estimating cost penalties for limited refueling availability (and other related issues)
DESCRIPTION
Estimating Cost Penalties for Limited Refueling Availability (And other related issues). Dr. Marc W. Melaina MIT/Ford/Shell Research Workshop Dearborn, MI June 9, 2009. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Dr. Marc W. Melaina
MIT/Ford/Shell Research Workshop
Dearborn, MIJune 9, 2009
Estimating Cost Penalties for Limited Refueling Availability (And other related issues)
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future
Overview
• Hydrogen FCVs are a long-term low-cost carbon abatement opportunity– McKinsey Study results: FCVs in 2050
• Perceived Cost Penalties for Refueling Availability are High– Evolved out of HyDIVE model
– Penalty estimates for: urban, regional and national scales
– Stated preference survey results: higher costs than “rational” costs
• A diverse mix of transitory innovations may help to reconcile early transition challenges– This was the case with early gasoline infrastructure
– Economies of scale and range of station sizes reinforces trend
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future2
Hydrogen FCVs are a long-term low-cost carbon abatement opportunity
McKinsey-Style Abatement Curve, with 2050 Potential for Hydrogen FCVs
• Hydrogen FCVs are shown as the most expensive abatement opportunity within the 2030 timeframe
• In the 2007 McKinsey report, gasoline hybrid electric LDVs were the most expensive opportunity
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Additional 3.2 Gt/yr needed in 2050EERE/NREL High-Range 2030 Case Total: 4.8 Gt/yr
Cost$2005/ton CO2e
PotentialGt/year
2030 High-Range Abatement Curve (<$50/tCO2e) FCVs in 2050, Scenario 1 FCVs in 2050, Scenario 2
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
FCV Opportunity in 2030 (High-range)
High-Range, <$50/ton CO2e in 2030: 4.3 Gt/yr
FCVs in 2050,Scenario 2(1.0 Gt/yr)
Land-basedwind in 2030
Biofuels cellulosicin 2030
FCVs in 2050,Scenario 1(0.5 Gt/yr)
Draft
McKinsey-Style Abatement Curve, with 2050 Potential for Hydrogen FCVs
• The FCV opportunity in 2050 is a low-cost abatement opportunity that represents a significant share of total carbon emissions
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Additional 3.2 Gt/yr needed in 2050EERE/NREL High-Range 2030 Case Total: 4.8 Gt/yr
Cost$2005/ton CO2e
PotentialGt/year
2030 High-Range Abatement Curve (<$50/tCO2e) FCVs in 2050, Scenario 1 FCVs in 2050, Scenario 2
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
FCV Opportunity in 2030 (High-range)
High-Range, <$50/ton CO2e in 2030: 4.3 Gt/yr
FCVs in 2050,Scenario 2(1.0 Gt/yr)
Land-basedwind in 2030
Biofuels cellulosicin 2030
FCVs in 2050,Scenario 1(0.5 Gt/yr)
Draft
Perceived Cost Penalties for Refueling Availability are High
Approach: Discrete Choice Methodology
• Discrete choice methods are commonly applied in decision analysis of preferences for products with similar attributes
Hypothetical Example:
• Respondents weigh their relative preferences for each attribute• The choice algorithm alters attributes level between choices to elicit
statistically relevant preference data from respondents • Hypothetical Choice: Conventional Vehicle vs. Alt Fuel Vehicle• Attributes included in the 2007 survey:
– Vehicle Purchase Price– Fuel Costs ($/mo)– Vehicle range (miles)
Attribute Product A Product BA - Color A1 B1B - Speed A2 B2C - Cost A3 B3Choice:
– Refueling availability • Metropolitan, Regional
and National/Interstate
7National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future
Approach: Survey Format
Metropolitan Coverage Regional Coverage
National Coverage
Fuel Costs, Other Attributes, and Vehicle Purchase Price
Choice Screen
8National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future
Approach: Geographic Levels (1-4) in 2008 Survey are More Distinct from One Another
Metropolitan Levels – Seattle Example
Regional Levels – Seattle Example
L1 L2 L3 L4
L1 L4L3L2
9National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future
Stated Preference Survey Results Suggest a Significant Premium on Early Stations
Map 1
Urban cost penalties
Vary from $1000 to $4000 for ~2.5% existing stations
Regional penalties
$1500 to $3000 for 10-80 stations
Interstate penalties
~$5000 for 30% of trips not covered
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Percent of Existing Stations
Co
st P
en
alty
Los Angeles
Seattle
Atlanta
Minn-St. Paul
Los Angeles
Seattle
Atlanta
Minn-St. Paul
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Number of Regional Stations
Re
gio
na
l Co
st P
en
alty
Los Angeles Seattle
Atlanta Minn-St. Paul
Minn - St. Paul Los Angeles
Atlanta Seattle
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Long-Distance Trips Not Covered
Lo
ng
Dis
tan
ce C
ove
rag
e (
LD
C)
Pe
na
lty
Los Angeles Seattle
Atlanta Minn-St. Paul
Los Angeles Seattle
Atlanta Minn.-St. Paul
Stated Preference Penalties are Much Higher than Analytically Derived “Rational” Penalties
• Several discrete choice surveys have included questions on refueling availability (e.g. Tompkins 1999, Greene 2001)
Comparison of Metro Area Costs
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Percent of Existing Urban Stations
PV
of L
imite
d R
efue
ling
Ava
ilabi
lity
Tompkins, 1999 (high)Tompkins, 1999 (low)M&B NHA2008HyTransGreene 2001NREL 2007
Analytic
Surveys
11National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future
• Analytic studies of “rational” consumer behavior have tended to result in much lower cost penalties (HyTrans, M&B NHA08)
A diverse mix of transitory innovations may help to reconcile early
transition challenges
Stations for Early Hydrogen Vehicles
• A sufficient number of stations is needed to satisfy the refueling needs of early adopters
• ~160,000 gasoline stations the U.S. (National Petroleum News)• Studies suggest that approximately 5%-15% of these would need to
provide an alternative fuel to satisfy early adopters• At $2-$3 millions each, a sufficient number of early hydrogen
stations would require about $20-$70 billion in upfront capital
Research Questions
Would these stations look like today’s retail gasoline stations?
Do you really need this many?
How would they be distributed spatially?
How big would they be?
When would they become profitable?
First “Gas Station” Seattle, WA 1906National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future13
Early Vehicles Types were Diverse
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future14
Ford’s first gasoline vehicle 1896
(www.seriouswheels.com)
Early Electric Car 1900
(www.theautochannel.com)
First Steam Car
Fardier de Cugnot, 1770(www.trekearth.com)
Early Station Types were also Diverse
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future15
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Ret
ail G
asol
ine
Stat
ions
or
Out
lets
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
Reg
iste
red
Veh
icle
s (1
000s
)G
asol
ine
Con
sum
ptio
n (m
illon
s ga
llons
)
Census Stations Total Outlets
Census Interpolations Other Stations
Registered Vehicles Gasoline Consumed
Vieyra 1979, 4
Barrels
Bowser 1905
Home Pumps
Standard Oil Bulletin, Sept 1918, 5
Garage Refueling
Williamson et al. 1963, 220Williamson et al. 1963, 220
Mobile Refuelers
Curb PumpsSmall-scale; geographically dispersed; temporary*
*
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future
Station Rollout Simulations Suggest a Mix of Station Sizes will Prevail
Clustered
>2 miles Betweenstations 0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%
400%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percentage of Total City Stations
Perc
ent o
f Ave
rage S
tatio
n S
ize…
.
Atlanta
Phoenix
NashvilleSalt Lake City
Birmingham
Hartford
Gulfport-BiloxiHattiesburg
Owensboro
Per
cent
of A
vera
ge S
ize
Percent of Total Stations
Data on the location andsize of every station in
a given urban area
Normalize Y axis by average station size, and normalize
X axis by total number stations
Number of Stations
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
Number of Stations
Ave
rage
Sta
tion
Oup
ut (10
00 g
al/m
o)…
.
Atlanta
Phoenix
Nashville
Salt Lake City
Birmingham
Hartford
Gulfport-Biloxi
Hattiesburg
Owensboro
Sta
tion
Siz
e (1
000s
gal
/mo)
~85 cities
16
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future
Relative Size Distributions do Not Vary with City Size or the Degree of Clustering
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%
400%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Total Stations
Per
cent
of A
vera
ge S
tatio
n S
ize
Los Angeles, CA 2000
Atlanta, GA
S.F. Bay Area, CA 2002
All Stations
> 3.0 million
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%
400%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of All Stations
Pe
rce
nt o
f A
vera
ge
Sta
tion
Siz
e
Phoenix, AZ
San Diego, CA 2000
Minneapolis St. Paul, MN 1999
Denver, CO 2000
Kansas City, MO 2000
San Jose, CA 2002
All Stations
1.0 - 2.0 million
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%
400%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Stations
Pe
rce
nt
of
Ave
rag
e S
tatio
n S
ize
Austin, TX
Nashville, TN 2003
Salt Lake City, UT
Concord-Livermore, CA
Hartford, CT
Birmingham, AL 1999
All Stations
0.5 - 1.0 million
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%
400%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Stations
Pe
rce
nt
of
Ave
rag
e S
tatio
n S
ize
Colorado Springs, CO 2000
Vallejo-Fairfield, CA 2002
Wichita, KS 1999
Bakersfield, CA, 2001
Santa Rosa, CA 2002
Chattanooga, TN 1999
Gulfport-Biloxi, MS 2003
All Stations
0.25 - 0.5 million
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%
400%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Stations
Pe
rcen
t o
f A
ve
rage
Sta
tio
n S
ize
Marin, CA 2002
Gainesville, FL 2000
Santa Cruz, CA 2002
Salinas, CA
Olympia, WA 1999
Fort Collins, CO 2000
Bloomington, IL 2000
All Stations
0.1 - 0.25 million
Population< 0.25 m0.25 – 0.5 m0.5 – 1.0 m
1.0 – 3.0 m
> 3.0 m
17
Summary
• Hydrogen FCVs are a long-term low-cost carbon abatement opportunity– Additional long-term cost/benefit comparisons are needed
• Perceived Cost Penalties for Refueling Availability are High– Onboard information systems may alleviate– Vehicle-to-infrastructure interactions and feedback
• A diverse mix of transitory innovations may help to reconcile early transition challenges– Technology-forcing policies may stifle unforeseen innovations– Applications suited to transition period may prove transitory,
complicating identification of appropriate policy support mechanisms– Can some of these be transformed into enduring systems?
Backup Slides
Approach: Vehicle Choice Survey
Hypothetical New Vehicle Purchase:– Respondents were asked to choose between two vehicles:
• Conventional Vehicle• Alternative Fuel Vehicle
– Both vehicles were described as being identical to the respondent’s most recently purchased vehicle
The Alternative Fuel Vehicle (AFV)Described as identical to the Conventional Vehicle (CV) in all respects, except two:1) Social and Environmental Benefits
• Virtually no oil use, no smog-forming pollutants, and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 50%
2) Limited refueling availability• Metropolitan, Regional, and National geographic scales
20National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future
Approach: Ensuring Clarity of Interpretation and Consistent Responses
A series of preliminary questions are used to familiarize the respondents with:– Concepts used in the survey (e.g., AFV; regional stations)– Maps used for each geographic scale
• e.g., asked them if they could locate their homes on map– Types of choices they would be making in the discrete choice
portion of the survey
After a beta test, follow-up questions and one-on-one interviews inquired about the difficulty of the survey– Only a small fraction of respondents found the survey very difficult– Minor survey adjustments were made in response to beta test
feedback
21National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future
Approach: 2008 Survey Modifications
Removed vehicle range attribute and made fuel costs equivalent– These attributes were not directly related to the issue of refueling
availability, and tended to distract respondents– Other studies have estimated value of vehicle range
Increased range and number of vehicle purchase price levels– From 3 levels (equal, +/-15%) to 5 levels (equal, +/-15%, +/-35%)
Improved clarity and readability of maps and survey screen layout– New maps are larger and more closely resemble commercial maps
Atlanta Region
Previous format(left) and new format (right)
22National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future