SITRANS TF Convertidores para aplicaciones de campo
Y24 5) Especificar dirección de bus en texto Y25 4)
The cost, energy use, and emissions characteristics described in sections 1.6.1 and 1.6.2 will affect different stakeholders in different ways. In addition, other less-quantifiable
1-23
Figure 1.3 Life-Cycle Comparisons of Technologies for New Mid-Sized Passenger Cars • All cars are 2020 technology except for 1996 “Reference” car
• ICE = Internal Combustion Engine, FC = Fuel Cell
• 100 = 2020 evolutionary “baseline” gasoline ICE car
• Bars show estimated uncertainty
TECHNOLOGY ENERGY
1996 Reference ICE Advanced gasoline ICE Advanced diesel ICE Gasoline ICE hybrid Diesel ICE hybrid CNG ICE hybrid Gasoline FC hybrid Methanol FC hybrid Hydrogen FC hybrid Battery electric 0 50 100 150 200 Relative Life-Cycle Energy Use
TECHNOLOGY GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
1996 Reference ICE Baseline evolved ICE
Advanced gasoline ICE Advanced diesel ICE Gasoline ICE hybrid Diesel ICE hybrid CNG ICE hybrid Gasoline FC hybrid Methanol FC hybrid Hydrogen FC hybrid Battery electric 0 50 100 150 200 Relative Life-Cycle GHG Emissions
TECHNOLOGY COST
1996 Reference ICE Baseline evolved ICE Advanced gasoline ICE Advanced diesel ICE Gasoline ICE hybrid Diesel ICE hybrid CNG ICE hybrid Gasoline FC hybrid Methanol FC hybrid Hydrogen FC hybrid Battery electric 0 50 100 150 200 Relative Total Cost/km for New Car Customers
1-24
characteristics of these technologies will be important to different stakeholder groups. We undertook a “template” analysis to identify those other characteristics and to note the potential for impacts on particular stakeholder groups (see Chapter 5A.1). This section summarizes the major impacts of the 2020 technologies on each stakeholder group. It seemed useful to divide those impacts into two major categories, namely, impacts during transition to new technologies over the next 20 years or so, and continuing impacts at 2020 or beyond once the new technologies are in place.
Transitional Issues for Alternative Technologies over the Next Two Decades. The
evolutionary baseline vehicle system is expected to show significant improvements over the vehicle and fuel technologies employed today. These are considered as a normal path of change, and it is assumed that local environmental emissions will continue to decrease through regulatory pressures. Because these evolutionary changes appear to involve the lowest cost among the options considered, they are a likely future path unless pressure to reduce GHG (especially carbon) emissions from the transportation sector becomes a much higher societal or governmental priority. The alternatives considered offer different levels of GHG reduction through a number of system options which have different impacts on different stakeholders.
We also note that market competition, under uncertain future regulatory constraints, also will influence technology choices. Alternative fuels will be facing a robust competitor in the petroleum industry, where prices are substantially higher than production costs today creating room for aggressive price competition. This may inhibit or delay major private investments in alternative fuel infrastructures. In the interim, there are a number of small-scale
experiments with a variety of fuels and with alternative vehicle systems. There are many players in these markets today and rapid changes are likely, as experience is gained in technology and with the market performance. Major new infrastructure costs are sufficiently high that responsible investment requires the new infrastructure meet even longer term goals to avoid poor choices and wasted capital. New methodologies are needed to sort out robust strategies that meet the future needs of large groups of stakeholders in various parts of the world and also ensure environmental responsibility.
Here is a summary list by stakeholder, taken from Section 5.3, of the major transitional issues that may be important:
• Vehicle Purchaser
o Increases in costs and/or decreases in performance/amenities
o Problems with availability and refueling convenience of new fuels (especially
in early introduction, although first introduction with fleet applications would reduce this problem)
o Safety of new vehicle in existing vehicle fleet
o Uncertainty about technology reliability and serviceability
1-25
• Government (at all levels)
o International and national policy actions on GHG reduction
o Implementation of GHG reduction mandates, if used, by locale, sector, etc.
o Economic impacts/shifts related to new infrastructure investment
§ Major investments (offshore FT or methanol production)
§ Significant investments (debottleneck or expand natural gas or electric infrastructure, build clean methanol infrastructure)
o Impacts on competitiveness in global markets
o Safety management
§ Highway safety (crashworthiness, fleet size, traffic management)
§ Fuel safety (new standards for CNG, methanol, H2)
§ New local safety and zoning requirements for fueling stations
o Environmental stewardship and social equity issues
• Vehicle Manufacturer
o Marketing challenges (cost, performance, amenities) – constrained by future
government requirements?
o Technological challenges
§ Clean diesel technology
§ Hybrid and Fuel Cell system refinements § Sulfur guards for FC
§ CNG, H2, and battery energy storage improvements
§ Advanced control systems to optimize performance
o Recycling challenges (if driven by government requirements)
§ Alloys, plastics
§ Pt group metals for fuel cells and specialized catalysts in advanced after treatment systems
o New suppliers (more electrical systems, system integrators, fuel cell suppliers,
etc.)
• Vehicle Distributor/Servicing/Recycling/Disposal
o New investment (by smaller companies?)
§ New service and inspection equipment for new technologies § New fuel facilities for servicing
o Component recycling (batteries, Pt group metals, etc.)
o Hiring/training to meet different and higher skill levels for employees
• Fuel Manufacturer
o Major new offshore investment (FT plants, methanol, LNG?)
o Infrastructure expansion and debottlenecking (CNG, H2, electricity)
• Fuel Distributor
o Significant investments (by smaller companies?)
§ New distribution infrastructure for ultra clean fuels (methanol, FT diesel, etc.)
1-26
§ Fuel station storage and transfer facilities for CNG and methanol
§ Reforming, storage and transfer facilities for H2
o Increased safety concerns
§ H2 facilities including pressure transfer
§ Methanol (corrosion? poisonous? environmental fate?) § CNG pressure transfer
o Longer fueling times (e.g., CNG, H2)
o Loss of fuel business (electricity)
Continuing Impacts of Alternative Technologies in 2020. In 2020, assuming that the
vehicle and fuel alternatives to support each of the technology combinations evaluated are in place, then the major residual impacts of the change rest with the vehicle purchaser and the government. It is likely that the vehicle production and service companies, as well as the fuel producers and distributors, will have incorporated the impacts of transitional changes into their cost and operational structures. Thus, the major differences that will impact car purchasers and the government appear to be:
• Vehicle purchaser
o Cost of transportation per km (or cost of new vehicle)
o Safety (crashworthiness of lighter vehicle bodies; fueling)
o Performance (including acceleration, load and towing capacity, noise, odor,
comfort, style, and level of amenities)
o Fuel availability and refueling convenience
o Reliability and convenience of servicing
• Government
o Level of GHG reduction and economic impacts
o Reduction in local pollution problems
o Change in petroleum dependence
o Changes in public safety (fueling, vehicle)
To move to most of these new technologies in 2020 will require a change in customer behavior – whether forced by the government or voluntary. It is difficult to foresee how the governments worldwide may react to climate change issues as more information emerges over the next two decades. Auto buyers may ultimately move to different purpose vehicles – perhaps a compact efficient vehicle for local errands and commuting and a larger rented vehicle for a long distance trip. While we do not include behavioral change in this study, it is important to realize that it will be a powerful factor in future choices of road vehicle
alternatives.
1.7 Conclusions
The results of this study depend importantly on the methodologies and assumptions we chose. The following broad conclusions are drawn from calculations for specific
1-27
combinations of technology as used in a mid-size passenger car operated over the standard US urban/highway driving test cycles. All our quantitative results are subject to the
uncertainties expected in projecting 20 years into the future, and those uncertainties are larger for rapidly developing technologies like fuel cells and new batteries.
• A valid comparison of future technologies for passenger cars must be based on life
cycle analysis for the total system which includes assessment of fuel and vehicle manufacture and distribution in addition to assessment of vehicle performance on the road.
• Successful development and penetration of new technologies requires acceptance by
all major stakeholder groups: private-sector fuel and vehicle suppliers, government bodies at many levels, and ultimate customers for the products and services.
Therefore, the economic, environmental, and other characteristics of each technology must be assessed for their potential impacts on each of the stakeholder groups.
• Continued evolution of the traditional gasoline car technology could result in 2020
vehicles that reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions by about one third from comparable current vehicles and at a roughly 5% increase in car cost. This evolved “baseline” vehicle system is the one against which new 2020 technologies should be compared.
• More advanced technologies for propulsion systems and other vehicle components
could yield additional reductions in life cycle GHG emissions (up to about 50% lower than the evolved baseline vehicle) at increased vehicle purchase and use costs (up to about 20% greater than the evolved baseline vehicle).
• Vehicles with hybrid propulsion systems using either ICE or fuel cell power plants
are the most efficient and lowest-emitting technologies assessed. In general, ICE hybrids appear to have advantages over fuel cell hybrids with respect to life cycle GHG emissions, energy efficiency, and vehicle cost, but the differences are within the uncertainties of our results and depend on the source of fuel energy.
• If automobile systems with drastically lower GHG emissions are required in the very
long run future (perhaps in 30 to 50 years or more), hydrogen and electrical energy are the only identified options for “fuels”, but only if both are produced from non- fossil sources of primary energy (such as nuclear or solar) or from fossil primary energy with carbon sequestration.
Again, these conclusions are based on our assessment of representative future technologies, with vehicle attributes held at today’s levels. The expectations and choices of customers may change over the next twenty years and such changes can affect the extent to which potential reductions in GHG emissions are realized.