The performance of advanced fuels in end-use sectors – EUA tool Yuri Kroyan, Aalto University

1. End-Use Performance of
Alternative Fuels in Aviation, On-
Road and Marine Transportation
Fuel and fuel blend properties in end use
Yuri Kroyan
M.Sc. (Tech.), Doctoral Candidate
16th of December 2020
Winter 2020 Semi-Annual
ETSAP Meeting
1

2. https://youtu.be/mK41f24lX1k
The Research Group of Energy Conversion
Aalto University
Prof. Mika Järvinen
Prof. Annukka Santasalo-Aarnio
Prof. Ville Vuorinen
Head
Prof. Martti Larmi
2

3. Agenda
• The magnitude of the decarbonization challange in transport sector
• The performance of RESfuels in end-use sectors
• Recommendations
• Collaboration options
3

4. Evolution of energy use in transport
sector by fuel type, worldwide
2.8 Gtoe
in 2017
At least over 4 Gtoe in 2050
Made based on:
1. IEA. Data and statistics (https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tables?country=EU28&energy=Balances&year=2017)
2. IEA. Transport energy and CO2: Moving towards sustainability. OECD Publishing.
92.2%
3.7%
3%
1.1%
4

5. Technologies should not
compete with each other!
5

6. WTW GHG and costs
ICEonHVO
HEV
BEV40
BEV80
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
€/tonCO2-eq
Price of GHG emissions reduction
Higher Price
ICEonfossil
BEV80
HEV
BEV40
ICEonHVO
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Life-cycle GHG emissions (over 10 years)
tonnesofCO2-eq
Tank-to-wheel fuel cycle
Well-to-tank fuel cycle
Batteries (65 kg CO2-eq/kWh)
Assembly disposal and recycling
Components and fluids
Lower emissions
Built based on the data from Roland Berger 2016, and IEA statistics and IVL
6

7. Need for liquid fuels vs electrificationLiquidfuels
Electrification
7

8. ❑ Part of EU Horizon 2020
❑ Coordination and Support Action of EU Commission
❑ Facilitating market roll-out of advanced liquid biofuels in transportation
sector between 2020 and 2030 and beyond
Partners: Stakeholders:
8

9. www.advancefuel.eu
9

10. Structure of the problem
• Analysis of RESfuels in the context of their properties -> high impact on end-use!
Properties SI CI Jet Fuel-cell Marine
RON x
MON x
Octane sensitivity x
CN x x
Heating value x x x x x
Density x x x x x
Viscosity x x x
Lubricity x x x
Distillation characteristics x x x
Vapor pressure x
Vapor Lock Index x
Heat of Evaporation x
CFPP x x
Cloud point x x
Pour point x
Freezing point x
Flash point x x x
Oxidation stability x x x
Purity of the fuel x x x x x
Acidity and copper corrosion x x x x
Conductivity x x x
M. Wojcieszyk, Y. Kroyan, M. Larmi, O. Kaario, A. Bani, “End-use
performance of alternative fuels in various modes of transportation”,
D5.5. report, ADVANCEFUEL, May 2020.
M. Wojcieszyk, “Modeling the impact of fuel properties on compression ignition engine performance,” Master Thesis, Aalto University, 2018.
10

11. Task 5.4. Achievements
S – Standards (Fossil Fuel)
R – Renewabel fuel
11

12. 12
• Character of the data: multi input, single output
• Approach: data-driven black-box modeling
• Mathematical methodology: multilinear regression with quantitative analysis
• Validation: internal and external
• Input and output parameters represented as relative (%) changes in reference to standard
diesel/gasoline.
Modeling methodology
𝜶 = 𝒂 ∙ 𝑨 𝑿 + 𝒃 ∙ 𝑩 𝑿 + 𝒄 ∙ 𝑪 𝑿 + 𝒅 ∙ 𝑫(𝑿)
𝛼- fuel consumption [%]
X – alternative fuel concentration [%]
A(X)...D(X) – fuel property [%]
a...d – model coefficients.

13. The end-use performance in
Spark-Ignition (SI) Light-Duty Vehicles (LDV)
Regular SI fleet
𝑭𝑪 = −0,771 ∙ 𝑹𝑶𝑵 + 1,883 ∙ 𝑫𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒚 − 2,220 ∙ 𝑳𝑯𝑽 𝒗𝒐𝒍 − 0,613 ∙ 𝑶 𝟐
FFV-SI fleet
𝑭𝑪 = −0,418 ∙ 𝑹𝑶𝑵 − 1,233 ∙ 𝑫𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒚 − 1,674 ∙ 𝑳𝑯𝑽 𝒗𝒐𝒍
COD=0,978COD=0,989
E85
E85
13

14. The end-use performance in
Compression Ignition (CI) LDV and HDV
Regular LDV CI fleet
𝑭𝑪 = −0,076 ∙ 𝑪𝑵 − 1,075 ∙ 𝑫𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒚 − 1,113 ∙ 𝑳𝑯𝑽 𝒎𝒂𝒔𝒔
Regular HDV CI fleet
𝑭𝑪 = 0,075 ∙ 𝑪𝑵 + 0.415 ∙ 𝑫𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒚 − 0,881 ∙ 𝑳𝑯𝑽 𝒗𝒐𝒍
COD=0,966
EN590
HVO
GTL
RME
EN590
HVO30
HVO50
HVO
GTL
triple
RME7
RME30
HVO_RME30
RME
ULSDCERT
ULSDCOM
B20SME
-5.0
-2.5
0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
0
-3.76
-3.33
5.53
0
-0.592
-1.34
-3.76 -3.76
0.0947
0.621
2.72
-0.294
5.46
0
-2.76
-1.09
%changetoreferencediesel
FC data
FC model
CO2 emissions
COD=0,964
14

15. The end-use performance in
marine and aviation
Marine
𝑪𝑶 𝟐 = −0,19 ∙ 𝑽𝒊𝒔𝒄𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒚 + 2,09 ∙ 𝑫𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒚 − 0,97 ∙ 𝑳𝑯𝑽 𝒎𝒂𝒔𝒔
Aviation
COD=0,985
15
Jet-A1
C-SPK
J-SPK
GTL
CTL
HEFA
C-HEFA
ATJ-SPK
ATJ-SKA
SIP
CH
HDO-SK
HEFA-RD
J20-SPK
J40-SPK
J60-SPK
J80-SPK
J-SPK
C20-SPK
C40-SPK
C60-SPK
C80-SPK
C-SPK
SPK-50
SPK
C20-SPK
C40-SPK
C60-SPK
C80-SPK
C-SPK
J20-SPK
J40-SPK
J60-SPK
J80-SPK
J-SPK
J-SPK
C-SPK
C-SPK
M-SPK
J-SPK
-1
-0,5
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
5,5
6
6,5
7
Data
JETmodel
SFCChange[%ofL/N*hr]
𝑺𝑭𝑪 = 0,004 ∙ 𝑽𝒊𝒔𝒄𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒚 − 0,903 ∙ 𝑫𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒚 − 0,61 ∙ 𝑵𝑪𝑽 𝒎𝒂𝒔𝒔
COD=0,993

16. Recommendations (good candidates by 2040)
Aviation Marine LDV HDV
Electricity
• Low energy density, aviation is most
difficult to be electrified.
• Commercialy available after 2040.
• Possible for short-distance freight.
• Feasible and commercially proven.
• Poor vehicle range and infrastructure.
• Low energy density, large space needed
• Not feasible for HDV.
Hydrogen
• Big safety concerns.
• Commercialy available after 2040.
• Under the R&D.
• Technologicaly possible, in bends with methane.
• No sulfur and no carbon content.
• Feasible for Fuel Cell Vehicles.
• Challanging storage - 700 Bar compression.
• Lack of infrastructure and vehicles.
• Safety concerns.
• Challanging storage - 700 Bar compression.
• Lack of infrastructure and HDVs.
DME Not applicable
• Technicaly possible.
• High price and low availability.
• Feasible and commercially proven.
• Lack of infrastructure and vehicles.
Methane
(biogas)
• Commercialy applied in the past
(Tupolev Tu-155 and SUGAR Freeze
Boeing supersonic).
• Low energy density fuel for aviation.
• Feasible and commercially available as LBG.
• LNG is cheaper than HFO.
• No sulfur content.
• Moderate Infrastructure.
• Feasible and commercially utilized as CBG.
• Possibility for the conversion of SI and CI LDVs.
• CBG is cheaper than gasoline or diesel.
• Moderate infrastructure.
• Feasible and widely used as CBG especially in
public transportation, but also in trucks.
• Cheap fuel, and over 30% lower NOx.
• Moderate infrastructure.
Methanol
Not applicable
• Feasible and commercially proven.
• Considered option also as MD95 (95% methanol, 5% of
ignition improvers) under the R&D phase.
• No sulfur content
• Cheaper than ethanol, but 50% more expensive than HFO.
• Feasible and commercially proven (case China).
• Currently low blending walls (max 3% EN228).
• Excellent fuel, with big potential (high RON) for
FFV and dedicated engines.
• Lack of vehicles and infrastructure in the EU.
• MD95 (95% methanol, 5% of ignition improvers)
under the R&D phase.
• Low Nox, lower than in the case of ED95.
• Requires dedicated engines with high CR.
Ethanol
Not applicable
• Compatible with modern multifuel marine engines.
• No sulfur content.
• Nearly double of HFO price but half of the FAME.
• Feasible and commercially utilized.
• Currently low blending walls (max 10% EN228).
• Excellent fuel, with big potential (high RON) for
FFV. The additional cost of the powertrain 180
EUR only vs 2265 EUR for the whole gasoline
powertrain (Roland Berger study 2016).
• Poor infrastructure in the EU.
• Feasible and commercially utilized as ED95.
• ED95 has 95% ethanol and 5% of ignition
improvers, and it is diesel-like fuel.
• Requires dedicated engines with high CR; 28:1.
• Very limited infrastructure and a low number of
HDVs.
Renewable
Gasoline
Not applicable Not feasible • Under the R&D phase.
• Renewable drop-in solution for SI engines. Not applicable
HVO
(Renewable
diesel)
Not applicable
• Commercially used (no sulfur content)
• Excellent quality renewable drop-in fuel.
• Nearly double of HFO price but half of the FAME.
• Feasible and commercially utilized.
• Renewable and fully drop-in substitution for fossil diesel.
FAME
Not applicable
• Commercially used (no sulphur content)
• Very expensive marine fuel, over 3 times of HFO price.
• Feasible and commercially utilized.
• Only low concentration blends are compatible max. 7% EN590.
• Causes various engine-related problems in higher concentrations.
Biocrude from
HTL
Not applicable • Promising renewable and price competitive candidate.
• Low TRL (3-6), effective upgrading needed.
Not applicable
Not applicable
FT-SPK, HEFA,
FT-SKP/A, ATJ
• Feasible and commercially used,
blending wall 50%.
Not applicable Not applicable
Not applicable
SIP
• Feasible and commercially used,
• Blending wall 10%, high costs.
Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 16

17. Infrastructure and fuel compatibility
17

18. The End-Use Analyzer (EUA)
advancefuel.aalto.fi
THEONLINEEUATOOL
18

19. Our publications
19

20. Collaboration options between
ETSAP and Combustion TCP
• Common interest – for example LCA analysis, energy
scenario development, environmental impact analysis,
low-cost effective decarbonization pathways
• Databases
• Exchange on modeling methodologies/tools
• A list of available tools for various energy analysis
20

21. Thank you for your attention!
Yuri Kroyan
Doctoral Candidate
yuri.kroyan@aalto.fi
Michal Wojcieszyk
Doctoral Candidate
michal.wojcieszyk@aalto.fi
Martti Larmi
Professor
martti.larmi@aalto.fi
Ossi Kaario
Senior Research Fellow
ossi.kaario@aalto.fi
Together towards the sustainable future...
Page #