Global Transportation and Technology in MiniCAM

Page Kyle, Sonny Kim, and Jae EdmondsGTSP Technical Review

May 28, 2009

PNNL-SA-66646

Motivation

Transport accounts for 33 % of total CO2 emissions and is the largest end-use source of energy-related CO2 in the US (EIA).Transport accounts for 23 % of global energy-related CO2 emissions (IEA).Growth in the demand for transport services worldwide implies continued long-term growth in CO2 emissions from the transportation sector.Ability to assess the impact of transportation policies and emerging vehicle technologies for lowering fuel consumption and emissionsrequires the ability to model differentiated transport services by mode and vehicle technologies.

Previous versions of the MiniCAM transportation representation did not include transport services by mode and vehicle technology for all global regions (except US).

Structure of MiniCAM Transportation SectorOld structure

Aggregate transport service by fuel

New structureDifferentiated transport services (pass-km, ton-km)Modes (avg speed, km/hr)Vehicle technologies (load factor, fuel intensity, non-fuel cost per vehicle)

Cost of Transport Service and Transport Service Demand (Passenger)

Pi,L = (Pf,L / Effi,L + Pnf,i,L) / LFi,L + WL / Tivehicle i in region LP = cost of passenger service, per passenger kmEff = vehicle fuel economyPnf = vehicle non-fuel costLF = load factor (persons per vehicle)W = wage rateT = average vehicle transit speed

Time value affects modal competition with bias towards faster modes with increasing wage rateTime value is included in the total transport service cost constraining service with rising wage rateDpass,L = apass,L* Ppass,L

rp* XLry* PopL

X = income per capitaPop = population

Passenger Time in TransitPassenger time in transit for all modes (including walking) is strikingly constant across regions and income levels

Note that only motorized modes are modeled in MiniCAMIncluding time value in service cost constrains time in transit

Source: Fig. 4 in: Shafer, A. (1998). The Global Demand for Motorized Mobility. Transpn Res.-A, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 455-477.

MiniCAM (1990 - 2095)Shafer (historical)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

0 50000 100000 150000

Per capita GDP (2005$)

Tim

e in

tran

sit (

hour

s/da

y)

AfricaAustralia_NZCanadaChinaEastern EuropeFormer Soviet UnionIndiaJapanKoreaLatin AmericaMiddle EastSoutheast AsiaUSAWestern Europe

Passenger Service DemandPassenger service demand is linear with income

Shafer (1960 - 1990) MiniCAM (1990 - 2095)

Source: Fig. 5 in: Shafer, A. (1998). The Global Demand for Motorized Mobility. Transpn Res.-A, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 455-477.

100

1000

10000

100000

100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000

GDP per capita (2005$)Pa

ssen

ger k

m p

er c

apita

Africa Australia_NZ Canada China

Eastern Europe Former Soviet Union India Japan

Korea Latin America Middle East Southeast Asia

USA Western Europe

Light-Duty Transport ScenariosLight-duty passenger transport is the focus of the following study

Largest component of transport energy use and CO2 emissionsEmerging new vehicle technologies are for light-duty serviceNo electric or H2 vehicle technologies for Freight and Passenger Aviation & Bus services

Climate policy (CP) scenarios impose an escalating carbon tax on all CO2emitting activities for all global regionsCarbon tax path is roughly consistent with a 450 ppm CO2 stabilization

Ref No alternative-fueled vehicle technologies in light duty vehicles.Elec All light-duty vehicles are electric-powered starting in 2035.H2 All light-duty vehicles are hydrogen-powered starting in 2035.Ref CP

Elec CPH2 CP

These scenarios have a global emissions price of $7.35 / t CO2 in 2015, increasing at 5% per year (real) through 2095

Global Passenger Service Demand by Mode, and LDV Stock

The fastest growth is in aviation due to increasing time value of transportationHowever, LDV is the largest component of passenger service, growing to about 3 billion vehicles in service by 2095

Developing world shifts from bus to LDV as incomes rise

Global Light Duty Vehicle Stock

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

1990

2005

2020

2035

2050

2065

2080

2095

Mill

ion

Vehi

cles

LDV-Ref

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,00019

90

2005

2020

2035

2050

2065

2080

2095

Bill

ion

pass

enge

r mile

s

LDV Bus Rail Air

Passenger Service Demand by Mode in China, India, and USA (no policy)

High overall growth in transportation demands in China and IndiaShift from bus to LDVHigh growth in aviation

USA

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1990

2005

2020

2035

2050

2065

2080

2095

Bill

ion

pass

enge

r mile

s

LDV Bus Rail Air

China

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1990

2005

2020

2035

2050

2065

2080

2095

Bill

ion

pass

enge

r mile

s

LDV Bus Rail Air

India

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1990

2005

2020

2035

2050

2065

2080

2095

LDV Bus Rail Air

Global Service Demand across LDV Technology ScenariosScenarios are set up so that service demand is relatively constant across technology scenarios

This allows analysis of effect of LDV technology on fuel consumption and CO2 emissions

LDV-Ref

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1990

2005

2020

2035

2050

2065

2080

2095

Bill

ion

pass

enge

r mile

s

LDV Bus Rail Air

LDV-Elec

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1990

2005

2020

2035

2050

2065

2080

2095

LDV Bus Rail Air

LDV-H2

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1990

2005

2020

2035

2050

2065

2080

2095

LDV Bus Rail Air

Global LDV fuel consumption by fuel type

Electricity and hydrogen vehicles are more efficient than ICE vehicles at the end-use levelElectricity, hydrogen, and liquid fuels have different carbon intensities; effect on emissions is not clear

The CO2 emissions intensities of these fuels are influenced by available production technologies and climate policy

LDV-Ref

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2005

2020

2035

2050

2065

2080

2095

EJ

Liquids Electricity Hydrogen

LDV-Elec

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2005

2020

2035

2050

2065

2080

2095

EJ

Liquids Electricity Hydrogen

LDV-H2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2005

2020

2035

2050

2065

2080

2095

EJ

Liquids Electricity Hydrogen

Global Results: CO2 Emissions by LDV’sLDV-Ref

0

2

4

6

8

10

2005

2020

2035

2050

2065

2080

2095

Gt C

O 2

Direct Refining Electricity Hydrogen

LDV-Elec

0

2

4

6

8

10

2005

2020

2035

2050

2065

2080

2095

Direct Refining Electricity Hydrogen

LDV-H2

0

2

4

6

8

10

2005

2020

2035

2050

2065

2080

2095

Direct Refining Electricity Hydrogen

LDV-Ref-CP

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

2005

2020

2035

2050

2065

2080

2095

Gt C

O 2

LDV-Elec-CP

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

2005

2020

2035

2050

2065

2080

2095

LDV-H2-CP

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

2005

2020

2035

2050

2065

2080

2095

Global Transportation Primary Energy with Policy

Both electric and hydrogen LDV scenarios reduce demand of oil by 50%Electric LDV favors nuclear, renewables, and coalHydrogen LDV favors gas at low to mid carbon prices, and biomass at high carbon prices

LDV-Ref-CP

0

50

100

150

200

250

1990

2005

2020

2035

2050

2065

2080

2095

EJ

LDV-Elec-CP

0

50

100

150

200

250

1990

2005

2020

2035

2050

2065

2080

2095

LDV-H2-CP

0

50

100

150

200

250

1990

2005

2020

2035

2050

2065

2080

2095

-250250

19 90 20 05 20 20 20 35 20 50 20 65 20 80 20 95

biomass-liquids biomass-elect biomass-elect-CCS biomass-H2biomass-H2-CCS coal-liquids coal-liquids-CCS coal-electcoal-elect-CCS coal-H2 coal-H2-CCS gas-liquidsgas-elect gas-elect-CCS gas-H2 gas-H2-CCSoil-liquids oil-elect unconv-liquids nuclear-electnuclear-H2 renewables-elect renewables-H2

Global CO2 emissions and CO2concentrations

With or without a climate policy, by the end of the century, alternative LDV technologies:

cut annual global CO2 emissions by about 10 Gt / yrcut global CO2 concentrations by about 40 ppmv

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1990 2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095

ppm

v C

O2

LDV-Ref

LDV-Ref-CP

LDV-Elec

LDV-Elec-CP

LDV-H2

LDV-H2-CP-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1990 2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095

GtC

O2/

yr

LDV-Ref

LDV-Ref-CP

LDV-Elec

LDV-Elec-CP

LDV-H2

LDV-H2-CP

ConclusionsNew structure of the MiniCAM transportation sector with differentiated transport services by mode and vehicle technologies allows greater understanding of the global transportation sector and options for GHG emissions reduction.

Growth in the global demand for passenger and freight serviceModal shifts and their potential impact on fuel choice, fuel consumption and emissionsImpact of new vehicle technologies with alternative fuelsComparison of CAFE and carbon policies

Alternative vehicle technologies for Light-Duty Transport service alone could have significant impact on fuel consumption and CO2 emissions

Significantly lower CO2 concentrations (40 ppm less) are achievable with either an all electric or hydrogen light-duty transport system An all electric or hydrogen light-duty transport system has significant implications for the energy infrastructure and fuel choice

Liquid fuel use by whole transportation sector is reduced by 50%Vehicle technologies alone, electric or hydrogen light-duty, do not stabilize either emissions or atmospheric concentrations of CO2, however.