Key findings A COMPARISON OF MASS ELECTRIC VEHICLES ADOPTION AND LOW-CARBON INTENSITY FUELS SCENARIOS - FuelsEurope
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Key findings
A COMPARISON OF MASS
ELECTRIC VEHICLES ADOPTION
AND LOW-CARBON INTENSITY
FUELS SCENARIOSThere is a widespread view that all of light road transport, and much of other transport
sectors, should be electrified in order to meet the European Union’s (EU) climate objectives.
But there is also a growing awareness that such electrification will be challenging, and that
there is no single solution to build a low-carbon transport system.
Concawe1 asked Ricardo2 to carry out an extensive study to examine a scenario for near-
complete electrification of cars and light commercial vehicles on the road in the EU by
2050 (“Full Electrification scenario”), with quantification of GHG reductions, total costs of
ownership and infrastructure, battery materials and power requirements. And in addition,
to evaluate in the same way a scenario with a combination of electrification and low-
carbon liquid fuels into very efficient internal combustion engine (ICE)-based vehicles
(“Low-Carbon Liquid Fuels scenario”). This in-depth study sets out the challenges and
opportunities associated with such a range of alternative options.
LIMITED ELECTRIFICATION BEYOND THE BUS AND LIGHT TRUCK SEGMENT
Battery weight in tonne (log scale)
1,000,000
375,400 tonnes
100,000
10,000
2,000 tonnes
1,000
100
13 tonnes
10
3.5 tonnes
1 1.2 tonnes Fuel tank
volume in litre
(log scale)
0
1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000
It is widely accepted that low-carbon liquid fuels will be essential in the long-term for sectors
that have limitations in using electricity directly, such as long distance heavy road transport,
aviation, maritime, and petrochemicals. The Ricardo study in light road transport allows to
compare “apples with apples”, and also to explore how a combination of technologies could
mitigate some of the biggest challenges of full electrification of light transport.
1
The refining industry’s scientific and technical body.
2
Global strategic engineering and environmental consultancy that specialises in the transport, energy and scarce re-
sources sectors.
21. Highlights of Full Electrification scenario
The High EV scenario in the study shows that full electrification of transport for passenger
cars and light-duty vans in 2050 should reach 90% of the vehicle parc, on the basis of 100%
registration of battery-electric vehicles from 2040 onward.
VEHICLE PARC IN THE HIGH EV SCENARIO
EV* 89.3% EV* 88.7% Cost
Cumulative Fossil fuel Electricity
Gasoline 3.4% Diesel€6.2%
Billion Biofuel E-fuel
HEV** Gasoline 2.5% HEV** Diesel 5.4%
95%
100% 100%
83% 88%
80% 80%
60% 60%
PASSENGER LIGHT
40% 40%
CARS COMMERCIAL
20%
VEHICLES
20% 9%
5%
9%
0% 0% 2%
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2015 2015 2020
2020 2025 2025
20302030 2035
2035 2040
2040 20452045
2050 2050
Source: Ricardo Energy & Environment SULTAN modelling and Analysis
*EV: Electric Vehicles, **HEV: Hybrid Electric Vehicles
The energy mix in this scenario shows a rapid decline in fossil fuel from 2030, a rapid rise
in electricity use, and an end to biofuel use by 2050.
LIFE-CYCLE GHG EMISSIONS IN THE HIGH EV SCENARIO
Tank-to-Wheel (Annual) Vehicle Disposal
GHG Emission Well-to-Tank (Annual) Vehicle Production
[MtCO2e]
900
800 BAU* Total
700 624
600
500 HIGH EV
400
300
200 135
100
0
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Source: Ricardo Energy & Environment SULTAN modelling and Analysis
*Business-As-Usual
3Whilst this scenario is expected to achieve by 2050 a reduction up to 87% of the 2015 GHG life-
cycle emissions levels, the Full Electrification scenario entails a number of challenges:
• An estimated investment in EV charging and network infrastructure between
€630 billion and €830 billion to 2050.
• Electricity demand for charging EVs is equal to 17,5% of the overall EU’s 2015
electricity generation.
• Addressing the annual loss of €66 billion in fiscal revenue from fuel sales.
• The construction of 15 giga-factories to supply batteries to the European EV
market (550TWh).
• The installation of increased peak power of 115GWh (15% of current installed
peak power generation) to meet electricity demand.
• Resources requirements for cobalt, nickel and lithium would increase very
substantially over the period to 2050, posing a potential availability risk and
creating a new import dependency of the EU.
Given that the majority of lithium and cobalt is located in a few countries, there is furthermore
a potential risk for prices and security of supply.
KEY BATTERY MATERIALS ANNUAL DEMAND IN THE HIGH EV SCENARIO
Material HIGH EV
Required
(tonne)
300,000 Lithium
Cobalt
250,000 Nickel
200,000
150,000
Current Cobalt production: 123,000 tonnes
100,000
50,000
Current Lithium production: 35,000 tonnes
0
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Source: Ricardo Energy & Environment SULTAN modelling and Analysis
For example, increased lithium extraction just for the full electrification of the European
cars and vans, is estimated at 6 times the 2016 worldwide lithium production.
4LITHIUM MATERIAL ANNUAL ANALYSIS IN THE HIGH EV SCENARIO
Tonne ANNUAL ANALYSIS If lithium is not recycled, the
virgin lithium demand will
follow the total lithium
450,000 demand curve.
400,000 Peak virgin lithium demand is
6 times higher than global
350,000 lithium production in 2016
300,000 (35kT).
250,000 Total lithium
200,000 Virgin lithium
150,000 Recycled lithium
100,000
50,000
35kT (2016 Production)
0
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060
Source: Ricardo Energy & Environment SULTAN modelling and Analysis
Construction of an equally large battery recycling industry will be needed, with unknown
power requirements and environmental impact.
2. Highlights of Low-Carbon Liquid Fuels scenario
The Low-Carbon Liquid Fuels scenario assumes that in 2050 the vehicle parc will consist of
very efficient ICE vehicles, with a high penetration of low-carbon fuels (68%) complemented by
23% electricity and a minor quota of fossil fuels.
VEHICLE PARC IN THE LOW-CARBON LIQUID FUELS SCENARIO
PIV* Total : 46.5% PIV* Total : 56.5%
LPG 0.2% LPG 0.1%
BEV** 26% BEV** 14.4%
HEV Diesel 18.4% HEV Diesel 28.6%
PHEV*** Gasoline 7.1% PHEV*** Gasoline 34.5%
Fossil Fuel Biofuel
HEV Gasoline 21% HEV Gasoline 2.8%
PHEV Diesel 13.4% e-fuel7.6%
PHEV Diesel Electricity
Diesel 4.9% Diesel 11.2%
CNG 0.8% CNG 0.1%
Gasoline 8.2% Gasoline 0.7%
95%
100% 100%
87%
80% 80%
LCF TOTAL: ~68%
54%
60% 60%
40% PASSENGER LIGHT
40%
CARS COMMERCIAL
23%
20% VEHICLES
20%
9% 14%
5%
9%
0% 0%
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2015 2020 2025 20252030
2015 2020 2030 2035 204020452045
2035 2040 2050 2050
Source: Ricardo Energy & Environment SULTAN modelling and Analysis
*PIV: Plug-in Vehicle, **BEV: Battery Electric Vehicle, ***PHEV: Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
5The energy mix in the Low-Carbon Liquid Fuels scenario shows a similar use from 2050, a
steady rise in electricity use and a similar rise in biofuels and e-fuels.
It is expected that this scenario will reduce, by 2050, the 2015 life-cycle GHG emissions’ level
by 87 %, equivalent to the Full Electrification scenario.
LIFE-CYCLE GHG EMISSIONS IN THE LOW-CARBON FUELS SCENARIO
GHG Emission Tank-to-Wheel (Annual) Vehicle Disposal
[MtCO2e] Well-to-Tank (Annual) Vehicle Production
900
800
BAU Total
700
624
600
500 LOW-CARBON
400 FUELS
300
200
124
100
0
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Source: Ricardo Energy & Environment SULTAN modelling and Analysis
The Low-Carbon Liquid Fuels scenario can offer benefits such as:
• A sustainable alternative for other transport segments such as aviation, marine and
heavy-duty road transport.
• The opportunity to supply the ICE-based existing light-duty fleet as these low-carbon
fuels appear on the market, thereby enabling a wider GHG reduction compared to the
progressive fleet renewal scenario.
• Requiring significantly lower infrastructure investments, since only 50% of the recharging
capacity of the High EV scenario will be needed (€326 to 390 billion).
• Only requiring half of the peak power generation compared to the High EV scenario.
• Only requiring 5 or 6 giga-factories for battery production and significantly limiting de-
mand for raw materials to less than half of the High EV scenario requirements.
The Low-Carbon Liquid Fuels scenario estimates that the amount of required biofuels for light
transport is around 35% of today’s (petrol and diesel) fuel volumes. This results from the si-
gnificant efficiency gains of the ICE, reducing the total volumetric demand by 60% compared
to today’s volumes3.
3
In the Full Electrification scenario, no further development of the ICE powertrain is assumed beyond 2025, as carmakers
would be expected to invest solely in electrification technologies.
6COMPARISON OF CUMULATIVE ELECTRIC CHARGING AND NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE COST
‘HOME’ SCENARIO* ‘GRAZING’ SCENARIO**
Billion € High EV Low-carbon fuels
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Source: Ricardo Energy & Environment SULTAN modelling and Analysis
* In the “home” recharging scenario EV users charge mainly using off-street home or on-street residential recharging
infrastructure.
** In the “grazing” recharging scenario, it is assumed that EV users charge little and often, mainly using charging points
away from the home.
3. Total annual costs of both scenarios
The study shows that, contrary to conclusions from recent studies, the total parc annual costs
of vehicles under the High EV scenario or under the Low-Carbon Liquid Fuels scenario is likely
to be very similar with no competitive advantage for the EV vs the ICE:
TOTAL PARC ANNUAL COSTS TO END-USER FOR ALL LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES
Infrastructures Capital
O&M Net Fiscal Revenue Loss vs BAU
Annual Cost (Billion €) Fuel
2,500 Total BAU Total BAU
2,280 2,280
2,254 2,263
2,000
1,500
1,000
500 HIGH EV LOW-CARBON FUELS
0
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Source: Ricardo Energy & Environment SULTAN modelling and Analysis
7Ricardo also assessed the cost of each scenario after inclusion of externalities4. From the
graph we can see that externalities related to the Low-Carbon Liquid Fuels scenario are similar
to the full electrification scenario, represented as the reference scenario in this comparison.
CUMULATIVE NET SOCIETAL COST (RELATED TO HIGH EV)
Cumulative Cost CUMULATIVE NET SOCIETAL COST RELATED TO HIGH EV
Billion €
150
100
50
Low-carbon fuels
0
High EV + externalities
-50 Low-carbon fuels + externalities
-100
-150
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Source: Ricardo Energy & Environment SULTAN modelling and Analysis
4. Conclusion
• Low-carbon liquid fuels offer a sustainable alternative to full electrification of light duty
vehicles, and an attractive solution for other transport segments such as aviation, marine
and heavy-duty road transport.
• Low-carbon liquid fuels offer the opportunity to be supplied to the entire existing fleet as
they appear on the market and by doing so, enable a wider GHG reduction compared to the
gradual penetration of EVs.
• The vision of significant deployment of low-carbon liquid fuels is very ambitious but expert
work shows it is achievable and very beneficial.
• The vision for full electrification is also very ambitious and has major challenges, plus
significant uncertainties on the key assumptions, which need to be addressed.
• The technologies for the production of low-carbon liquid fuels are as essential as
electrification, and deserve a similarly strong policy support – they need to be part of the
Vision for 2050 of the EU, Member States, industry, their investors and customers.
• Both sets of technologies are complementary and require the adoption of policies based
on a neutral approach to technology support: this will lead to the best choices and
decisions for the future of the EU.
4
External costs (or ‘externalities’) are the monetary value attached to the impacts of GHG, air quality pollutant emissions
and other impacts such as noise and congestion due to indirect effects, for example on public health and other elements.
8You can also read
