|
June 2010 Argonne National Laboratory Report on PHEVs
The Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory has released a very detailed technical report [4] analyzing the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), including PHEVs powered by five fuels: hydrogen, E-85 (mixture of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) as well as gasoline and diesel. This report seems to undermine the Obama administration’s focus on gasoline- or ethanol-powered PHEVs and battery electric vehicle (BEVs) at the expense of hydrogen and FCEVs. Argonne assumes that hydrogen is used in fuel cell electric vehicles (PHEVs). Since most if not all FCEVs also include batteries to provide added power and to recover and store electricity from regenerative braking, then all FCEVs can be plugged in to become PHEVs (see Ford fuel cell PHEV above). So the question is not whether to build PHEVs, but what is the best power source to augment the batteries for longer range: the internal combustion engine or a hydrogen-powered fuel cell system?
Overall, the Argonne report shows that hydrogen is the best fuel to simultaneously cut greenhouse gases (GHGs) and oil consumption (points on the left indicate low oil consumption, and points toward the bottom of the graph indicate low GHGs):
 |
The Argonne report exhaustively analyzed the impact of operating PHEVs in various parts of the country, since the type of electrical generators will impact the GHGs generated when electricity is used to charge the batteries. For the average US grid mix, plugging in an HEV will always INCREASE GHGs, as shown below. (the top lines for gasoline and diesel HEVs and PHEVs show that an HEV (zero AER or point on the far left always produces less GHGS than a PHEV, since the lines rise with increased all-electric range (AER): For example, a PHEV with 40 miles AER generates an average of 305 g/mile, while an HEV generates only 270 g/mile: so plugging in increases GHGs; from an environmental perspective, it is better to operate the vehicle as an HEV instead of a PHEV. (The HEV has the added advantage of lower weight and lower cost since it does not require extra batteries to provide all-electric range.)
 |
Note also on the graph above that the hydrogen made from biomass produces the lowest GHGs (green line on bottom of graph). Using biomass to make ethanol (cellulosi ethanol) used in an internal combustion engine on a PHEV always produces more GHGs (blue line). Therefore it is always preferable to convert biomass to hydrogen for use in a FCEV than to convert biomass to ethanol for an internal combustion engine in a PHEV.
The Argonne report analyzed the impact of operating PHEVs in California, which has a lower carbon grid mix than the rest of the country. As shown in this graph, even in California, hydrogen from biomass (lower green line) produces less GHGs than a BEV operating in California (gray square at 155 g/mile with dotted red circle.)
Note also on the graph above that a fuel cell PHEV with an AER of 30 to 40 miles operating on hydrogen made from natural gas (red line labeled “SMR” for steam methane reformer) has lower GHGs than a PHEV operating on E-85 using corn ethanol, and all fuel cell PHEVs operating on hydrogen made from natural gas (red lines) have lower GHGs than a gasoline or diesel PHEV of the same AER.
Finally, this graph shows that in Illinois, with a coal intensive electricity grid, a series PHEV with 40 miles AER like the proposed Chevy Volt would actually increase GHGs compared to a conventional (non-hybrid) gasoline car (GV on the graph) using the lowest cost electricity “smart charging):
[4] Source for all graphs: Amgad Elgowainy, J. Han, L Poch, M. Wang, A Vyas, M. Mahalik, A. Rousseau, “Well-to-Wheel Analysis of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Plug-in Hybrid electric vehicles.” available at http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/629.PDF
|