introduction of the greet 2.7 model

Introduction of the GREET 2 Model

Jarod Kelly

Systems Assessment Group

Energy Systems Division

Argonne National Laboratory

The GREET Training Workshop

Argonne National Laboratory

October 15-16, 2015

Supporting Documents

Available at http://greet.es.anl.gov/publications

2

http://greet.es.anl.gov/publications

Current Issues in Vehicle Cycle Analysis

To meet recent fuel economy standards OEMs are likely to employ technologies such as

– Lightweight materials (e.g. aluminum, carbon fiber, magnesium)

– New propulsion systems (e.g. electric drive using Li-Ion batteries)

To understand the environmental implications of these technologies, changes in vehicle production need to be examined

– Vehicle cycle burdens may increase while fuel cycle burdens decrease

Analysis of potential environmental benefits of recycling technologies also important

3

4

GREET Analyzes Fuel Cycle and Vehicle Cycle for A More Comprehensive Life Cycle Analysis

GREET 2 model available at http://greet.es.anl.gov/

Includes emissions of greenhouse gases

– CO2, CH4, N2O, and BC

Estimates emissions of six criteria pollutants

– VOC, CO, NOx, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5

Separates energy use into

– All energy sources (fossil and non-fossil)

– Fossil fuels (petroleum, natural gas, and coal)

Raw material recovery

Material processing and fabrication

Vehicle component production

Vehicle assembly

Vehicle disposal and recycling

GREET 2 Simulates vehicle cycle energy use and emissions

from material recovery to vehicle disposal

5

Material recovery and processing are important

processes for vehicle cycle analysis

Example: Aluminum cradle-to-gate processes

Bauxite

Mining

Bauxite

Refining

Alumina

Reduction

Anode

Production

Ingot

Casting

Hot

Rolling

Cold

Rolling

Stamping

Extrusion

Wro

ught

Shape

CastingMachining C

ast

6

Key Parameters for

Material Production

Both steel and aluminum are modeled step-by-step from ore mining to part stamping

Most other metals are examined in three stages

– Mining

– Primary (virgin) production

– Secondary (recycled) production

Non-metals typically only look at production

Coal Mining

Coking

Steel Auto Parts

Iron Ore Mining

Sintering Pelletizing

Blast Furnace

Basic Oxygen

Processing

Recycled Steel

Production (EAF)

Steel Sheet

Production &

Rolling

Steel Parts

Stamping

7

GREET 2 Vehicle-Cycle Technology Options

Vehicle propulsion technologies

– Internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV)

– Grid-independent hybrid electric vehicle (HEV)

– Grid-connected (or plug-in) hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV)

– Battery electric vehicle (EV)

– Fuel cell vehicle (FCV) with hybrid configuration

Evaluate vehicle material compositions

– Conventional

– Lightweight (LW)

Vehicle types

– Light-duty vehicles: passenger car, SUV, pick-up truck8

GREET 2 Breaks Vehicles Down Into Four Categories

1. Components

– Includes powertrain, transmission, chassis, traction motor, generator, electronic controller, fuel cell auxiliaries, and body

2. Batteries

– Startup/accessories = Lead-acid

– Motive = Ni-MH or Li-Ion

3. Fluids

– Engine oil, power steering fluid, brake fluid, transmission fluid, powertrain coolant, windshield fluid, adhesives

4. Vehicle Assembly, Disposal, and Recycling

9

Addition of six new vehicles based on detailed

teardown and lightweighting studies

EPA and NHTSA lightweight reports

– Near term, cost effective concepts

– Baseline teardown

– Lightweight details

New vehicles

– Midsize

– Crossover utility vehicle

– Pickup truck

10

Material Composition by Vehicle

11

Key Issues in GREET Vehicle Cycle Analysis

Energy and emission burdens for key vehicle materials especially lightweight materials (steel vs. aluminum, magnesium, etc.)

Vehicle weight and lightweighting options

Electric vehicle battery materials

Use of virgin vs. recycled materials

Vehicle lifetime, component rebuilding (heavy duty vehicle engines), and component replacement cycle (battery)

New vehicle components, especially for electric drive technologies– Batteries

– Fuel cells

– Motors

1212

Recent updates to GREET 2

Material update and additions– Aluminum

– Magnesium

– Carbon Fiber

– Molybdenum

– Platinum

– Zinc

– Nickel

– Silicon

– Graphite

– Lithium

– Glass

– Glass fiber

– Numerous battery chemistries

1313

2013 IAA BMW i3 Honeycomb

structure

[youkeys - Flickr: DSC01710_DxO]

By 160SX (160SX (talk)'s

file)

[CC-BY-SA-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0]

http://www.flickr.com/people/54817657@N00

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Flickr

http://flickr.com/photos/54817657@N00/9877572716

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0

Update to Aluminum for 2015 GREET 2 Release

The alumina and aluminum industry accounted for 1.4% of the U.S. national energy use in 2010 (EIA, 2013)

The aluminum content in North American light-duty vehicles has increased from 85 lbs/vehicle in 1975, to 340 lbs/vehicle in 2010, and is projected to reach 547 lbs/vehicle in 2025 (Ducker Worldwide, 2014)

Vehicle lightweighting with aluminum can be a “gigaton solution” to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Modaresi, R. et al. ES&T, 2014)

14

Highlights of Aluminum Updates

Investigated primary aluminum production, secondary aluminum production, and aluminum semi-fabrication

Compiled life cycle inventory based on a 2013 Aluminum Association report representing North American aluminum industrial average for 2010

Updated energy consumptions, electricity mix for alumina reduction, material requirements, and process emissions

Added water consumption

15

Total Energy Consumption of Aluminum:

Comparison of GREET2 2014 and 2015

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Primary Wrought Al Secondary Wrought Al Primary Cast Al Secondary Cast Al

Tota

l En

erg

y (M

MB

tu/t

on

)

GREET2014 GREET2015

-7.2% -9.2%

+118% +65%

Technological advancements have led to improved environmental performances in the aluminum industry

The primary aluminum used to dilute the impurities in scrap is a key driver for the environmental footprint of secondary aluminum

16

GHG Emissions of Aluminum: Comparison

of GREET2 2014 and 2015

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Primary Wrought Al Secondary Wrought Al Primary Cast Al Secondary Cast Al

GH

G E

mis

sio

ns

(kg/

ton

)

GREET2014 GREET2015

-21%-22%

+111% +73%

17

GHG reduction of primary aluminum due to increased share of hydro-electricity and reduced use (and recycling) of carbon anode

Battery module constructed to evaluate different chemistries Selected chemistries based on BatPaC and Argonne Research

and Development– NCM: LiNi0.4Co0.2Mn0.4O2

– LMR-NMC: 0.5Li2MnO3∙0.5LiNi0.44Co0.25Mn0.31O2

– LCO: LiCoO2

– LFP: LiFePO4

– LMO: LiMn2O4

Graphite-Silica anodes for LMR-NMC; other chemistries are paired with graphite anodes

For some cathode materials investigated two preparation techniques:– HT: Hydrothermal– SS: Solid State

Material and energy flows developed based on literature data, engineering calculations

18

Cobalt- and nickel-containing cathode materials are most energy intensive to produce

19

HT: HydrothermalSS: Solid State

Dunn, JB; Gaines, L; Kelly, J.C.; James, C.; Gallagher, K. G.,” The significance of Li-ion batteries in electric vehicle life-cycle energy and emissions and recycling’s role in its reduction.”, Energy and Environmental Science 8: 158-168 (2015)

Motivations for Studying Vehicle Lightweighting

Transportation accounts for 28% of US consumed energy

Of that, light duty vehicle fleet accounts for 61%

Almost 10% of the world’s annual liquid petroleum consumption

EPA fuel economy mandates (CAFE)

35.5 mpgge (by 2016), 54.5 mpgge (by 2025)

Using technology to meet mandates

Powertrain advancements, drag reduction, reduced rolling resistance, alternative fueling strategies

Vehicle lightweighting is a vital option in meeting the 54.5 mpgge CAFE requirement

20

Total Life cycle = Vehicle Cycle + Fuel Cycle

80% - 90% of total vehicle life cycle energy and GHG burdens from fuel cycle

Increased fuel economy will reduce the fuel cycle

Many lightweight materials have significantly higher GHG burdens than “conventional” materials – namely, mild steel

Concern that CAFE will cause a shift in the burden, missing the complete picture

Sullivan and Hu 1995; Kobayashi 1997; Schuckert et al. 1997; Keoleian et al. 1998; Das 2000; Schmidt et al. 2004; Cheah 2010; Kim et al. 2010; Koffler and Rohde-Brandenburger 2010

21

Material Burdens and Life Cycle Assessment

Here, we will examine the GHG burden of materials

– We will address the potential trade off with the fuel cycle

– Tailpipe gain vs. increased material embedded GHG burden

Fuel

Cyc

le

Fuel

Cyc

le

Veh

icle

Cyc

le

Veh

icle

Cyc

le

?

22

GHG intensity of lightweight automotive materials

vary significantly

1,821

1,312

4,598

9,430

25,553

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

Steel

Cast Aluminum

Wrought Aluminum

CFRP

Magnesium

GHG Emissions (g CO2e/lb)

23

Stage-by-stage analysis of GHG intensity of electrolytic

magnesium production (hot-spot identification)

38

59

3,537

3,644

131

438

118

17,588

25,553

Mining and beneficiation

Leaching

MgCl2 Dehydration

Electrolysis

Ingot Production

HCl Production

Other

Cover Gas

Total

GHG Emissions (g CO2e/lb)

Mag

nes

ium

Pro

du

ctio

n S

tage

s

SF6 cover gas being

phased out in favor of

HFC-134a and SO2 to

drastically reduce or

eliminate GHG from this

stage

GREET 2 facilitates such identification for all automotive materials

24

• The total life sum for an arbitrary burden B is:

Btot = Bmp + Bmfg + Bop + Bmnt + Beol

•Often in vehicle life cycle studies, one is interested in the impact of a weight

reduction on Btot, i.e. a change in Btot, which can be written to excellent

approximation as:

ΔBtot ≈ ΔBmp + ΔBop (2)

Life Cycle Formulation

25

mm

GHG

f

ghgfghgGHG

op

tot

1

''

(3a)

∆𝐵𝑡𝑜𝑡= 𝑗

𝑏𝛽𝑗′

𝐶𝛽𝑗− 𝑓𝛽𝛼𝑗

𝑏𝛼𝑗′

𝐶𝛼𝑗

1 − 𝑓𝛽𝛼𝑗𝛥𝑚𝑗 +

∆𝐵𝑜𝑝∆𝑃∆𝑃

(3b)

• For a single material substitution pair, say aluminum (α) for steel (β), equation

(3a) becomes for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), a component of B:

(1)

Vehicle Cycle Formulations and Data Collection

Material cycle energy and emissions, 𝑏𝛼′ , data

gathered from GREET

Substitution ratios,𝑓𝛽𝛼, collected from extensive

literature review and vehicle experts

26

Material Substitution GHG EMISSIONS RATIOS, Based on

GREET Burden Data (mass basis)

Replacing

material

Replaced

material Cas

t Ir

on

Cas

t A

lum

inu

m

Ste

el

HS

S

AH

SS

Gla

ss F

iber

Wro

ug

ht A

lum

inu

m

Mag

nes

ium

Car

bo

n F

iber

Cast Iron 1.00 2.84 4.11 4.11 4.11 5.66 10.31 13.30 21.31

Cast Aluminum 0.35 1.00 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.99 3.63 4.68 7.50

Steel 0.24 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.38 2.51 3.24 5.19

HSS 0.24 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.38 2.51 3.24 5.19

AHSS 0.24 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.38 2.51 3.24 5.19

Glass Fiber 0.18 0.50 0.73 0.73 0.73 1.00 1.82 2.35 3.77

Wrought Aluminum 0.10 0.28 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.55 1.00 1.29 2.07

Magnesium 0.08 0.21 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.43 0.78 1.00 1.60

Carbon Fiber 0.05 0.13 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.27 0.48 0.62 1.00

Table should be read horizontally27

Singh, Harry. (2012, August). Mass Reduction for Light-Duty Vehicles

for Model Years 2017-2025. (Report No. DOT HS 11 666). Program

Reference: DOT Contract DTNH22-11-C-00193. Contract Prime:

Electricore, Inc.

Based on the above, material substitution seems like a poor idea

– Generally increased energy and GHGs

– But, no consideration of actual lightweighting

Substitution ratios,𝑓𝛽𝛼

– Replace material with material within a given part, component, or system

– Through material properties (strength, density, etc.), can reduce mass of part through substitution

Material Substitution Ratios

28

Substitution Ratios for Automotive Material Pairs

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Subs

titu

tio

n R

atio

(lb/

lb)

Range

DoE (4)

Engine (1)

Transmission (1)

Body (1)

Body (2)

Body (3)

Chassis (1)

Chassis (2)

General (5)

General (6)

General (7)

(1) derived from (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2012), (2) derived from (Singh 2012), (3) calculated from (Malen 2011), (4) (U.S. Department of

Energy 2013, Gibbs, Joost, Schutte), (5) (Sullivan and Hu 1995), (6) (Geyer 2008), (7) automotive expert opinions

29

Kelly, J.C.; Sullivan, J.L; Burnham, A; Elgowainy, A. “Impacts of Vehicle Weight Reduction via Material Substitution on Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions” Environmental Science & Technology. Article ASAP. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b03192

GHG Emissions Ratios, Based on GREET Data (part basis)

(1) derived from (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2012), (2) derived from (Singh 2012), (3) calculated from (Malen 2011), (4) (U.S. Department of

Energy 2013, Gibbs, Joost, Schutte), (5) (Sullivan and Hu 1995), (6) (Geyer 2008), (7) automotive expert opinions

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

GH

G E

mis

sio

ns

Rat

io p

er p

art

(g/l

b)

/ (g

/lb

)

Range

DoE (4)

Engine (1)

Transmission (1)

Body (1)

Body (2)

Body (3)

Chassis (1)

Chassis (2)

Even GHG Line

General (5)

General (6)

General (7)

30


31

Part Replacement Results

Change in material related GHG emissions

-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

C

ast

Alu

min

um

*

M

agn

esiu

m

S

tee

l*

HSS

AH

SS

W. A

l

Mg

CFR

P

S

tee

l*

HSS

AH

SS

W. A

l

Mg

S

tee

l*

HSS

AH

SS

W

rou

ght

Alu

min

um

M

agn

esiu

m

C

ast

iro

n*

C

ast

Alu

min

um

M

agn

esiu

m

Engineblock

Door frames IP beam Rear K-Frame (no casing) Front steeringknuckles

Powertrain Body Chassis

Ch

ange

in G

HG

em

issi

on

s (k

g C

O2

e/p

art)

Res

ult

ing

mat

eria

l par

t w

eigh

t (l

bs)


-2700

-2250

-1800

-1350

-900

-450

0

450

900

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

20% 50% 80% 20% 50% 80% 20% 50% 80% 20% 50% 80% 20% 50% 80%

Steel* HSS AHSS Cast Al Wrt Al Mg

Ch

ange

in G

HG

em

issi

on

s (k

g C

O2

e)

Res

ult

ing

mat

eria

l sys

tem

wei

ght

(lb

s)

32

System Replacement Results (Chassis system)

Change in material related GHG emissions

Solid bars are remaining base materialHatched bars are the new material


Fuel Cycle Burdens via Fuel Reduction Values

FRV and FRV* values from Koffler and Brandenburger (2010), Keoleian and Sullivan (2013), and Kim and Wallington (2013)

GHGop/m = (FRV) ∙ (ghg’)∙ (Lifetime Distance)

– Koffler and Brandenburger (2010)

FRV denotes fuel reduction for weight change only

FRV* denotes reduction for weight, but also a powertrain adjustment to retain performance characteristics

Couple this with known performance of baseline vehicle

FRV = 0.15 – 0.25 L/(100km*100 kg)

FRV* = 0.25 – 0. 5 L/(100km*100 kg)

33

Change in Production Emissions and Use Phase GHG

Emissions

34

Use PhaseProduction Phase

Breakeven distance: When does operations benefit

outweigh increased production burden?

35


Breakeven substitution ratios: how do proposed

substitution ratios compare to breakeven?

36

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1Su

bst

itu

tio

n r

atio

lb/l

b

Range DoE d=0 mi, all FRV

d=160k mi, FRV=0.15 d=160k mi, FRV/FRV*=0.25 d=160k mi, FRV*=0.5


37

Questions?