michael kintner-meyer, ph.d
TRANSCRIPT
Electrification of Transportation from the Electricity Supply’s Perspective
Michael Kintner-Meyer, Ph.D.
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Contact: email: [email protected]
phone: 509.375.4306
June 7, 2011
PNNL-SA-63585PNNL-SA-80495
2
What are the Synergies Between Electric Transportation and the Electric Infrastructure?
Electricity Supply
ElectricTransportation
Significant Uptake on Research and General Public Interest on PHEVs Starting in 2006
3
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
No.
of A
rtic
les
and
Pate
nts
Number of Publications per Year Using Keyword "PHEV"
according to Google Scholar
Search volume index
News reference volume
Scholarly Articles
and Patents acc.
Google Scholar
in English
Public Interests
according to
Google Searches
Source: Google Searches keyword “PHEV” in June 5th, 2011
Continued Surge of Global Car Fleet –as China and Emerging Economies Buy Cars
4
Projections of Global Passenger Car Fleet1
1Source: World Energy Outlook 2010, New Policy Case, IEA, Nov. 9, 2010
Projections of Global Annual Sales2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035M
illi
on
PHEV
EV
2Source: World Energy Outlook 2010, 450 Scenario, IEA, Nov. 9, 2010
PHEVs and EVs may reach 39%
of new sales in 2035
5
The Challenge Ahead is ComplexThe grid must meet new expectations
5
Electrify transportation sector to reduce dependence on imported oil
Delivering 300 GW of renewable generation by 2025
Maximize benefits of end-use efficiency and storage
Meet future carbon and emissions constraints
Historical Expectations Emerging Expectations
Affordable Power
Reliable Power
Secure Power
The energy industry is highly regulated, capital intensive, risk averse,
innovation poor and highly fragmented
66
System Transparency – Seeing and operating the
grid as a national system in real-time
Energy Storage – Defining the location, technical performance,
and required cost of storage; synthesizing nanofunctional
materials and system fabrication to meet requirements
Cyber Security and Interoperability – Defining standards
for secure, two-way communication and data exchange
Key Elements for Transforming the U.S. Energy System
Analytic Innovations - Leveraging High-Performance
Computing and new algorithms to provide real-time situational
awareness and models for prediction and response
Demand Response – Making demand
an active tool in managing grid efficiency and reliability.
Renewable Integration – Addressing variability and intermittence
of large-scale wind generation and the complexities of
distributed generation and net metering
EV
EV
EV
EV
Technical Potential Analysis of Today’s Grid
Can the US electric grid become a strategic national
asset for addressing our dependence on foreign oil?
How much energy could the idle capacity of the grid deliver for the U.S.
light- duty vehicle fleet (cars, pickups, SUVs, vans)?
assume grid looks much like today‟s (worst case; likely to be cleaner)
assume vehicle mix is unchanged (worst case; likely to be lighter)
i.e., don‟t allow outcome to be driven by assumptions about the future power plant mix or vehicle fleet
What would be some of the impacts be on
gasoline/crude oil displacement
emissions
utility revenue requirements
* funded by Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Assurance
Over 70% of the existing U.S. light-duty
vehicle fleet (if PHEVs) could be fueled with
available off-peak electric capacity
73%
43%
U.S. Overall
Nighttime
Charging
Only
(hrs 18 – 6)
Daytime +
Nighttime
Charging
(0 – 24 hrs)
Assumptions
PHEV specific energy requirements (EPRI 2004):
Compact 0.26 kWh/mi
Mid-size 0.30 kWh/mi
Mid-size SUV/Vans 0.38 kWh/mi
Full-size SUV 0.46 kWh/mi
87% charger efficiency
85% battery efficiency
8% T&D loss
Analysis by North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC) Region
Summary
Midwest: support almost the entire LDV fleet
East: somewhat smaller potential
West: supports fewer vehicles
% figures denote the percentage of LDV fleet supported by idle electric capacity
Nighttime
Charging
Only
(hrs 18 – 6)
Daytime +
Nighttime
Charging
(0 – 24 hrs)
NWP
AZN
& RMP
CNV
18%10%
66%
39%23%
15%
80%
45%
52%
31%
57%
34%
ERCOT
100%
73% SPP SERC
MAINECAR
127%
73%
78%
46%
NPCC(US)
86%
49%
MAPP
105%
57%
104%
61%
CNV, Summer
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
MWAdditional Combined
Cycle
Additional Other Fossil
Steam
Additional Coal Steam
Renewable
Conventional Hydro
Pumped Storage
Combustion
Turbine/Diesel
Combined Cycle
Other Fossil Steam
Coal Steam
Nuclear
Summer Average
Current Generation and “Valley-Filling”CNV, Summer
Summer peak
Current Generation and “Valley-Filling” ECAR, Summer
ECAR, Summer
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
MW
Additional
Combined Cycle
Additional Other
Fossil Steam
Additional Coal
Steam
Renewable
Conventional Hydro
Pumped Storage
Combustion
Turbine/Diesel
Combined Cycle
Other Fossil Steam
Coal Steam
Nuclear
Summer Peak Day
Summer Average
Regional Emissions Impacts (Well-to-Wheel*)
with Today’s Generation Mix
Moving emissions from tailpipes to smokestacks:
solves an intractable problem for CO2 capture
improves cost effectiveness for other emissions
ECAR ERCOT MACC MAIN MAPP NPCC FRCC SERC SPP PNWAZN&
RMPCNV
US
total
Natural Gas 32% 94% 74% 42% 1% 91% 69% 57% 78% 43% 63% 93%
Coal 68% 6% 26% 58% 99% 9% 31% 43% 22% 57% 37% 7%
Emissions
GHGs 0.87 0.60 0.69 0.83 1.01 0.61 0.71 0.76 0.66 0.84 0.73 0.61 0.73
VOC: Total 0.11 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.14 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.10 0.07 0.04 0.07
CO: Total 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
NOx: Total 1.02 0.38 0.59 0.93 1.35 0.41 0.64 0.76 0.54 0.93 0.71 0.39 0.69
PM10: Total 1.55 0.81 1.06 1.45 1.94 0.86 1.13 1.26 0.99 1.46 1.19 0.84 1.18
SOx: Total 3.94 0.42 1.68 3.59 5.96 0.64 2.05 2.67 1.34 3.77 2.35 0.53 2.25
VOC: Urban 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
CO: Urban 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
NOx: Urban 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.10
PM10: Urban 0.60 0.62 0.62 0.60 0.58 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.62 0.61
SOx: Urban 0.35 0.04 0.14 0.30 0.51 0.05 0.17 0.22 0.12 0.31 0.20 0.04 0.19
Power Generation Composition
Emissions Ratio (Electric Vehicle/Gasoline Vehicle)
Existing coal plants
break even on
greenhouse gases
Greenhouse gases
Plant mix for valley fill
Nationally, greenhouse
gases reduced 27% despite
increased reliance on coal
SOx
Particulates
Urban air quality emissions
greatly reduced:
VOCs/CO/NOx > 90%
SOx = 80%
Particulates = 40%
Urban: VOCs
CO
NOx
Particulates
SOx
* Argonne National Laboratory’s
GREET well-to-wheel model
SOx from vehicles doubles:
cap-and-trade will require
investment in cleaner plants
Increased Sales of Electricity from PHEVs
Produce Downward Pressure on Electricity Rates*
Utility Cost of Service, By Element of Cost
Fixed Distribution,
$12.54
Fixed Power Supply,
$23.66 Fixed Power Supply,
$21.43
Variable Power Supply,
$15.80
Variable Power Supply,
$15.84
Fixed Distribution,
$14.25
$0.00
$10.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$50.00
$60.00
BEFORE AFTER
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Cincinnati Gas and Electric
Do
llars
pe
r M
Wh
Variable Distribution
Fixed Distribution
VariableTransmission
Fixed Transmission
Variable PowerSupply
Fixed Power Supply
$54.2
6 $50.2
7
kWh Produced
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Costs/MWh
with PHEV Valley Filling
Increased
sales
MW Capacity,
Capital InvestmentSame
infrastructure,
same capital
investment
+
= $/kWh
Lower
electricity
rates
Before After
Before After
Before After
* analysis of Cincinnati Gas & Electric
and San Diego Gas & Electric
0
5
10
15
20
25
Mill
ions B
arr
els
Per
Day
Total
20.6
US
Production
8.2
Net
Imports
12.5
Trans-
portation
13.8
Industry
5.0
Res, Com,
Electricity
1.8
Gasoline
9.1
potential
PHEV
displacement
6.5
Summary
The idle capacity of the U.S. grid could supply 73% of
the energy needs of today‟s cars, SUVs, pickup trucks,
and vans…
without adding generation or transmission
if charging of vehicles is managed73% electric
(158 million
vehicles)
52%
Source: EIA, Annual Energy Review 2005
Potential to displace 52% of net oil imports (6.7 MMbpd)
More sales + same infrastructure = downward pressure on rates
Reduces CO2 emissions by 27%
Emissions move from tailpipes to smokestacks (and base load plants) … cheaper to clean up
Introduces vast electricity storage potential for the grid
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Hour
MW
Numbers of Charging Cars
-
1
2
3
4
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mil
lio
ns o
f cars
Hour
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Hour
MW
Numbers of Charging Cars
-
1
2
3
4
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mil
lio
ns o
f cars
Hour
0
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Hour
MW
Numbers of Charging Cars
0
1
2
3
4
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mil
lio
ns o
f cars
Hour
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Hour
MW
Numbers of Charging Cars
-
1
2
3
4
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mil
lio
ns o
f cars
Hour
Perfect Valley FillingECAR Summer Load Profile
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Hour
MW
Numbers of Charging Cars
-
1
2
3
4
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mil
lio
ns o
f cars
Hour
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Hour
MW
Numbers of Charging Cars
-
1
2
3
4
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mil
lio
ns o
f cars
Hour
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Hour
MW
Numbers of Charging Cars
-
1
2
3
4
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mil
lio
ns o
f cars
Hour
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Hour
MW
Numbers of Charging Cars
-
1
2
3
4
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mil
lio
ns o
f cars
Hour
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Hour
MW
Numbers of Charging Cars
-
1
2
3
4
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mil
lio
ns o
f cars
Hour
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Hour
MW
Numbers of Charging Cars
-
1
2
3
4
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mil
lio
ns o
f cars
Hour
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Hour
MW
Numbers of Charging Cars
-
1
2
3
4
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mil
lio
ns o
f cars
Hour
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Hour
MW
Numbers of Charging Cars
-
1
2
3
4
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mil
lio
ns o
f cars
Hour
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Hour
MW
Numbers of Charging Cars
-
1
2
3
4
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mil
lio
ns o
f cars
Hour
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Hour
MW
Numbers of Charging Cars
-
1
2
3
4
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mil
lio
ns o
f cars
Hour
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Hour
MW
Numbers of Charging Cars
-
1
2
3
4
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mil
lio
ns o
f cars
Hour
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Hour
MW
Numbers of Charging Cars
-
1
2
3
4
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mil
lio
ns o
f cars
Hour
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Hour
MW
Numbers of Charging Cars
-
1
2
3
4
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mil
lio
ns o
f cars
Hour
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Hour
MW
Numbers of Charging Cars
-
1
2
3
4
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mil
lio
ns o
f cars
Hour
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Hour
MW
Numbers of Charging Cars
-
1
2
3
4
16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mil
lio
ns o
f cars
Hour
Charge each PHEV: 1.4 kW charge (120V, 12A) for 7 hours=10 kWh
0
Why Is It Important to Manage the Charging?
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
hour
kW
/ve
hic
le
A1: 120V Home
A3: 120V Home delayed >10pm
A4: 50/50 (120-240) Home
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
55,000
60,000
24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
MW
Summer A3
Summer-A4
Native Load
Summer-A1
“Dumb” charging profiles
based on 37,000
observations from US
National Household
Travel Survey (2001)
“Dumb” charging at
home exacerbate
system peak
Delayed charging
moves majority of load
into low-load conditions
Based on 6 mill. PHEVs in CAISO footprint for 2030
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
Smart Charging for a Smart Grid
Smart Home Application Public Charging Stations
Smart grid services: Price-based charging to perform majority of
charging during off-peak, enabling customers to optimize between cost and convenience
Demand response services (direct load control)
Regulation services by modulating load
Mobile billing Enable „roaming‟ transaction concepts for
Smart battery services Diagnostics and Maintenance
Determining state-of-health of battery
Communication Standards are enabling Vehicle-to-Grid interactions• Society of Automotive Engineers (North America)
• JSAE (Japan)
• International Electrotechnical Commission (primarily Europe)
What are Electricity Cost Impacts of Electric Transportation from a National Perspective? Key assumptions:
Time horizon of the study (2030)
Grid: What will the grid look like for the time horizon of the study?
Transportation
How many vehicles? -> penetration rates
When are they charged?
How are they charged?
Methodology Complex economic dispatch model of thousands of generators
and transmission network representation
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Ma
rke
t S
ha
re o
f S
ale
s
2013
Commercial
availability
for mass
produced
PHEVs
Phase II: 10 years
(2013-2023)
capturing 10%
market share
2030
• 22% of market share
• 11% of LDV stock
• (37 mill. vehicles)
30% total market
potential of PHEV
considering other
competing
advanced
propulsion
technologies
Penetration results
EPRIMedium
penetration
EPRIHigh
penetration
President
Obama:
1 Mill. PHEVs by
2015
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
hour
kW
/veh
icle
120 NHTS, Home
120 NHTS, Home delayed until >10pm
120 NHTS, Home & Work
120 NHTS, Home delayed until >10pm &work
240 NHTS, Home
240 NHTS, Home delayed until >10pm
240 NHTS, Home & Work
240 NHTS, Home delayed until >10pm &work
Developed Plausible PHEV Charging Profiles
Need for PHEV charging profile
Most researchers use EPRI “W” shaped profile based on notion of 120V/12A charging
Refined PHEV profile with DOT 2001 National Household Travel Survey to reflect “resting periods” of vehicles
Considered both 120V and 240V charging (automakers announced 240V charging capabilities)
Diversified average
charging profiles for
PHEVs
Detailed Electricity Market Impact Analysis for WECC
9.2 Million PHEVs in WECC in 2030
Majority of PHEVs in California
Impacts to the grid
Production cost model
1900+ generator units
64 balancing zones
EIA‟s capacity additions to 2030
Meeting regional RPS
Additional capacity for PHEVs
Determine
Cost impacts
Emissions impacts
Grid Analysis
-100,000
-50,000
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91
01
11
21
31
41
51
61
71
81
92
02
12
22
32
4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91
01
11
21
31
41
51
61
71
81
92
02
12
22
32
4
A2h A3h
8
Mo
nth
ly c
om
mu
lative e
ne
rgy in M
Wh
Combined Cycle Combustion Tur CT Gas Hydro Internal Combu
Pumped Storage ST Coal ST Gas ST Other Steam Turbine
Sum of diff.from.A0h
Month scenario hour
UnitCategory
Comparison of WECC’s Marginal Generation by Charging Profiles
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
hour
kW
/ve
hic
le
A1: 120V Home
A2: 120V Home and work
A3: 120V Home delayed >10pm
A3: 120 Home delayed A2: 120 Home & work
Marginal CO2-emission
0.42 ton/MWh
Marginal CO2-emission
0.57 ton/MWh
Results: Marginal generation mix depends on the regions and the time of day when vehicles are charged
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A6: Home Night Charging
Gas: Comb. Cycle Gas: Combustion Turbine
Coal Gas: Single Cycle
Other: Single Cycle
NWP
AZN&RMP
CNV
NPCC(US)(US)
Natural gas
primary fuel
for day-
charging
A5: Day charging
A6: Night charging
Significant
coal
resources
available for
night-charging
Economics suggest to
charge at night, resulting
in about ½ of the cost
increases compared to
day-charging
Net Well-to-Wheel* CO2 Emissions Comparisons
Assume mid-sized PHEV electric mode (0.35 kWh/mile)
For Well-to-Wheel, conventional gasoline vehicle, assume 20% contribution for Well-to-Pump
Average Michigan and US electric power CO2 intensity from EIA source
WE
CC
ma
rgin
al e
mis
sio
ns
Nig
ht-
ch
arg
ing
WE
CC
ma
rgin
al e
mis
sio
ns
Da
y-c
ha
rgin
g
Ave
rage
Cali
forn
ia
(0.2
2 g
/kW
h)
Ave
rage
Wa
sh
ing
ton
(0.1
4 g
/kW
h)
Ave
rage
Mic
hig
an
(0.9
4 g
/kW
h)
Ave
rage
Wyo
min
g
(0.9
7 g
/kW
h)
Ave
rage
US
(0.6
1 g
/kW
h)
Compared to conventional
gasoline vehicle with 22 MPG
-300.0
-250.0
-200.0
-150.0
-100.0
-50.0
0.0
Ne
t W
ell
-to
-Wh
ee
l C
O2
Em
iss
ion
s [
g C
O2
/km
]
CO2 intensities from electric power sectors
Net Well-to-Wheel* CO2 Emissions Comparisons
WE
CC
ma
rgin
al e
mis
sio
ns
Nig
ht-
ch
arg
ing
WE
CC
ma
rgin
al e
mis
sio
ns
Da
y-c
ha
rgin
g
Ave
rage
Cali
forn
ia
(0.2
2 g
/kW
h)
Ave
rage
Wa
sh
ing
ton
(0.1
4 g
/kW
h)
Ave
rage
Mic
hig
an
(0.9
4 g
/kW
h)
Ave
rage
Wyo
min
g
(0.9
7 g
/kW
h)
Ave
rage
US
(0.6
1 g
/kW
h)
Compared to conventional
gasoline vehicle with 27 MPG
CO2 intensities from electric power sectors
-300.0
-250.0
-200.0
-150.0
-100.0
-50.0
0.0
Net
Well
-to
-Wh
eel
CO
2 E
mis
sio
ns [
g C
O2/k
m]
Assume mid-sized PHEV electric mode (0.35 kWh/mile)
For Well-to-Wheel, conventional gasoline vehicle, assume 20% contribution for Well-to-Pump
Average Michigan and US electric power CO2 intensity from EIA source
Net Well-to-Wheel* CO2 Emissions Comparisons
WE
CC
ma
rgin
al e
mis
sio
ns
Nig
ht-
ch
arg
ing
WE
CC
ma
rgin
al e
mis
sio
ns
Da
y-c
ha
rgin
g
Ave
rage
Cali
forn
ia
(0.2
2 g
/kW
h)
Ave
rage
Wa
sh
ing
ton
(0.1
4 g
/kW
h)
Ave
rage
Mic
hig
an
(0.9
4 g
/kW
h)
Ave
rage
Wyo
min
g
(0.9
7 g
/kW
h)
Ave
rage
US
(0.6
1 g
/kW
h)
Compared to conventional
gasoline vehicle with 35 MPG
CO2 intensities from electric power sectors
-300.0
-250.0
-200.0
-150.0
-100.0
-50.0
0.0
50.0
Net
Well
-to
-Wh
eel
CO
2 E
mis
sio
ns [
g C
O2/k
m]
Assume mid-sized PHEV electric mode (0.35 kWh/mile)
For Well-to-Wheel, conventional gasoline vehicle, assume 20% contribution for Well-to-Pump
Average Michigan and US electric power CO2 intensity from EIA source
Net Well-to-Wheel* CO2 Emissions Comparisons
WE
CC
ma
rgin
al e
mis
sio
ns
Nig
ht-
ch
arg
ing
WE
CC
ma
rgin
al e
mis
sio
ns
Da
y-c
ha
rgin
g
Ave
rage
Cali
forn
ia
(0.2
2 g
/kW
h)
Ave
rage
Wa
sh
ing
ton
(0.1
4 g
/kW
h)
Ave
rage
Mic
hig
an
(0.9
4 g
/kW
h)
Ave
rage
Wyo
min
g
(0.9
7 g
/kW
h)
Ave
rage
US
(0.6
1 g
/kW
h)
Compared to conventional
gasoline vehicle with 45 MPG
CO2 intensities from electric power sectors
-300.0
-250.0
-200.0
-150.0
-100.0
-50.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
Net
Well
-to
-Wh
eel
CO
2 E
mis
sio
ns [
g C
O2/k
m]
Assume mid-sized PHEV electric mode (0.35 kWh/mile)
For Well-to-Wheel, conventional gasoline vehicle, assume 20% contribution for Well-to-Pump
Average Michigan and US electric power CO2 intensity from EIA source
Net Well-to-Wheel* CO2 Emissions Comparisons
WE
CC
ma
rgin
al e
mis
sio
ns
Nig
ht-
ch
arg
ing
WE
CC
ma
rgin
al e
mis
sio
ns
Da
y-c
ha
rgin
g
Ave
rage
Cali
forn
ia
(0.2
2 g
/kW
h)
Ave
rage
Wa
sh
ing
ton
(0.1
4 g
/kW
h)
Ave
rage
Mic
hig
an
(0.9
4 g
/kW
h)
Ave
rage
Wyo
min
g
(0.9
7 g
/kW
h)
Ave
rage
US
(0.6
1 g
/kW
h)
Compared to conventional
gasoline vehicle with 60 MPG
CO2 intensities from electric power sectors
-300.0
-250.0
-200.0
-150.0
-100.0
-50.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
Net
Well
-to
-Wh
eel
CO
2 E
mis
sio
ns [
g C
O2/k
m]
Assume mid-sized PHEV electric mode (0.35 kWh/mile)
For Well-to-Wheel, conventional gasoline vehicle, assume 20% contribution for Well-to-Pump
Average Michigan and US electric power CO2 intensity from EIA source
-300.0
-250.0
-200.0
-150.0
-100.0
-50.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
Ne
t W
ell
-to
-Wh
ee
l C
O2
Em
iss
ion
s [
g C
O2
/km
]
22 MPG
27 MPG
35 MPG
45 MPG
60 MPG
Net Well-to-Wheel* CO2 Emissions Comparisons
WE
CC
ma
rgin
al e
mis
sio
ns
Nig
ht-
ch
arg
ing
WE
CC
ma
rgin
al e
mis
sio
ns
Da
y-c
ha
rgin
g
Ave
rag
e C
ali
forn
ia
(0.2
2 g
/kW
h)
Ave
rag
e W
as
hin
gto
n
(0.1
4 g
/kW
h)
Ave
rag
e
Mic
hig
an
(0.9
4 g
/kW
h)
Avera
ge
Wyo
min
g
(0.9
7 g
/kW
h)
Ave
rag
e U
S
(0.6
1 g
/kW
h)
CO2 intensities from electric power sectorsFor night-
charging in
WECC, emissions
benefits vanish if
competition is 53
MPG or better
For day-charging
in WECC,
emissions benefits
vanish if
competition is 72
MPG or better
Impacts on the Distribution System
Feeder Composition
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
Feeder Number
Irrigation
Industrial
Commercial
Multi-Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Issues:
How do PHEV impact my capital budget for distribution upgrades?
How different is a PHEV load from, say plasma TV or Air-conditioning?
Are there any reliability impacts with this new load?
Methodology
Distribution system planning tools
Probabilistic Risk Assessment
Secondary Transformer Loading(Selected Utilities in PNW)
PHEV Charge Profile (EPRI)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Hour
kW
PHEV Charge Profile (Quick Charging)
0
2
4
6
8
10
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Hour
kW
Transformer Loaded Capacity for Various PHEV Penetrations
EPRI Charging Profile
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0% 20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
200%
>200
%
Percent Loaded Capacity
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of T
ran
sfo
rme
rs
Base Load
50% Penetration
100% Penetration
200% Penetration
Transformer Loaded Capacity for Various PHEV Penetrations
240V Quick Charge Charging Profile
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0% 20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
200%
>200
%
Percent Loaded Capacity
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of T
ran
sfo
rme
rs
Base Load
50% Penetration
100% Penetration
200% Penetration
Level 1 (120V) Charging
Level 2 (240V) Charging
Selected Feeder in the NW
Question to answer:
How many electric vehicles are necessary to meet new balancing requirements for integrating wind generation in the PNW (2020)?
Assumptions
Balancing requirements for wind capacity to increase from 4.2 to 14.4 GW (RPS of 12%)
Basic assumptions from PNNL report on storage integration into NWPP(1)
Benefits of PHEVs for Integrating Renewable Energy Resources
(1): Source: PNNL-19300. Energy Storage for Power Systems Applications: A Regional Assessment for the Northwest Power Pool (NWPP)
BPA
NWPP
Additional Wind
sites
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
(Loadactual - Wind Genactual)
(Loadforecast - Wind Genforecast)
Approach for Determining Balancing Requirements
Forecasted (load – wind generation)
Actual (load – wind gen)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
Under-Generation
Over-Generation
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
Under-Generation
Over-Generation
Meeting Balancing Requirements with Smart Charging
Balancing Requirements
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50
1
2
3
4
Ch
arg
er
Ou
tpu
t [k
W]
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50
50
100
Sta
te o
fC
ha
rge
[%
]
Time, hours
Modulation of charging between
0 – full charging rate (3.3 kW)
Capacity value regulation
services to the grid-operator =
3.3 kW for duration of charging
Electric Vehicles as a Resource for Renewable Integration
Light duty vehicle stock in NWPP (ID, WA, OR, UT,MT): 16.5 Million
Assumptions
110 mile all-electric range
Half of all charging stations (public/private) are 240 VAC-capable
Utilize 2001 NHTS Data for driving patterns
Electric Vehicles could provide a significant portion of the future balancing requirements
And thus contribute to the integration of Renewable Energy Resources
Challenge: What is the reward system and how do we verify?
Home Public
100% 0% >16 mill > 100%
100% 5% 6 mill 36%
100% 20% 3 mill 20%
100% 100% 2 mill 12%
Charging InfrastructureNo. of Vehicles % of Vehicle Stock
Demonstrate Smart Charging Technologies
PNNL‟s Toyota Prius 17 charging stations with PV
Smart Grid with Smart Chargers Can Deliver the Electricity for Millions of PHEVs