Transcript ｽﾗｲﾄﾞ ﾀｲﾄﾙなし

International Energy Workshop
June 21, 2012 Cape Town, South Africa
Transport: Alternatives
Effects of the low nuclear policy
on technology competitiveness
among next generation vehicles in Japan
ENDO Eiichi
National Institute of Advanced Industrial
Science and Technology (AIST), Japan
[email protected]
1
Background
After the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident,
new energy mix scenarios have been proposed reflecting
public opinion for antinuclear in Japan
- by the Science Council of Japan (Sept. 2011)
nuclear: 0% (3 scenarios),11.8%,40%,51.6% in 2030 in
generated electricity
- by the Fundamental Issues Subcommittee, the Advisory
Committee for Natural Resources and Energy under the
METI for establishing a new “Basic Energy Plan for Japan”
(May 2012)
nuclear: 0%,15%,20-25% in 2030 in generated electricity
cf. nuclear: 31.4% in 2010 in generated electricity, all
nuclear power plants have been stopped since May 6, 2012
2
The low nuclear policy may affect technology
competitiveness among energy technologies.
Purpose
- to analyze effects of technology characteristics, such
as vehicle cost, hydrogen cost, on technology
competitiveness among next generation vehicles,
especially competitiveness between hydrogen FCV and
EV, under various scenarios of nuclear and CO2
emissions in Japan
3
Approach
Energy systems analysis by an energy
system model of Japan
- MARKAL is used
- whole energy system, from 1988 to 2052, 13 periods
- 260 energy technologies and 40 energy carriers,
around 9000 rows and 11000 columns
- objective function: trade-off between system cost and
CO2 emissions, minimized under CO2 emissions
constraint
4
residential &
commercial
industry
Useful Energy Demand
motor
boiler
iron & steel
material
furnace
chemicals
：
ceramics
：
& cement
：
paper & pulp
：
others
non-energy
heating
cooling
hot water
residential
cooking
light &
appliances
commercial
：
rail
passenger
car
domestic
bus&truck
passenger
ship
air
domestic
：
freight
international
：
transportation
renewable
domestic
import
Primary Energy
Energy Supply
Secondary
Energy Demand
Sources
Technologies
Energy Carriers
Technologies
natural uranium
：
process heat
petroleum products
：
low temperature
crude oil
：
heat
solar heat
：
coal for overseas
conversion
coal
：
liquefaction
technologies
steam coal
coke
：
(to electric
coking coal
firewood & RDF
：
LNG
power and heat)
：
lubricating oil
methanol
gasoline ICE vehicle
fuel oil
natural uranium
naphtha
gasoline ICE vehicle
crude oil
gasoline
mini
steam coal
jet fuel
gasoline hybrid
coking coal
kerosene
electric vehicle
natural gas
LPG
LPG ICE vehicle
pulp & black liquor
diesel oil
diesel ICE vehicle
process
biomass
electricity
electric vehicle
technologies
hydro
pulp & black liquor
electric vehicle
(refinement,
geothermal
hydrogen
mini
transportation
solar
hydrogen ICE vehicle
coke oven gas,
and
wind
hydrogen
blast furnace gas
delivery)
wave
methanol
fuel cell vehicle
methanol ICE vehicle
ocean thermal
town gas
CNG
CNG ICE vehicle
energy conversion
LNG:Liquefied Natural Gas, RDF:Refuse Derived Fuel, LPG:Liquefied Petroleum Gas
CNG:Compressed Natural Gas, ICE:Internal Combustion Engine
Outline of the modeled energy system of Japan.
5
Installed capacity (GW)
Nuclear
N0: promotes nuclear, former “Basic
Energy Plan”, 68 GW from 2030
N1: maintains present status, 49GW
N2: low nuclear, phases out after
40-year life time, near 0 GW in 2050
N3: low nuclear, stops immediately,
0 GW from 2015
CO2 emissions
C0: base, stringent constraint,
around 15, 35% reduction in 2030,
2050, respectively from the level in
1990, without CCS,
close to the minimum CO2
emissions in the low nuclear N3
C1-C3: for sensitivity analysis,
looser constraints
70
60
50
N0
N1
N2
N3
40
30
20
10
0
2010
2020
2030
(Year)
2040
2050
Scenarios for nuclear.
1.4
1.2
CO2 emissions (1990=1)
Assumptions
80
1
0.8
C3
0.6
C2
C1
0.4
C0
0.2
0
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
(Year)
Scenarios for CO2 emissions.
6
130
Energy demand
Fossil fuel prices
120
assumption
iron&steel
chemicals
ceramics&cement
110
Index
given by sector based on
the governmental outlook
(2008) considering
population decrease
outlook
paper&pulp
100
non-manufacturing
90
commercial
80
residential
70
passenger
freight
60
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
(Year)
PV, Wind energy
100GW, 50GW in 2050,
respectively based on the
technology development
roadmaps
Assumed energy demand indices.
Fossil Fuel Price Assumptions
(USD/GJ) in year-2000 dollars
based on the World Energy
Outlook, New Policies
Scenario by IEA (2011)
18
16
14
outlook
assumption
12
10
IEA Crude oil
8
Japanese LNG
6
OECD steam coal
4
2
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
(Year)
2040
Assumed fossil fuel prices. 7
2050
Passenger cars
11 types including 2 types of mini-size
gasoline ICEV, gasoline ICEV mini, LPG ICEV, diesel
ICEV, hydrogen ICEV, methanol ICEV, CNG ICEV,
gasoline HEV, EV, EV mini, and hydrogen FCV
Plug-in HEV: not modeled, assumed as a part of
gasoline HEV and EV.
Technology characteristics of passenger car
Vehicle efficiency: energy efficiency from tank to wheel
including regeneration in brake
Vehicle cost (ratio): vehicle cost compared with that of
gasoline ICEV, fuel cost is not included
8
Vehicle ef f iciency
0.7
elctric
vehicle
0.6
hydrogen
FCV
0.5
0.4
gasoline
HEV
0.3
0.2
gasoline
ICEV
0.1
0.0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
(Year)
Assumed vehicle efficiency
(in LHV).
Mini-sized:1/0.75 times of usual
gasoline ICEV or EV, diesel: 1.2,
hydrogen: 1.2, CNG: 1.14, LPG
and methanol: 1.03 times of
gasoline ICEV, respectively.
Vehicle cost (gasoline ICEV=1)
0.8
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
1990
2000
2010
2020 2030
(Year)
2040
2050
Assumed vehicle cost ratios
to gasoline ICEV.
Mini-sized: 0.9 times of usual
gasoline ICEV or EV,
diesel: 1.2, LPG: 1.1, hydrogen:
1.3, CNG and methanol: 1.3 times
of gasoline ICEV, respectively,
hydrogen FCV: parameter, 1.2 or
more.
9
Hydrogen production technology
On-site steam reforming from town gas at hydrogen filling
station
Technology characteristics: investment cost, O&M cost,
availability, conversion efficiency, etc., based on the
technology development roadmap
Scenarios for hydrogen cost (hydrogen filling station cost):
Target, targets in the roadmap are achieved without delay,
Delay, 10-20 years behind the target, 10-15% up in
hydrogen cost
Electricity for EV
not only from night time power, but also from day time all
power generation technologies
10
Other constraints
90
(%)
Market penetration
Y
Next generation vehicles:
Market penetration target is
extrapolated to 2050 by logistic
curve, 99% in 2050
Mini-size vehicles (less than
660cc):
Upper bound is estimated
applying logistic curve to the
data, saturated at 35%
100
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
X
(Year)
Assumed upper bound
for total share of next
generation vehicles in
Japan.
11
large
Vehicle size
hydrogen
FCV
small
EV
analysis
short
150 km
long
Driving range
Different roll by driving range and vehicle size of
EV and hydrogen FCV.
Technology competition in the medium driving range
(around 150 km in Japan) and vehicle size is focused on.
12
Analyses
Total system cost is minimized under the CO2 emissions
constraint
Sensitivity analyses:
- CO2 emissions: C0, C1-C3
- Nuclear: N0-N1, N2-N3
- Vehicle cost of hydrogen FCV: 1.2, 1.25, 1.3
- Hydrogen cost (hydrogen filling station cost): Target, Delay
13
Results of the analyses
5
20
renewable
15
nuclear
10
natural gas
coal
5
oil
N2C0
Power generation (EJ/year)
Primary energy supply (EJ/year)
25
4.5
4
geo&bio
3.5
wind
3
solar
2.5
hydro
2
nuclear
1.5
gas
1
coal
0.5
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
(Year)
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
(Year)
8
3
6
4
renewable
2
nuclear
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
natural gas
-2
coal
-4
oil
-6
-8
Difference
between N0C0
and N2C0
(Year)
Primary energy supply mix.
Power generation (EJ/year)
Primary energy supply (EJ/year)
oil
0
0
2
geo&bio
wind
1
solar
hydro
0
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
nuclear
-1
gas
coal
-2
-3
oil
(Year)
Power generation mix.
in generated electricity
If nuclear is not available, not only nuclear but also coal are replaced by natural gas.
14
400
diesel ICEV
Installed capacity (PJ/year)
350
300
LPG ICEV
250
200
gasoline ICEV
gasoline HEV
EV
hydrogen FCV
150
100
50
EV mini
gasoline ICEV mini
0
1990
2000
2010
2020
（Year）
2030
2040
2050
Vehicle mix in the passenger car sector in Japan.
N2C0, vehicle cost of hydrogen FCV: 1.2, hydrogen cost:
target
15
nuclear: N2
hydrogen cost:
delay
350
300
300
300
300
250
250
250
250
200
200
設備容量(PJ/年)
400
350
設備容量(PJ/年)
400
350
設備容量(PJ/年)
400
350
200
200
150
150
150
150
100
100
100
100
50
50
50
50
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
（年）
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
0
1990
2050
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
（年）
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
0
1990
2050
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
（年）
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
0
1990
2050
400
400
400
350
350
350
350
300
300
300
300
250
250
250
250
200
200
200
150
150
150
100
100
100
50
50
50
0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
（年）
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
（年）
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
設備容量(PJ/年)
400
設備容量(PJ/年)
設備容量(PJ/年)
hydrogen cost:
target
400
0
1990
vehicle
cost of
FCV:
1.25
hydrogen cost:
delay
設備容量(PJ/年)
vehicle
cost of
FCV:
1.2
設備容量(PJ/年)
hydrogen cost:
target
nuclear: N3
0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
（年）
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
200
150
100
50
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
（年）
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
（年）
2025
2030
2035
Vehicle mix in the passenger car sector in Japan.
(CO2 emissions: C0)
Hydrogen FCV has no technology competitiveness under the
scenarios N0-N1 or vehicle cost no less than 1.3.
Hydrogen FCV has competitiveness under the scenario N2-N3
and vehicle cost no more than 1.25.
Market penetration of hydrogen FCV delays 5-10 years, if vehicle cost increases
from 1.2 to 1.25. It delays 0-5 years, if hydrogen cost reduction delayed. 16
2040
2045
2050
nuclear: N2
350
300
300
300
300
250
250
250
250
200
200
設備容量(PJ/年)
400
350
設備容量(PJ/年)
400
350
設備容量(PJ/年)
400
350
200
200
150
150
150
150
100
100
100
100
50
50
50
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
（年）
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
0
1990
2050
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
（年）
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
0
1990
2050
50
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
（年）
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
0
1990
2050
400
400
400
350
350
350
350
300
300
300
300
250
250
250
250
200
200
設備容量(PJ/年)
400
設備容量(PJ/年)
設備容量(PJ/年)
hydrogen cost:
delay
400
0
1990
CO2:
C2
hydrogen cost:
target
hydrogen cost:
delay
設備容量(PJ/年)
CO2:
C1
設備容量(PJ/年)
hydrogen cost:
target
nuclear: N3
200
150
150
100
100
100
100
50
50
50
50
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
（年）
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
（年）
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
0
1990
2000
2005
2010
2015
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
（年）
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
200
150
0
1990
1995
150
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
（年）
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
0
1990
2020
（年）
2025
2030
2035
Vehicle mix in the passenger car sector in Japan.
(vehicle cost of hydrogen FCV: 1.2)
Hydrogen FCV has no technology competitiveness under the
scenarios C3, or N0-N1, or vehicle cost no less than 1.25 in C1-C2.
Technology competitiveness of hydrogen FCV:
up in low nuclear N2-N3, down in C1-C3, lose by vehicle cost up,
down by delay of hydrogen cost reduction.
17
2040
2045
2050
Summary and Conclusions
Technology competitiveness among next-generation vehicles,
especially that between hydrogen FCV and EV is analyzed.
Effects on technology competitiveness of hydrogen FCV:
Nuclear: no technology competitiveness under N0-N1. Low
nuclear policy, N2-N3 increases technology competitiveness.
CO2 emissions: severe reduction C0 increases technology
competitiveness. Small reduction C1-C3 decrease technology
competitiveness
Vehicle cost: strong impacts. 10-5 points higher vehicle cost
completely loses technology competitiveness
Hydrogen cost (hydrogen filling station cost): effects in some
conditions. 10-15% higher hydrogen cost (10-20 year delay)
decreases technology competitiveness
18
Under the low nuclear policy with severe CO2
emissions reduction, most probable future in Japan,
- Technology development of hydrogen FCV is
meaningful, because it could have competitiveness
with EV.
- Vehicle cost reduction should have priority in the
technology development of hydrogen FCV compared
with hydrogen cost reduction, because vehicle cost
affects competitiveness stronger than hydrogen cost.
- Vehicle cost reduction for hydrogen FCV should
target at the same level of EV.
19