1. Well-To-Wheels Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles Amgad Elgowainy, Andy Burnham, Michael Wang, John Molburg, and Aymeric Rousseau Center for Transportation Research Argonne National Laboratory Presentation at MIT/Ford/Shell Research Workshop June 8, 2009

2. 2 Scope of Argonne’s PHEV WTW Analysis 2  To examine relative energy and emission merits of PHEVs; the vehicle types addressed were:  Conventional international combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs)  Regular hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs)  ICE plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs)  Fuel cell (FC) PHEVs  Fuel options:  Petroleum Gasoline Diesel  E85 with ethanol from Corn Switchgrass  Hydrogen with several production pathways  Electricity with different generation mixes

3. 3 Argonne’s PHEV WTW Analysis Addresses The Following Key Issues  PHEV performance evaluation with Argonne’s PSAT model  Explored PHEV operating strategies  Processed fuel economy results for various PHEV configurations  Examined effects of all electric ranges (AER) of PHEVs  Electricity generation mixes to charge PHEVs  Reviewed studies completed in this area  Generated five sets of generation mixes for PHEV recharge  PHEV mileage shares by power source  Relied on national average distribution of daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT)  Determined VMT shares by charge depleting (CD) and charge sustaining (CS) operations  GREET WTW simulations of PHEVs  Expanded and configured GREET for PHEVs  Conducted GREET PHEV WTW simulations 3

4. 4 Five Sets of Generation Mixes for PHEV Recharge Were Used in This Study (%) 4 US Average: the default GREET average mix for 2020 IL, NY, and CA Marginal: from the 2020 mix with 2kW charging capacity starting at 10 PM from a study by Hadley et al. Renewable: a scenario reflecting upper limit on benefits of PHEVs

5. 5 A Set of Vehicle/Fuel Systems Was Included in This Analysis  Vehicle types included:  ICEV: Gasoline SI, E85 SI, Diesel CI  HEV: Gasoline SI, E85 SI, Diesel CI; Hydrogen FC  PHEV: Gasoline SI, E85 SI, Diesel CI; Hydrogen FC  Model year 2015 midsize car  Fuel economy results were adjusted using EPA 2007-adopted formula for on-road performance 5

6. 6 Fuel Consumption Calculated from PSAT Fuel Economy Values (Btu/mi) 6 Fuel consumption for each operation is the following: CD electric: electricity consumption in CD operation CD Engine: fuel consumption by ICE/FC in CD (blended mode) operation CS operation: fuel consumption in CS operation

7. 7 PHEVs with 20-Mile AER Can Potentially Drive 40% of Daily VMT, PHEVs with 40-Mile AER More than 60% 7 NHTS

8. 8 WTW Total Energy Use for CD Mode (Electricity and Fuel) vs. CS mode (Fuel) – 20 AER; US Mix

9. 9 WTW GHG Emissions for CD Mode (Electricity and Fuel) vs. CS Mode (Fuel) – 20 AER; US Mix

10. 10 WTW GHG Emissions for CD Mode (Electricity and Fuel) vs. CS Mode (Fuel) – 20 AER; CA Mix

11. 11 WTW GHG Emissions for CD Mode (Electricity and Fuel) vs. CS Mode (Fuel) – 20 AER; IL Mix

12. 12 WTW GHG Emissions – US Mix: Comparison of Technology and All Electric Range Regular Hybrid

13. 13 Summary of Petroleum Energy and GHG Effects of All Evaluated Options

14. 14 Thank you! GREET web site: http://www.transportation.anl.gov/modeling_simulation/G REET/index.html PHEV WTW Analysis Report: http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/559.pdf http://www.transportation.anl.gov/modeling_simulation/G REET/index.html http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/559.pdf 14

15. 15 PSAT Fuel Economy Results (Miles Per Gasoline Equivalent Gallon, Wh/Mile for CD Electric Operation) 15 CD Electric = charge depleting operation with grid electricity CD Engine = charging depleting operation with on-board power systems (ICE or Fuel Cell) CS = charge sustaining operation with on-board power systems AER 0 = zero-mile AER (i.e., regular HEV) AER 10 = 10-mile AER; AER 20 = 20-mile AER; AER 30 = 30-mile AER; AER 40 = 40-mile AER UDDS = Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule; HWFET = Highway Fuel Economy Test CD electric operation and CD on-board operation complement each other for the same CD miles (i.e., blended mode operation)

16. 16 Processing of PSAT MPG Results for GREET Fuel Consumption Inputs  PSAT fuel economy results were first converted into fuel consumption  The city (UDDS) and highway (HWFET) results of PSAT were combined with 55% UDDS and 45% HWFET  The PSAT results for CD electric operation did not include charging losses; we assumed a 85% efficient charger  PSAT fuel consumption for CD and CS operations were combined using the “Utility Factor”  (FC CD Grid + FC CD ICE )* UF + FC CS * (1-UF) 16

17. 17 Concluding Remarks  PSAT simulations of the blended mode operation of PHEVs show that grid electricity accounts for a small share of total vehicle energy use in combined CD and CS operations (~6% for PHEV10 and ~24% for PHEV40)  The effect of electric generation mix becomes smaller with the blended mode operation; However, electric generation mix is still shown to have a significant effects on WTW results, especially for GHG emissions  Petroleum use declines when electricity is generated from non-petroleum sources  GHGs are highest with large coal shares, but decreased with NG, and decreased even further with renewables  HEV vs. PHEV  Petroleum use decreases as AER increases (except for generation mixes with high share of oil)  GHGs in general decrease as AER increases (except for carbon intensive generation mixes and biomass-to-E85 and H2)  Gasoline ICE PHEV vs. FC PHEV  FC PHEVs have much lower petroleum energy use  FC PHEVs using SMR-H2 slightly reduce GHGs; Biomass-to-H2 FC PHEVs significantly reduce GHGs  Outstanding issues  Electric generation mix for recharging PHEVs is affected by many factors: total electricity demand by PHEVs, location of PHEVs, time of day for recharging, PHEV buffer ability for the utility system  Utility dispatch modeling may be necessary for further analysis 17