Expert group report finds alternative fuels could replace fossil fuels in Europe by 2050
31 January 2011
|
|
| Fuel and vehicle propulsion strategy. (Source: ERTRAC) Click to enlarge. |
Alternative fuels have the potential gradually to replace fossil energy sources and make transport sustainable by 2050, according to a report presented to the European Commission last week by the stakeholder expert group on future transport fuels. The EU will need an oil-free and largely CO2-free energy supply for transport by 2050 due to the need to reduce its impact on the environment and concerns about the security of energy supply.
Expected demand from all transport modes could be met through a combination of electricity (batteries or hydrogen/fuel cells) and biofuels as main options, synthetic fuels (increasingly from renewable resources) as a bridging option, methane (natural gas and biomethane) as complementary fuel, and LPG as supplement, the report finds.
The Commission is currently revising existing policies and the report will feed into the initiative on clean transport systems, to be launched later this year. The initiative intends to develop a consistent long-term strategy for fully meeting the energy demands of the transport sector from alternative and sustainable sources by 2050.
If we are to achieve a truly sustainable transport, then we will have to consider alternative fuels. For this we need to take into account the needs of all transport modes.
—Vice-President Siim Kallas, responsible for transport
Different modes of transport require different options of alternative fuels, the panel said. Fuels with higher energy density are more suited to longer-distance operations, such as road freight transport, maritime transport, and aviation. Compatibility of new fuels with current technologies and infrastructure, or the need for disruptive system changes should be taken into account as important factors, determining in particular the economics of the different options.
According to the report, alternative fuels are the ultimate solution to decarbonize transport, by gradually substituting fossil energy sources. Technical and economic viability, efficient use of primary energy sources and market acceptance, however, will be decisive for a competitive acquisition of market share by the different fuels and vehicle technologies.
There is no single candidate for fuel substitution, the report said. Fuel demand and greenhouse gas challenges will most likely require the use of a mix of fuels which can be produced from a large variety of primary energy sources. There is broad agreement that all sustainable fuels will be needed to fully meet the expected demand.
Strategy 2050. Looking ahead to 2050, the expert group said that a long-term view and a stable policy environment are required to provide “clear, consistent and unwavering” signals to industry and investors.
A long-term trajectory should therefore be defined for Europe within a predictable regulatory framework. Within this trajectory, managing the transition from a predominantly fossil fuel to a predominantly alternative fuel transport system will be an ongoing challenge.
Policy and regulation should be technology neutral, founded on a scientific assessment of the well-to-wheels CO2 emissions, energy efficiency, and cost associated with competing technology pathways. The incentives for alternative fuels should be based on their CO2 footprint and their general sustainability. This should include recognition of all alternative fuel pathways and all CO2 abatement measures available, including application of carbon capture and storage (CCS).
Separate regulations on the energy system and on the transport system ensure more efficient implementation and leave flexibility for adopting the most cost-effective solutions. However, these regulations need to be developed in parallel to ensure that they are complementary and that they provide consistent message to industry.
—Future Transport Fuels
The first element of a long-term fuel strategy should be ongoing efforts to increase the energy efficiency of all transport operations as well as vehicles, through implementation of such options as downsizing, direct injection, charging and engine displacement reduction and the utilization of new efficient combustion systems. This stretches the availability of fossil resources, the group noted, and facilitates full substitution of oil by CO2–free energy sources in the long term. The main guidelines for this strategy are:
Energy efficiency policies in the end-use transport sectors allow energy savings and reduction of CO2 emissions. They will not provide for oil substitution, as required in the longer term. But energy savings through efficiency policies are an important prerequisite for replacing oil-based fuels, meeting increasing demand with limited supply from alternative energy sources.
Future transport technologies and measures designed to promote them need to deliver both on efficiency and on replacing oil-based energy with renewable energy.
Allocation of fuels to the different sectors of transport might better be achieved through market competition than through regulatory measures. Some sectors could also afford higher fuel prices, supporting early market development of initially more expensive alternative fuels.
Electric drive technology has the greatest potential for sustainable short to medium distance road transport over the long term, although it is not yet decided, according to the report, whether the electricity used will be stored in a battery or generated in a fuel cell using hydrogen.
Liquid and gaseous biofuels are other priority candidates for oil substitution in the long term strategy, within the time horizon of 2050. They are primarily needed in those sectors where no alternatives exist, such as aviation, parts of maritime transport, and long-distance freight transport. Fungibility of biofuels would be of advantage for their long-term market expansion.
The option of alternative biofuels blending standards should be compared with fungible biofuels, both for liquid and gaseous pathways, with fully flexible blending ratios between fossil and biomass based products in order to allow a smooth transition in the fuel mix and to keep and valorize the achievements of internal combustion engine technology.
Any decision to expand the use of biofuels should take into account the impact on life-cycle GHG emissions and biodiversity. The sustainability safeguards for biofuels should be reviewed to prevent i.a. unwanted effects on indirect land use change.
Bioethanol expansion would need additional standards for higher blending ratios, going from E5 to E10 in 2011 and then possibly to E20. Before introducing higher blends into the market, their compatibility with vehicle and infrastructure technologies needs to be ensured. The 2020 RED target could be supported by a wider deployment of flex-fuel vehicles using E85 blends. Blending potential and associated costs should be analysed.
Expansion of diesel alternatives can be supported by blending paraffinic fuels (HVO, GTL, BTL) that are fully fungible with existing vehicle technology and distribution infrastructures in any blending ratios.
The technical and economic complications of several different biofuel blending standards for fuel supply infrastructure and vehicle technology need to be assessed against the option of fully fungible (synthetic) biofuels complying with one single standard.
There should be clear and stable guidelines on the injection of bio-methane into the grid, including possible favorable tax treatment supporting market build-up. This can balance regional differences in biogas production and natural gas consumption by vehicles, and avoid double investment into a parallel bio-methane distribution network.
The approach with tailored fuels versus a multi-segment approach should be analysed in depth. R&D activities and a possible pilot project could be proposed for adequate testing of these technologies.
All these principal alternative fuel candidates can be produced from low-carbon technologies. Substitution of oil in transport by them leads inherently to a decarbonization of transport if the energy system is decarbonized. Life-cycle aspects have to be included in this assessment.
Decarbonisation of transport and decarbonization of the energy system can therefore be considered as two complementary strategic lines. They are closely related, but can be decoupled and require different technical approaches. Decarbonisation of the energy carriers used in transport should progress at least with the rate of their introduction into the transport fuel mix. However, the decarbonization of the two systems needs to be undertaken in a complementary manner in order to ensure that approaches are consistent.
—Future Transport Fuels
Specific to on-road transport, the expert group said that he following issues should be considered:
Urban transport can be powered by several alternative fuel options, namely electricity (battery electric small vehicles or electric trolleys) and hydrogen; also by biofuel blends, neat synthetic fuels or paraffinic, methane or LPG. Possible risks of market fragmentation and resulting limitations in economies of scale in case of competition between the two fuels need to be clarified.
Medium-distance transport could be covered by synthetic or paraffinic fuels, hydrogen, biofuel blends and methane. For methane, a gas grid already exists. Possible competition also needs to be clarified, as hydrogen and methane require the build-up of new dedicated infrastructure. Methane gas vehicles are mature technology where as hydrogen driven engines have to be further developed.
Long distance transport can be supplied by biofuels or synthetic or paraffinic fuels, for freight possibly also by liquefied methane gas (LNG, LBG or LPG).
In all cases (urban, medium and long-distance), there will continue to be a significant role to play for the internal combustion engine and advancements in ICE technology can be expected and certainly not disregarded in future scenarios.
Railways and urban rail systems can further contribute to decarbonizing transport, since power generation is on a path of decarbonization through the EU ETS and renewable energy targets. Additional electrification should be undertaken. For those few lines where electrification is not feasible or economically viable, engine technology from heavy duty road vehicles could be adapted for rail. Possible standards for diesel engines and potential use of biofuels, and possibly LNG should be explored.
Resources
Future Transport Fuels: Report of the European Expert Group on Future Transport Fuels
They actually paid these guys to come up with this? It is obvious to most cognitive and rational observers of the situation.
But then again there are so much catastrophic predictions and doomsday pronouncements that I guess it actually is worthwhile, to counter such nonsense.
The Volt is the first fully satisfactory substitute for the fossil powered ground transport market. As it is improved, and others produce similar vehicles the market for petroleum will whither in a great fashion. Already all of the western world uses less petroleum every year, as old fashioned conservation, and efficiency improvements and substitution in other markets are having an effect. Petroleum demand through out the 21st century is going down. Perhaps it would be more obvious if China, India and Brazil were not becoming industrialized. But the trend is clear even there.
Posted by: ExDemo | 31 January 2011 at 09:28 PM
Sustainable fuels from biomass is a myth or can be viewed as a secular false religion.
Per kilo-Watt-hour, the cost of collecting solar energy will always exceed the cost of getting electricity or heat from uranium or thorium which cost a very small fraction of a US cent per kilo-Watt-hour. Oil, Coal, Gas, Uranium, Thorium and Sunlight have all been provided free to humans from the universe, but the cost is in collecting the energy for use. Without ships, trucks, pipes, wires and trains most of the oil, coal, gas etc. would be far too expensive.
The English parable of the EMPERORS NEW CLOTHES clearly describes what it happening except that the public and its devoted politicians are all playing the part of the Emperor in being willing to be deceived in getting new clothes (fuel).
Centuries ago in England bio-fuels were so much depleting the forests, even with coppicing, that forests near seacoasts were restricted to supplying ship building materials. Coal was needed for homes and industry. Iceland lost all of its original forests years ago. And the USA has lost 90 percent of its redwood tree forests.
There can be no international trade in bio-fuels because the wealthy industrial countries should be obligated to produce all of their Bio energy within their borders, or the world forests will continue to disappear into oil or sugar plantations which is far worse than strip mining.
The adoption of small, factory produced, nuclear reactors that can be installed in a few months underground and used as synthetic geothermal energy for heating buildings and generating electricity, is necessary for the reduction of CO2 releases and the production of liquid fuels from CO2 and water.
The best records for rapid building of reactors seems to be the CANDU reactors built in China in the last decade. No amount of higher efficiency will pay for the cost and time overruns of the latest new designed French and Finnish reactors when a group a smaller CANDU 600 reactors could have been built in less time and at less cost per kWh especially considering the lost power. Fuel efficiency is not important in a nuclear reactor; otherwise all nuclear reactors would be breeder reactors because at least 95 percent of the uranium mined for reactors is being wasted.
One pound of Uranium can produce ten-million thermal kilowatt hours and about three-million electrical kilowatt hours, but even if it were only ten-percent efficient use in a much cheaper reactor and turbine it would be well worth the loss.
There are calculations that show and tests that indicate that a Thorium fueled CANDU 600 reactor with fuel reprocessing forms just sufficient uranium from thorium during normal operation to continue operating with thorium alone. Such a reactor can be started with a mix of 80 percent thorium and 20 percent ordinary light water reactor fuel. By adjusting the mix of recycled fuel and thorium all of the long lived heavy elements can be reused and need not be stored. Fission products do not give off much heat and take up little space. There is a storage place already in operation in the US for fission products and other energetic elements.
There are, however, many natural identical energetic elements in all rocks and soil and in all live creatures so great care is not needed in their storage.
An inhabitant of the UK would cause the creation of only a few kilos of fission products for the production of all the energy used at home, traveling or producing goods and food for the persons life of a hundred years.
..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | 01 February 2011 at 12:09 AM
It is reassuring to see that reports such as this, which ExDomo points out is largely confirming the obvious, now include only scant reference to CO2 at the top of their content. Later CO2 is not mentioned at all as is proper with the demise of the AGW legend.
It should also be blindingly obvious that with EU gasoline costing as much as $9.00/gallon - the introduction of EVs will be warmly welcomed.
And while Henry is correct about the use of thorium as a relative benign radiative fuel - wouldn't the Earth do even better with non-radiative LENR technology?? It is everywhere being demonstrated and reproduced in labs around the world.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-italian-scientists-cold-fusion-video.html
Posted by: Reel$$ | 01 February 2011 at 10:25 AM
Norbert Rottgen (CDU) Germany's Environmental Minister is proposing a new law which would ban appliances that consume too much electric energy. Among the appliances being targeted are refrigerators, computers, and air conditioners.
Check it out at:
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M5de01066f41.0.html
This latest Diktat from the EU Apparatchiks should make the day of all the green Fascists.
Posted by: Mannstein | 01 February 2011 at 12:24 PM
@ Reel$$
"It should also be blindingly obvious that with EU gasoline costing as much as $9.00/gallon - the introduction of EVs will be warmly welcomed."
Do you honestly think that driving an electric vehicle in Europe will be cheaper than one power with gasoline or diesel fuel?
The EU Apparatchiks will never give up their gravy train, that is energy taxes, in a minute.
Better think again!
Posted by: Mannstein | 01 February 2011 at 12:28 PM
Recent research shows Genghis Kahn cooled earth's climate by killing off large populations in Europe and Asia.
Read all about it here:
http://news.mongabay.com/2011/0120-hance_mongols.html
Come to think of it isn't that the direction the green Fascists want us to go.
Posted by: Mannstein | 01 February 2011 at 12:40 PM
@Mannstein:
Ha ha! Ol' Genghis was a Gaiian at heart! Pongratz speculates that RE-forestation due to less humans caused the world to cool! Wow! Where's the science to even begin to qualify that?? Hilarious hokum! And Yes; green fascists are de-populists.
As for the EU taxing the bloody bejezus out of EVs - you are probably right. You can be sure that the utilities are going to levy rate hikes and taxes as fast as gasoline sales decline.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 01 February 2011 at 07:19 PM
Mr. Henry Gibson,
Look at this:
"China bets on thorium
Brand new nuclear programme within 20 years
...LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) is a 4G
...China uses the more general term TMSR (Thorium Molten-Salt Reactor). "
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/01/china_thorium_bet/
Are you happy now ? Will you calm down ?
Posted by: CelsoS | 01 February 2011 at 09:12 PM
I forgot to mention that since people are involved and produce about 4000 very energetic nuclear atomic explosions every second per 70 kg body weight there are no non-radiative technologies. Every building, including wood ones are radioactive, as is almost every bit of soil and rock. Radiation comes from space and stars including the sun and always has. There is far less radiation from uranium than when the earth was formed.
The first cold fusion experiments were done by good scientists who knew how to measure calories in and those out, but the deuteron bangers did not want to lose their lunch money for the next fifty to ten-thousand years and never knew how sensitive catalysts could be for chemical much less nuclear reactions.
Electron capture is a strange nuclear transformation where an electron gets too close to the nucleus and is trapped into forming a neutron from a proton. The other neutrons and protons re-arrange themselves to lend energy to do this. The type of molecule, that the active atom is bound in, seems to delay at times the reaction rate.
Deuterium has a relatively weak bond between its proton and neutron. In palladium a neutron produces about 5 to 6 million electron volts of energy if it is trapped, but it takes only two and a half million electron volts to get it from deuterium.
The Pons and Fleishman experiment was more likely to have been fusion between a neutron and palladium than between two deuterium atoms. To expect palladium, a metal sea of electrons, to give up a neutron or two after expecting to eat them, for the satisfaction of deuterium and tritium bangers is far from logical as it was not produced at high energy by fusion but by the fission of deuterium millions of atoms deep inside the metal at very low speeds.
In spite of the fact that hydrogen and deuterium are quite abundant, both uranium and coal are sufficiently abundant for now for all the energy that is needed, and uranium can be abundant for the next few billions of years. But if it is not, Thorium seems to be hanging around at three times the count.
The cost of uranium is not a significant part of the cost of the electricity produced, and thorium seems slightly less costly but not usable except with a bit of U235 or plutonium to start it off.
It all then comes down to the cost of the facilities. Solar is out; a square mile of land is too expensive and wind is out for the same reason and both solar and wind have a large cost for equipment and of energy storage.
Cold fusion disrupted my cold fission designs of accelerating the first alpha decays of thorium to a much shorter period than 10 billion years. The longest wait after that is about six years. I also wanted to extract the neutron from deuterium for use in fission. Spend a minimum of 2.5 million for 100 million to use the first one to prime thorium into uranium and then the second to fission the uranium. Both Uranium and Deuterium can be fissioned by very energetic gamma rays.
Carlo Rubbia has made the operation of fission reactors more predictable, and the extra neutrons from the accelerator's lead banging makes less expensive fuels useful. In fact even without any uranium, we could start building the nuclear industry on thorium alone. There is so much plutonium isotope mix in used fuel and also a better mix from unused bombs, there is no need for starting with thorium alone.
Thorium oxide mixed with two or less percent of the waste plutonium isotope mixture can start a continuous reprocessing cycle in CANDU reactors That requires only that fission products be removed and thorium added in a very slightly greater amount. The flow of the fuel assemblies through the reactor can be modified at all times for adequate fuel production.
China got a very good deal on their CANDU reactors and there is no physical reason that they could not start using thorium in them tomorrow or at least next month after thorium is put into fuel assemblies with slightly enriched uranium, or 75 percent plutonium oxide is mixed with 25 percent standard new light water fuel.
China is already testing a mix of fuel made from used light water fuel with the fission products removed and depleted uranium from fuel enrichment plants.
It has turned out that fission reactors can be sufficiently cheap and to anyone who knows that all rocks are radioactive, the deep seclusion of radioactive elements left over from a fission reaction chain that destroys many tons of radioactive material, is a temporary and right now very wasteful operation. Strontium 90 could heat government buildings. And neptunium 237 could be made into Plutonium 238 and used to power heart pacemakers for life(some are still in operation), locomotives, airplanes and presidential limosines. There is hardly any reason that France does not have such a limosine. ..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | 03 February 2011 at 05:14 PM
Multiple energy inefficiencies account for well over 66% of all energy produced-used in 2010 and will not change that much in 2011.
1. Most thermal e-power plants are less than 35% efficient.
2. Most current HVAC systems are less than 40% efficient.
3. Most buildings and houses are less than 50% protected against the environment.
4. Most current cars and light trucks are less than 20% efficient.
5. The use of a 17% efficient very heavy (2+ Tons) vehicle to transport a single 180 lbs person is outrageous.
Possible solutions to reduce energy consumption:
1. Progressively replace older inefficient (35%) e-power plants with plants with twice the efficiency.
2. Progressively replace all inefficient HVAC with very high efficiency heat pumps.
3. Replace current building standards to double building overall energy efficiency.
4. Modify CAFE to increase vehicles efficiency by 5% to 8%/year until the average reaches 100+ epmg.
Posted by: HarveyD | 05 February 2011 at 09:33 AM