Background

1. International Energy Workshop June 21, 2012 Cape Town, South Africa Transport: Alternatives Effects of the low nuclear policy on technology competitiveness among next generation vehicles in Japan ENDO Eiichi National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Japan endo.e@aist.go.jp

2. Background • After the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident, new energy mix scenarios have been proposed reflecting public opinion for antinuclear in Japan • by the Science Council of Japan (Sept. 2011) • nuclear: 0% (3 scenarios),11.8%,40%,51.6% in 2030 in generated electricity • - by the Fundamental Issues Subcommittee, the Advisory Committee for Natural Resources and Energy under the METI for establishing a new “Basic Energy Plan for Japan” (May 2012) • nuclear: 0%,15%,20-25% in 2030 in generated electricity • cf. nuclear: 31.4% in 2010 in generated electricity, all nuclear power plants have been stopped since May 6, 2012

3. The low nuclear policy may affect technology competitiveness among energy technologies. Purpose - to analyze effects of technology characteristics, such as vehicle cost, hydrogen cost, on technology competitiveness among next generation vehicles, especially competitiveness between hydrogen FCV and EV, under various scenarios of nuclear and CO2 emissions in Japan

4. Approach Energy systems analysis by an energy system model of Japan - MARKAL is used - whole energy system, from 1988 to 2052, 13 periods - 260 energy technologies and 40 energy carriers, around 9000 rows and 11000 columns - objective function: trade-off between system cost and CO2 emissions, minimized under CO2 emissions constraint

5. Outline of the modeled energy system of Japan.

6. Assumptions Nuclear N0: promotes nuclear, former “Basic Energy Plan”, 68 GW from 2030N1: maintains present status, 49GW N2: low nuclear, phases out after 40-year life time, near 0 GW in 2050N3: low nuclear, stops immediately, 0 GW from 2015 CO2emissions C0: base, stringent constraint, around 15, 35% reduction in 2030, 2050, respectively from the level in 1990, without CCS, close to the minimum CO2 emissions in the low nuclear N3 C1-C3: for sensitivity analysis, looser constraints Scenarios for nuclear. Scenarios for CO2 emissions.

7. Energy demand given by sector based on the governmental outlook (2008) considering population decrease Fossil fuel prices based on the World Energy Outlook, New Policies Scenario by IEA (2011) PV, Wind energy 100GW, 50GW in 2050, respectively based on the technology development roadmaps outlook assumption Assumed energy demand indices. outlook assumption Assumed fossil fuel prices.

8. Passenger cars 11 types including 2 types of mini-size gasoline ICEV, gasoline ICEV mini, LPG ICEV, diesel ICEV, hydrogen ICEV, methanol ICEV, CNG ICEV, gasoline HEV, EV, EV mini, and hydrogen FCV Plug-in HEV: not modeled, assumed as a part of gasoline HEV and EV. Technology characteristics of passenger car Vehicle efficiency: energy efficiency from tank to wheel including regeneration in brake Vehicle cost (ratio): vehicle cost compared with that of gasoline ICEV, fuel cost is not included

9. Assumed vehicle efficiency (in LHV). Mini-sized:1/0.75 times of usual gasoline ICEV or EV, diesel: 1.2, hydrogen: 1.2, CNG: 1.14, LPG and methanol: 1.03 times of gasoline ICEV, respectively. Assumed vehicle cost ratios to gasoline ICEV. Mini-sized: 0.9 times of usual gasoline ICEV or EV, diesel: 1.2, LPG: 1.1, hydrogen: 1.3, CNG and methanol: 1.3 times of gasoline ICEV, respectively, hydrogen FCV: parameter, 1.2 or more.

10. Hydrogen production technology On-site steam reforming from town gas at hydrogen filling station Technology characteristics: investment cost, O&M cost, availability, conversion efficiency, etc., based on the technology development roadmap Scenarios for hydrogen cost (hydrogen filling station cost): Target, targets in the roadmap are achieved without delay, Delay, 10-20 years behind the target, 10-15% up in hydrogen cost Electricity for EV not only from night time power, but also from day time all power generation technologies

11. Other constraints Next generation vehicles: Market penetration target is extrapolated to 2050 by logistic curve, 99% in 2050 Mini-size vehicles (less than 660cc): Upper bound is estimated applying logistic curve to the data, saturated at 35% Market penetration (%) (Year) Assumed upper bound for total share of next generation vehicles in Japan.

12. large hydrogen FCV Vehicle size EV small analysis short 150 km long Driving range Different roll by driving range and vehicle size of EV and hydrogen FCV. Technology competition in the medium driving range (around 150 km in Japan) and vehicle size is focused on.

13. Analyses Total system cost is minimized under the CO2 emissions constraint Sensitivity analyses: - CO2emissions: C0, C1-C3 - Nuclear: N0-N1, N2-N3 - Vehicle cost of hydrogen FCV: 1.2, 1.25, 1.3 - Hydrogen cost (hydrogen filling station cost): Target, Delay

14. Results of the analyses N2C0 Difference between N0C0 and N2C0 Primary energy supply mix.Power generation mix. in generated electricity If nuclear is not available, not only nuclear but also coal are replaced by natural gas.

15. diesel ICEV LPG ICEV hydrogen FCV EV gasoline HEV gasoline ICEV EV mini gasoline ICEV mini Vehicle mix in the passenger car sector in Japan. N2C0, vehicle cost of hydrogen FCV: 1.2, hydrogen cost: target

16. nuclear: N2 nuclear: N3 hydrogen cost: target hydrogen cost: delay hydrogen cost: target hydrogen cost: delay vehicle cost of FCV: 1.2 vehicle cost of FCV: 1.25 Vehicle mix in the passenger car sector in Japan. (CO2 emissions: C0) Hydrogen FCV has no technology competitiveness under the scenarios N0-N1 or vehicle cost no less than 1.3. Hydrogen FCV has competitiveness under the scenario N2-N3 and vehicle cost no more than 1.25. Market penetration of hydrogen FCV delays 5-10 years, if vehicle cost increases from 1.2 to 1.25. It delays 0-5 years, if hydrogen cost reduction delayed.

17. nuclear: N2 nuclear: N3 hydrogen cost: target hydrogen cost: delay hydrogen cost: target hydrogen cost: delay CO2: C1 CO2: C2 Vehicle mix in the passenger car sector in Japan. (vehicle cost of hydrogen FCV: 1.2) Hydrogen FCV has no technology competitiveness under the scenarios C3, or N0-N1, or vehicle cost no less than 1.25 in C1-C2. Technology competitiveness of hydrogen FCV: up in low nuclear N2-N3, down in C1-C3, lose by vehicle cost up, down by delay of hydrogen cost reduction.

18. Summary and Conclusions Technology competitiveness among next-generation vehicles, especially that between hydrogen FCV and EV is analyzed. Effects on technology competitiveness of hydrogen FCV: Nuclear: no technology competitiveness under N0-N1. Low nuclear policy, N2-N3 increases technology competitiveness. CO2emissions: severe reduction C0 increases technology competitiveness. Small reduction C1-C3 decrease technology competitiveness Vehicle cost: strong impacts. 10-5 points higher vehicle cost completely loses technology competitiveness Hydrogen cost (hydrogen filling station cost): effects in some conditions. 10-15% higher hydrogen cost (10-20 year delay) decreases technology competitiveness

19. Under the low nuclear policy with severe CO2 emissions reduction, most probable future in Japan, - Technology development of hydrogen FCV is meaningful, because it could have competitiveness with EV. - Vehicle cost reduction should have priority in the technology development of hydrogen FCV compared with hydrogen cost reduction, because vehicle cost affects competitiveness stronger than hydrogen cost. - Vehicle cost reduction for hydrogen FCV should target at the same level of EV.