
|
From page 355... ...
When assumptions about vehicle energy efficiency or cost or other variables are changed in a Base Case or Current Case, VKT will, in general, differ from the AEO projection. In particular, if vehicle efficiency improves and purchase prices decline, vehicle travel will increase due to the rebound effect and the increased number of vehicles on the road.
|
From page 356... ...
A carbon sequestration case adds CCS to central coal and natural gas production but not distributed natural gas or central biomass, resulting in an emissions factor of 5.1 kg/gge. A low-CO2 case assumes only 10 percent distributed natural gas reforming, 40 percent central natural gas reforming with CCS, 30 percent biomass gasification without CCS, and 20 percent emission-free electricity (e.g., wind)
|
From page 357... ...
Central natural gas reforming with CCS, 7. Central biomass gasification without CCS, and 8.
|
From page 358... ...
Process 2010 2020 2035 2050 2010 2020 2035 2050 2010 2020 2035 2050 Distributed NG 50% 50% 25% 25% 11.44 11.44 11.44 11.44 $3.49 $3.60 $3.90 $4.20 reforming Distributed grid 0% 0% 0% 0% 35.44 35.44 35.44 35.44 $5.76 $5.38 $5.54 $5.69 electrolysis Central coal 0% 0% 0% 0% 25.81 25.81 25.81 25.81 $3.81 $3.82 $3.84 $3.85 gasification without CCS Central coal 0% 0% 25% 25% 5.24 5.24 5.24 5.24 $4.46 $4.46 $4.48 $4.49 gasification with CCS Central NG 50% 50% 0% 0% 11.46 11.46 11.46 11.46 $3.28 $3.36 $3.69 $4.01 reforming without CCS Central NG 0% 0% 25% 25% 3.64 3.64 3.64 3.64 $3.55 $3.63 $3.96 $4.28 reforming with CCS Central biomass 0% 0% 25% 25% 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 $4.09 $4.09 $4.09 $4.09 gasification without CCS Central biomass 0% 0% 0% 0% −21.73 −21.73 −21.73 −21.73 $4.74 $4.73 $4.73 $4.73 gasification with CCS the annual volume of hydrogen production. This function is bounded by zero and 1, and predicts the degree to which the transition from initial production methods to the user-specified shares for future years has been accomplished.
|
From page 359... ...
The minimum number of stations of type i in year t is calculated by Equation H.31. 100% 90% Share of Hydrogen Produced 80% Central Biomass Gasification with CCS 70% Central Biomass Gasification w/o CCS 60% Central NG Reforming with CCS 50% Central NG Reforming w/o CCS 40% Central Coal Gasification with CCS Central Coal Gasification w/o CCS 30% Distributed Grid Electrolysis 20% Distributed NG Reforming 10% 0% 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 FIGURE H.10 Illustration of a transition from initial to high volume hydrogen production processes.
|
From page 360... ...
Like the modeling of hydrogen, sales of natural gas vehicles automatically induce a sufficient number of natural gas stations to refuel the vehicles on the road. Additional natural gas stations can be specified to increase fuel availability, and these stations are assumed to be subsidized either by the government or fuel suppliers, or a combination of the two.
|
From page 361... ...
In either case, infrastructure costs are accounted for and reported separately so that they can be tracked. H.2.5 Policy Options The LAVE-Trans model allows easy implementation of several policies that are designed to promote low-GHG emitting and high-fuel-efficient vehicle technologies, including feebates, an indexed highway user fee and fuel taxes.
|
From page 362... ...
The remainder of social cost is reflected in the feebates so that the combined effect of the feebates and fuel taxes equals and does not exceed the vehicle's total private and social costs. H.2.5.3 Indexed Highway User Fees With the increase of vehicle energy efficiency, revenue from highway users collected via motor fuel taxes will decline because the existing taxes levied per unit of energy used are fixed (excise taxes)
|
From page 363... ...
Vehicle stock by technology type, 5. New vehicle sales and market shares by technology type, 6.
|
From page 364... ...
5. Fuel availability multiplier is the combined value of national, regional, and local fuel availability relative to only local availability.
|
From page 365... ...
Next, one may specify the fraction of PHEV energy use that will be electricity in 2010, 2030, and 2050 for passenger cars and light trucks, separately. Intervening years are linearly interpolated.
|
From page 366... ...
H.2.7.7 Vehicle Subsidies Subsidies for vehicles and fuels can be specified in rows 253-265 and in rows 273-285. Vehicle subsidies must be provided separately for passenger cars and light trucks, by technology type by year.
|
From page 367... ...
At present, an exogenous global vehicle sales scenario may be specified on rows 329-341 by entering market shares for 2015, 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050. Intervening years are automatically interpolated and combined with a global vehicle sales forecast, which must be entered in the Input World worksheet.
|
From page 368... ...
Next is a section dedicated to policy options. Various policies are considered in the model, including indexed highway user fee, existing alternative fuel tax credits, feebates that reflect social cost of oil dependence and GHG emissions, feebates reflecting additional fuel savings that are not considered in consumer purchase decisions, and carbon tax (i.e., the fuel tax reflecting social cost of oil dependence and GHG emissions)
|
From page 369... ...
Users may also want to check other worksheets (e.g., Vehicle Choice, Vehicle Sales, Vehicle Stock, Vehicle use, Energy use) for raw and intermediate results.
|
From page 370... ...
by having the solver find optimal subsidies to PHEVs and BEVs. H.3 FUEL INVESTMENT COST SUMMARY -- LAVE-TRANS MODEL Shown below are alternative fuel infrastructure investment costs for the LAVE-Trans model scenarios outlined in Chapter 5.
|
From page 371... ...
CTL with Electric Scenario Hydrogen Biofuel CCS GTL CNG Chargers TOTAL BAU 0 0 2,017 0 0 0 2,017 Reference 0 7,626 175 133 0 10 7,945 Eff+FBSC 0 7,626 175 133 0 21 7,955 Eff+FBSC+IHUF 0 7,626 175 133 0 22 7,956 Eff+Bio+FBSC+IHUF 0 10,022 175 133 0 21 10,351 Eff+Bio w/CCS+FBSC+IHUF Investment costs unavailable for Biofuels w/CCS -- Eff+Intensive Pricing+LCe 0 7,626 175 133 0 14,910 22,844 PEV+FBSC+IHUF+Trans+AEOe 0 7,626 175 133 0 4,367 12,302 PEV+FBSC+IHUF+Trans+LCe 0 7,626 175 133 0 4,465 12,400 PEV(later) +FBSC+IHUF+Trans+Lce 0 7,626 175 133 0 4,757 12,691 PEV+Bio+FBSC+IHUF+Trans+Lce 0 10,022 175 133 0 4,325 14,655 FCV+FBSC+IHUF+Trans+L$H2 11,094 7,626 175 133 0 13 19,042 FCV+FBSC+IHUF+Trans+H2CCS 11,931 7,626 175 133 0 12 19,878 FCV+FBSC+IHUF+Trans+LCH2 11,874 7,626 175 133 0 12 19,821 FCV+Bio+FBSC+IHUF+Trans+LCH2 11,218 10,022 175 133 0 12 21,560 CNGV+FBSC 0 7,626 175 133 0 21 7,955 CNGV+FBSC+IHUF+Trans 0 7,626 175 133 9,003 13 16,950 CNGV+Bio+FBSC+IHUF+Trans 0 7,626 175 133 8,660 12 19,002 Eff(Opt)
|
From page 372... ...
CTL with Electric Scenario Hydrogen Biofuel CCS GTL CNG Chargers TOTAL BAU 0.0 0.0 55.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 55.8 Reference 0.0 114.7 21.0 23.9 0.0 0.6 160.2 Eff+FBSC 0.0 114.7 21.0 23.9 0.0 49.8 209.4 Eff+FBSC+IHUF 0.0 114.7 21.0 23.9 0.0 57.6 217.2 Eff+Bio+FBSC+IHUF 0.0 382.2 21.0 23.9 0.0 40.4 467.5 Eff+Bio w/CCS+FBSC+IHUF Investment costs unavailable for Biofuels w/CCS -- Eff+Intensive Pricing+LCe 0.0 114.7 21.0 23.9 0.0 187.1 346.7 PEV+FBSC+IHUF+Trans+AEOe 0.0 114.7 21.0 23.9 0.0 128.2 287.8 PEV+FBSC+IHUF+Trans+LCe 0.0 114.7 21.0 23.9 0.0 139.0 298.6 PEV(later) +FBSC+IHUF+Trans+Lce 0.0 114.7 21.0 23.9 0.0 144.6 304.2 PEV+Bio+FBSC+IHUF+Trans+Lce 0.0 382.2 21.0 23.9 0.0 112.1 539.3 FCV+FBSC+IHUF+Trans+L$H2 214.6 114.7 21.0 23.9 0.0 14.3 388.4 FCV+FBSC+IHUF+Trans+H2CCS 243.4 114.7 21.0 23.9 0.0 9.3 412.3 FCV+FBSC+IHUF+Trans+LCH2 244.5 114.7 21.0 23.9 0.0 8.5 412.6 FCV+Bio+FBSC+IHUF+Trans+LCH2 210.1 382.2 2.6 2.0 0.0 5.8 602.7 CNGV+FBSC 0.0 114.7 21.0 23.9 0.0 49.8 209.4 CNGV+FBSC+IHUF+Trans 0.0 114.7 21.0 23.9 128.2 19.0 306.9 CNGV+Bio+FBSC+IHUF+Trans 0.0 382.2 15.8 12.0 116.7 11.0 537.6 Eff(Opt)
|
From page 373... ...
CTL with Electric Scenario Hydrogen Biofuel CCS GTL CNG Chargers TOTAL BAU 0.0 0.0 35.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 35.5 Reference 0.0 85.8 12.2 13.1 0.0 0.4 111.5 Eff+FBSC 0.0 85.8 12.2 13.1 0.0 21.9 133.0 Eff+FBSC+IHUF 0.0 85.8 12.2 13.1 0.0 25.4 136.5 Eff+Bio+FBSC+IHUF 0.0 234.8 12.2 13.1 0.0 17.8 277.9 Eff+Bio w/CCS+FBSC+IHUF Investment costs unavailable for Biofuels w/CCS -- Eff+Intensive Pricing+LCe 0.0 85.8 12.2 13.1 0.0 88.9 200.0 PEV+FBSC+IHUF+Trans+AEOe 0.0 85.8 12.2 13.1 0.0 71.8 182.9 PEV+FBSC+IHUF+Trans+LCe 0.0 85.8 12.2 13.1 0.0 76.0 187.1 PEV(later) +FBSC+IHUF+Trans+Lce 0.0 85.8 12.2 13.1 0.0 76.6 187.7 PEV+Bio+FBSC+IHUF+Trans+Lce 0.0 234.8 12.2 13.1 0.0 63.4 323.5 FCV+FBSC+IHUF+Trans+L$H2 122.1 85.8 12.2 13.1 0.0 6.3 239.5 FCV+FBSC+IHUF+Trans+H2CCS 137.3 85.8 12.2 13.1 0.0 4.2 252.6 FCV+FBSC+IHUF+Trans+LCH2 137.8 85.8 12.2 13.1 0.0 3.8 252.7 FCV+Bio+FBSC+IHUF+Trans+LCH2 120.6 234.8 2.0 1.5 0.0 2.7 361.5 CNGV+FBSC 0.0 85.8 12.2 13.1 0.0 21.9 133.0 CNGV+FBSC+IHUF+Trans 0.0 85.8 12.2 13.1 83.0 8.3 202.4 CNGV+Bio+FBSC+IHUF+Trans 0.0 234.8 9.7 7.4 76.4 4.9 333.2 Eff(Opt)
|
From page 374... ...
. FIGURE H.12 Vehicle sales by vehicle technology assuming optimistic PEV technology estimates.
|
From page 375... ...
FIGURE H.15 Changes in petroleum use and GHG emissions compared to 2005 assuming optimistic PEV technology estimates and a low-GHG electric grid.
|
From page 376... ...
. FIGURE H.16 Vehicle sales by vehicle technology assuming optimistic fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV)
|
From page 377... ...
2003. VISION Model: Description of Model Used to Estimate the Impact of Highway Vehicle Technologies and Fuels on Energy Use and Carbon Emissions to 2050.
|
From page 378... ...
Prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Vehicle Technologies Program.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.