Search

The cost of hydrogen delivery for transportation accounts for most of the current H 2 selling price; delivery also requires substantial amounts of energy. We developed harmonized techno-economic and life-cycle emissions models of current and future H 2 production and delivery pathways. Our techno-economic analysis of dispensed H 2 costs guided our selection of pathways for the life-cycle analysis. In this paper, we present the results of market expansion scenarios using existing capabilities (for example, those that use H 2 from steam methane reforming, chlor-alkali, and natural gas liquid cracker plants), as well as results for future electrolysis plants that use nuclear, solar, and hydroelectric power. Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for fuel cell electric vehicles compared to conventional gasoline pathways vary from 40% reduction for fossil-derived H 2 to 20-fold for clean H 2. Supplemental tables with greenhouse gas emissions data for each step in the H 2 pathways enable readers to evaluate additional scenarios. [Display omitted] • Hydrogen packaging, transmission, and distribution (delivery) were examined. • Techno-economic and life-cycle emissions models of H 2 delivery were harmonized. • Fuel cell electric vehicle market expansion scenario selections were guided by cost. • Life-cycle GHG emissions were compared with light-duty gasoline vehicle pathways. • GHG emissions reductions for selected pathways ranged from 40% to 20-fold. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: A well-to-wheels (WTW) analysis of pyrolysis-based gasoline was conducted and compared with petroleum gasoline. To address the variation and uncertainty in the pyrolysis pathways, probability distributions for key parameters were developed with data from literature. The impacts of two different hydrogen sources for pyrolysis oil upgrading and of two bio-char co-product applications were investigated. Reforming fuel gas/natural gas for H2 reduces WTW GHG emissions by 60% (range of 55–64%) compared to the mean of petroleum fuels. Reforming pyrolysis oil for H2 increases the WTW GHG emissions reduction up to 112% (range of 97–126%), but reduces petroleum savings per unit of biomass used due to the dramatic decline in the liquid fuel yield. Thus, the hydrogen source causes a trade-off between GHG reduction per unit fuel output and petroleum displacement per unit biomass used. Soil application of biochar could provide significant carbon sequestration with large uncertainty. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Because of increasing environmental and energy security concerns, a detailed understanding of energy efficiency and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the petroleum refining industry is critical for fair and equitable energy and environmental policies. To date, this has proved challenging due in part to the complex nature and variability within refineries. In an effort to simplify energy and emissions refinery analysis, we delineated LP modeling results from 60 large refineries from the US and EU into broad categories based on crude density (API gravity) and heavy product (HP) yields. Product-specific efficiencies and process fuel shares derived from this study were incorporated in Argonne National Laboratory’s GREET life-cycle model, along with regional upstream GHG intensities of crude, natural gas and electricity specific to the US and EU regions. The modeling results suggest that refineries that process relatively heavier crude inputs and have lower yields of HPs generally have lower energy efficiencies and higher GHG emissions than refineries that run lighter crudes with lower yields of HPs. The former types of refineries tend to utilize energy-intensive units which are significant consumers of utilities (heat and electricity) and hydrogen. Among the three groups of refineries studied, the major difference in the energy intensities is due to the amount of purchased natural gas for utilities and hydrogen, while the sum of refinery feed inputs are generally constant. These results highlight the GHG emissions cost a refiner pays to process deep into the barrel to produce more of the desirable fuels with low carbon to hydrogen ratio. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Use of ethanol as a transportation fuel in the United States has grown from 76 dam3 in 1980 to over 40.1 hm3 in 2009 — and virtually all of it has been produced from corn. It has been debated whether using corn ethanol results in any energy and greenhouse gas benefits. This issue has been especially critical in the past several years, when indirect effects, such as indirect land use changes, associated with U.S. corn ethanol production are considered in evaluation. In the past three years, modeling of direct and indirect land use changes related to the production of corn ethanol has advanced significantly. Meanwhile, technology improvements in key stages of the ethanol life cycle (such as corn farming and ethanol production) have been made. With updated simulation results of direct and indirect land use changes and observed technology improvements in the past several years, we conducted a life-cycle analysis of ethanol and show that at present and in the near future, using corn ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emission by more than 20%, relative to those of petroleum gasoline. On the other hand, second-generation ethanol could achieve much higher reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In a broader sense, sound evaluation of U.S. biofuel policies should account for both unanticipated consequences and technology potentials. We maintain that the usefulness of such evaluations is to provide insight into how to prevent unanticipated consequences and how to promote efficient technologies with policy intervention. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]