Technical options for fossil fuel based road transport · TNO report, but which updates the...

EU Transport GHG: Routes to 2050? Technical options for fossil fuel based road transport Contract ENV.C.3/SER/2008/0053 AEA/ED45405/Paper 1

1

Technical options for fossil fuel based road transport

Ruben Sharpe (TNO) 29 June 2009 - preliminary

Technical options for fossil fuel based road transport EU Transport GHG: Routes to 2050? AEA/ED45405/Paper 1 Contract ENV.C.3/SER/2008/0053

2

Title of the report, Title of the report Title of the report, Title of the report

Ruben Sharpe (TNO) 29 June 2009 - Preliminary

Suggested citation: Sharpe (2009) Technical options for fossil fuel based road transport Paper produced as part of contract ENV.C.3/SER/2008/0053 between European Commission Directorate-General Environment and AEA Technology plc; see website www.eutransportghg2050.eu


3


4

Table of contents Table of contents ..............................................................................................................................1 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................5 2 Engines and power train improvements for ICEs .....................................................................6

2.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................6 2.2 Overview of options for light duty vehicles ..........................................................................6

2.2.1 General options ..........................................................................................................6 2.2.2 Hybridization .............................................................................................................10

3 Reducing the energy needed for propulsion ...........................................................................12 3.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................12 3.2 Overview of options...........................................................................................................12

3.2.1 Weight reduction.......................................................................................................12 3.2.2 Improved aerodynamics ...........................................................................................13 3.2.3 Low friction losses ....................................................................................................13

4 Improving the energy efficiency of components......................................................................14 4.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................14 4.2 Overview of options...........................................................................................................14

5 Options for Heavy duty vehicles and motorbikes....................................................................15 5.1 Considerations for heavy duty vehicles.............................................................................16 5.2 Considerations for motorbikes...........................................................................................17

6 Assessment of measures (based on existing studies)............................................................18 6.1.1 GHG reduction and cost at vehicle level (short-term and long-term) .......................18 6.1.2 Long term overall reduction potential .......................................................................20 6.1.3 Timeframe and potential for application ...................................................................20 6.1.4 Co-benefits ...............................................................................................................21 6.1.5 Stakeholder vision ....................................................................................................21 6.1.6 Barriers .....................................................................................................................21 6.1.7 Policy options include setting of targets: ..................................................................22 6.1.8 Uncertainties and main open issues.........................................................................23

7 Conclusions.............................................................................................................................24 References .....................................................................................................................................25 Annexes..........................................................................................................................................27

A Reduction options for light commercial vehicles ...............................................................28


5

1 Introduction Under a business as usual scenario, global road transport GHG emissions may be expected to double by 2050 relative to the 2000 level.[King, 2007] In the next 5-10 years, options that enhance conventional vehicle systems can reduce CO2 emissions per car by 30%. Options on the conventional power train of passenger cars may effect as much as 50% CO2/km reduction as early as by 2030 but these will involve hybridization and probably also plug-in hybrid technologies.[King, 2007] Beyond 2030, further emissions reduction will require zero emission technologies, which are discussed in paper 2. Options for conventional fossil fuel based road transport are not going to be sufficient but they are currently the most cost effective. This paper aims to present an overview of evidence from existing studies relating to the CO2-emission reduction potential of technical options in fossil fuel based road transport. This means that this paper will focus on reducing the GHG emissions by

1. increasing the efficiency of converting the fuel energy to work (Section2) and 2. reducing the required work for operating a vehicle by

a. reducing the energy losses associated with the actual propulsion of a vehicle (Section 3) and by

b. reducing the energy consumption by auxiliary systems (Section 4). It will only review options that are already discussed in open literature. This entails that most options are reviewed for a 2030 horizon at most. The paper will be presented in draft form to a Technical Focus Group (at which stakeholders will be present) in early July. It is envisaged that the extension to the 2050 horizon will be mainly arrived at on the basis of discussion and input by stakeholders. The paper does not focus on the possibilities offered by a change to less carbon-intensive fuels or alternative power trains (electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids, fuel cells, etc.) , both of which are addressed in Paper 2. The paper focuses on all modes of motorized road transport. It does not discuss other options, such as inland shipping or rail transport. Technical options for these other modes are addressed in Paper 3.

This paper is work in progress! Input by stakeholders is explicitly invited.


6

2 Engines and power train improvements for ICEs

2.1 Introduction Increasing the efficiency with which chemical energy is converted into useful work, is effected by increasing the thermodynamic efficiency, reducing the frictional and pumping losses, by improving the transmission efficiency and by reclaiming kinetic energy or heat. Most of these options have recently been reviewed extensively for light duty vehicles.[Smokers et al., 2006]

2.2 Overview of powertrain options for light duty vehicles Technical options on a vehicle level can broadly be divided into the following categories:

o Options on the engine. These are options that improve the efficiency of the combustion process specifically at part load, for example with the use of

• Reduced engine friction losses

• DI (homogeneous charge, stratified charge) – only for Otto engines

• Downsizing with turbocharging

• Cylinder deactivation

• Homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI)

• Controlled auto ignition (CAI) o Options that improve the transmission efficiency or help the engine to operate in its most

efficient mode, for example using

• Variable Valve Timing

• Variable valve control

• Variable Compression Ratio

• Optimised gearbox

• Dual-Clutch o Options that relate to peripherals, such as

• Optimized cooling

• Heat recovery o Hybridization options that improve efficiency by reclaiming inertial energy upon braking

and by helping the engine to operate in its most efficient mode, such as

• Start stop

• Regenerative braking

• Mild hybridization

• Full hybridization

Other options, such as aerodynamic efficiency, weight reduction, low rolling resistance tyres and electrically assisted steering are not directly related to the power train but still can introduce efficiency reductions. These are discussed in Chapters 3 and 4.

2.2.1 General options Table 1and Table 2 list the reduction potentials for technological options for the timeframe to 2020 and an estimate of the CO2 reduction potential and the associated additional manufacturer costs as published in a report by TNO.[Smokers et al., 2008] Included are options that are discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. The cost data in the original report have been collected from various sources. The following major sources of cost data form the basis of this cost data:[ten Brink et al., 2005]

• Ricardo – Update of the “Carbon to hydrogen” roadmaps for passenger cars (2003)

• Arthur D. Little (ADL) – Investigation of the Consequences of Meeting a New Car Fleet Target of 120 g/km CO2 by 2012 (2003)

• German Aerospace Centre (DLR) – Preparation of the 2003 review of the commitment of car manufacturers to reduce CO2 emissions from M1 vehicles (2004)

• JRC/CONCAWE/EUCAR – Well to wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context, Tank to wheel report (2003)


7

Apart from these sources, many other minor sources such as automotive magazines and conference proceedings have been used in the original study. On the subject of hybrid vehicles TNO Automotive could also rely on its in house expertise. The German Federal Environment Agency (UBA) have recently published a report that builds upon the approach developed in the TNO report, but which updates the baseline case and which adds a few newer options based upon extensive bibliographical research and expert opinions from research institutes and the automotive supply industry.[Smokers et al., 2006, UBA, 2008] Costs are representing those corresponding with the corresponding level of CO2 reduction at the point in time in which that level of CO2 reduction is needed to meet the target in 2012/2015 (TNO) or (2007/2008) standard technological developments in cars of the appropriate classes (German Federal Environment Agency).[UBA, 2008] Table 1: Technical options forCO2 reduction in petrol passenger cars. (reproduced from [Smokers et al., 2008])


8

These options can be supplemented with additional options listed in a recent study by the German federal Environment Agency.[UBA, 2008]

Table 2: Technical options for CO2 reduction in diesel passenger cars. (reproduced from [Smokers et al., 2006])

These options can be supplemented with additional options listed in a recent study by the German federal Environment Agency.[UBA, 2008]

diesel Small Medium large description CO2

reduction [%] Costs [Euro] CO2


reduction [%] Costs [Euro]

Optimized fuel injection (piezo injectors)

3 0 (zero) 3 0 (zero) 3 0 (zero)

Cylinder deactivation

1 130 2.5 150 5 170

Low friction lubricants

1 6 1 6 1 6

petrol Small Medium large description CO2



reduction [%] Costs [Euro]

Exhaust gas recirculation

5 10 5 10 5 10

Cylinder deactivation

1 130 2.5 150 4 170


9

Various options can be combined into packages in order to reach various levels of CO2 emission reduction. This can be summarized in cost curves such as, for example, depicted in Figure 1. As can be seen from Figure 1, the costs may be expected to increase steeply for increasingly demanding CO2-reduction targets. The shown example is a cost curve that is valid for the 2012/2015 time frame and the has been used to assess the cost impact of the recently proposed CO2 legislation for passenger cars. The cloud of points which determines the shape of the cost curve is a representation of all feasible combinations of reduction options. Typically, a manufacturer will choose those combinations that will secure him the desired emission reduction for the lowest additional costs, i.e. those options that make up the lower envelope of the cloud. These options can be roughly described by a third order polynomial. Since a manufacturer is not completely free to choose the cheapest options, e.g. because of consumer preferences or safety requirements, the cost/reduction relationship is better described by a curve somewhat distant from the lower envelope. Cost curves, therefore, may be interpreted as describing the costs of the most likely combination of options that will be used to attain a certain emissions reduction, without explicitely predicting which technologies those will be. In the methodology, it is chosen to create the curve such that about a third of the technological combinations fall below the third order polynomial that describes the curve. More recent cost curves have been constructed in a way that is derived from this approach and targets and associated costs in 2020 are found to have a similar cost relationship.[Smokers et al., 2008, UBA, 2008]

Figure 1: Cost curves for small petrol vehicles. Costs are associated with CO2 reduction in 2012. The top graph depicts the original TNO cost curve, the bottom graph depicts the cost curve as updated by the German Federal Environment Agency. (reproduced from [Smokers et al., 2006, UBA, 2008]])


10

2.2.2 Hybridization From Table 1 and Table 2 it can be seen that, although hybridization represents a large reduction potential, hybridization is a relatively expensive option. The same conclusion can be derived at from Figure 2. These costs should be viewed as being inversely proportional to the likelihood that the option will be included in the packages that will be used to reach a certain reduction target. The more expensive the option, the further the package will fall above the cost curve and the less likely it is that the option will eventually be used. Considering that the ICE in a hybrid vehicle will be downsized and considering that both hybridization and downsizing save fuel by allowing the ICE to run at its most efficient load, it makes sense to compare the reduction potentials and the costs of downsizing and hybridization (in the calculation this presents an ‘either-or’ choice). In doing so, it can be anticipated that a similar CO2 reduction can be achieved using downsizing, for a much lower cost than by using hybridization. These insights are new and subject to discussion.

Figure 2: Costs for reducing fuel consumption by means of hybridization versus improvements on the conventional drive train. (reproduced from [McKinsey & Company, 2006]) For the time after 2020 some sources expect that the charge sustaining variant of hybridization may become completely replaced by the plug-in variant (Figure 3). The plug-in variant draws part of its energy requirement from non-conventional sources and therefore this option will be discussed in Paper 2.


11

Figure 3: Time line for the introduction of electric vehicles with battery technology. (reproduced from [BERR & DfT, 2008]) Hybridization should not only be judged on its own merits, but also as an enabler technology. Hybrid technology is expected to open up high voltage as a secondary network for vehicles, thus enabling high power applications.[McKinsey & Company, 2009] These applications may both increase or decrease energy consumption (e.g. by allowing the shifting of power steering to, more efficient, electric operation). General remarks on cost development: Cost curves suggest that the technology for reaching ambitious reduction targets does not become much cheaper over time because these targets push the boundaries of what is technologically feasible for any time horizon (which is what makes them ‘ambitious’). Therefore, the technology required specifically for attaining these ambitious targets will be expensive (making up a large part of the total reduction costs) and will not be expected to enter the market in sufficient quantities much time before the target year (and therefore will not benefit much from learning effects). Even though the technological options for fossil fuel based road transport may be expected to have full penetration by 2030, by 2050 they still may not have remained on the marked long enough, before being supplanted by alternative power train options, for significant cost reductions to have taken place.


12

3 Reducing the energy needed for propulsion

3.1 Introduction The loads on the vehicle consist of the force needed to accelerate the vehicle and the forces to overcome aerodynamic, gravitational and friction forces. In urban stop –and-go driving, aerodynamic forces play little role, but rolling resistance and especially inertial forces are critical.[Kahn Ribeiro et al., 2007] In steady highway driving, aerodynamic forces dominate, because these forces increase with the square of velocity.[Kahn Ribeiro et al., 2007] Reducing inertial loads is accomplished by reducing vehicle weight, with improved design and greater use of lightweight materials. Reducing tyre losses is accomplished by improving tyre design and materials, to reduce the tyres’ rolling resistance coefficient, as well as by maintaining proper tyre pressure; weight reduction also contributes, because tyre losses are a linear function of vehicle weight. And reducing aerodynamic forces is accomplished by changing the shape of the vehicle, smoothing vehicle surfaces, reducing the vehicle’s cross-section, controlling airflow under the vehicle and other measures.

3.2 Overview of options

3.2.1 Weight reduction A 10% weight reduction from a total vehicle weight can improve the fuel economy by 6-8%, depending on changes in the vehicle size and whether or not the engine is downsized. This holds for all road vehicles.[Kahn Ribeiro et al., 2007, Smokers et al., 2008]] Weight reduction can be achieved by application of new materials (Table 3). The development of such materials, however, does not necessarily lead to lighter vehicles since they may also be applied to increase the performance or safety of a vehicle for a given (or even increased) weight. Steel is currently the main material used in vehicles, currently averaging 70% of curb weight. It can be expected that in the mid to long term, steel will be increasingly replaced by high strength steel (allowing less material for a given construction), lightweight metals, such as aluminum or magnesium, or plastics and composites. The weight reduction potential of fiber-reinforced plastic, for example, maybe as much as 60%.[Kahn Ribeiro et al., 2007]] Table 3: Material costs and weight reduction potential of lightweight materials for 2008-2015.

material

cost

€/kg % kg/kg €/kg_replaced steel

conventional steel 0.6 0% 0.00 0

high strength steel 0.9 30% 0.30 0.03

aluminium 2.0 40% 0.40 0.6

glass fibre composite 3.0 30% 0.30 1.5

carbon fibre composite 8.0 60% 0.60 2.6

lignocellulosic fibre composite 2.0 30% 0.30 0.8

weight reduction material costs

additional

The CO2 reduction as function of relative weight loss can be calculated based on the formula ∆CO2/CO2 = 0.65 ∆m/m.[Smokers et al., 2006] As the weight reduction potential of light-weight steel is rapidly approaching that of aluminium at lower costs, the main long term option taken into account in the assessment presented here is composites. The assumption is that carbon fibre composites have superior properties allowing their application in the vehicle body and other mechanically demanding structures. It is assumed that glass and lignocellulosic fibre reinforced composites may be used for panels and for vehicle


13

components with lower mechanical loads only. After 2015, large scale application may lead to reductions in material production costs (learning effects). Note that some recent trends and requirements in vehicle design have worked against the objective of reducing CO2 emissions. Notably, additional weight and less efficient aerodynamics, arising e.g. from requirements for improved safety and to reduce NOx emissions, have offset some of the increase in vehicle efficiency that could otherwise be achieved. Importantly, a weight based CO2 limit discourages weight reduction as a means to reduce CO2 emissions.[UBA, 2008]

3.2.2 Improved aerodynamics For light-duty vehicles, styling and functional requirements (especially for light-duty trucks) may limit the scope of improvement. The aerodynamic drag coefficient (CD) of heavy duty trucks may decrease by more than 50% when pneumatic blowing devices can be used.[Kahn Ribeiro et al., 2007] For cars improved aerodynamics may be expected to bring about 2-4 % emissions reduction.[King, 2007] Since aerodynamic losses scale with the square of the velocity, speed limits can be used as fuel conservation measures.

3.2.3 Low friction losses Tyre pressure monitoring systems Rolling resistance is a function of the deformation of a tyre (Figure 4). When a tyre is insufficiently inflated these deformations will become larger and more energy is dissipated. Tyre pressure monitors (TPMS) help the driver to keep the tyres at the proper pressure and therefore avoid the extra fuel consumption resulting from otherwise increasing rolling resistance.

Figure 4: Schematic representation of factors that determine the rolling resistance. (reproduced from [GHK Consulting, 2008]) Low rolling resistance tyres Tyres have to meet comply with a manifold of design parameters, relating e.g. to safety, noise and durability. The application of low rolling resistance tyres (LRRT) is therefore far from trivial although recent study has shown that there does not have to be a trade-off between safety and rolling resistance. Penetration of LRRTs on the market can be facilitated by a labeling system. Low rolling resistance can also be achieved by improving the road quality. The reduction potential of LRRTs is estimated at 3%. Low viscosity lubricants Low viscosity lubricants decrease the friction losses in both the drive train. The reduction potential is similar to that of LRRTs and TPMS and can amount to a few percent.


14

4 Improving the energy efficiency of components

4.1 Introduction Not all the energy that is generated by the combustion engine is used for the propulsion of the vehicle. There are many secondary energy consuming components for either to assure basic safety requirements, or to increase driver comfort (from electric car windows, to heated drivers’ seats). These components may significantly effect the total energy consumption (the energy consumption of mobile air conditioning systems, e.g., are estimated to be 2.5-7.5% of the total vehicle consumption) and therefore improvements to their efficiency directly affect fuel efficiency.[Kahn Ribeiro et al., 2007]

4.2 Overview of options Some options that consume significant power are

• Air conditioners

• Lighting

• Power steering

• After treatment systems Mobile air conditioning systems (MACs) are a source of greenhouse gasses not only because of their energy consumption but also because of some types of refrigerants. The EC aims at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from MACs by a ban on the high GWP

1 refrigerant R134a

(GWP 1300) for all MACs as from 2011 on new types of vehicles and as from 2017 for new vehicles.[Keller et al., 2006, Kahn Ribeiro et al., 2007] It is expected that CO2-based systems will become the dominant alternative and that these account for 100% of the new sales by 2014 or 2015.[Smokers et al., 2006] There is currently a trend toward very efficient LED lighting. It may be expected that on the short to medium term all vehicle lighting will be replaced by LEDs, which are typically 2-3 times as efficient as halogen bulbs.

2

Electrification would increase the efficiency of power steering. This, however, requires the availability of sufficient electrical power and thus significant hybridization. The most fuel efficient vehicles are not necessarily also the cleanest vehicles. On the contrary, because large non-fuel efficient vehicles usually have larger margins, they can afford to have after treatment systems of better quality and consequently can become cleaner than smaller more fuel efficient vehicles.

1 GWP: Global Warming Potential in CO2-equivalents.

2 Source: US. Department of Energy (accessed June 2009)

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/energy_efficiency_white_leds.pdf

To be updated.


15

5 Options for Heavy duty vehicles and motorbikes Options for heavy duty vehicles and motorbikes are largely the same as for light duty vehicles. There are, however, some special circumstances to be considered, which will be illustrated below. In a recent study, fuel saving options for heavy duty vehicles were categorized as follows:[Faber Maunsell, 2008]

• Performance Management and Fuel Management Systems;

• Information Technology Systems;

• Driver Training;

• Vehicle Specification & Aerodynamics;

• Operational Modifications;

• Vehicle Maintenance; and

• Improvements in Propulsion Technology. The reduction potential of each category was marked as either low (<2%), medium (2-5%) or high (>5%). Of these categories, vehicle specification & aerodynamics, and improvements on propulsion technology, are within the scope of this paper. Vehicle specification relates to the tailoring of a vehicle to a specific task. It includes matching of engine and transmissions characteristics to the specific loads, matching of the aerodynamic properties to the operational conditions (investing in aerodynamics is more efficient for long haul transport) and matching structural strength requirements to the operational conditions (urban distribution causes more mechanical stress than long haul distribution). Improving aerodynamics includes both options on improving the aerodynamic properties of the tractor and those of the trailer (Figure 5 and Figure 6).

Figure 5: Illustration of options to improve the aerodynamic efficiency of the tractor. (reproduced from [Faber Maunsell, 2008])


16

Figure 6: Illustration of options to improve the aerodynamic properties of trailers. (reproduced from [Faber Maunsell, 2008]) The overall potential of vehicle specification and aerodynamics, as well as that for improvements in propulsion technology, was rated ‘medum’.[Faber Maunsell, 2008] In a prior study by CE, some technical options for improving energy efficiency in trucks and buses were quantified in more detail:[Smokers & Kampman, 2006] • Low rolling resistance tyres (≈6%). • Engine improvements (≈5%). • Reduction of air resistance (≈6%). • Increased weight limit to 44 or 60 tonne (≈9 - 20%). • Lightweight construction(≈7%). • Hybrid propulsion for city buses and distribution trucks (≈15%). The percentages between brackets are fuel consumption reduction values for new vehicles. Where appropriate some considerations will be discussed below.

5.1 Considerations for heavy duty vehicles

Fuel costs are a significant part of the operating costs of heavy duty vehicles. Because fuel consumption has always been an important design criterion for heavy duty vehicles, the CO2-reduction potential is relatively small. Because of cost awareness, fuel efficient driving may be expected to already be broadly employed by heavy duty drivers and eco driving may therefore be expected only to have a limited potential. On the other hand, the potential for reducing idling emissions in heavy-duty trucks (by switching the engine of when it is idling) is found to be significant. In the USA, a nationwide survey found that, on average, a long-haul truck consumed about 6,100 liters per year from idling during driver rest periods.[Kahn Ribeiro et al., 2007] This indicates that behavioral practices could save fuel also in the heavy duty segment. Overall fuel savings from improved driver training may be estimated at 5%.[Faber Maunsell, 2008] Engines in heavy duty applications, and specifically in long haul transport, operate for a larger part at full load compared to light duty vehicles. Therefore the options that are listed for light duty applications that increase the efficiency at part load will represent a smaller contribution to the reduction potential.[Smokers & Kampman, 2006] For urban distribution trucks and city buses the driving pattern is generally more dynamic, so that engine improvements increasing part load efficiency and application of a hybrid powertrain may offer significant fuel economy benefits. Vehicle elongation and increase of allowable vehicle weight (decreasing the number of vehicles per unit transported weight and improving aerodynamic characteristics of vehicles) only have effect for long haul transport. This is because drag losses are dominant only above a certain


17

velocity and because most vehicles for urban distribution are usually not loaded to maximum capacity (therefore, increasing their capacity does not decrease the number of vehicles per unit weight). It is expected that, at least for the short to medium term, the type approval limits with respect to polluting emissions will tighten. Tight type approval limits impair further improvements in fuel efficiency. Whereas the lifetime of a truck is 5-8 yrs, the lifetime of a trailer is up to 20 yrs. Therefore, new technology options have a long penetration time. This is specifically the case for aerodynamic and lightweight design aspects because they rely on truck-trailer integration. The heavy-duty vehicles are usually designed to sustain the stress of worst case usage. The stress in long distance driving on highways is lower for many components than in the worst case usage. If special long distance vehicles are constructed, where the dimension of the components is adapted to lower stress, the vehicle weights would be reduced. The costs of such specific vehicles would be much lower than the “lightweight” vehicles that would require specially developed lightweight materials and innovative design.[Keller et al., 2006]

5.2 Considerations for motorbikes Motorbikes are very powerful in comparison to their relative weight. Therefore, motorbike engines operate most of the time at part load. Options that improve part load efficiency, therefore, can be expected to greatly increase the fuel efficiency of motorbikes. Because of the limited number of motorbikes, their emissions only constitute local problems, namely in urban environments. Since GHGs have only a global impact, the contribution of motorcycles to CO2 emissions is negligible.[Samaras et al., 2008]


18

6 Assessment of measures (based on existing studies)

Reduction potential, both short term and long term and GHG abatement costs depend on the development of the reference situation.

6.1 Trends in the reference situation There is currently a trend toward increasing performance and weight in passenger cars. This is because these are attractive both from a consumer and the manufacturer’s point of view (Section 6.1.6). Also, new vehicle legislation related to safety tends to result in increased weight of vehicles, and thus to more energy consumption, due to applied technical safety measures. This may be countered by including safety not in the vehicle design but in vehicle intelligence (ITS).

6.1.1 GHG reduction and cost at vehicle level (short-term and long-term)

Reduction potentials and associated costs for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles are listed in Table 1, Table 2 and Appendix A respectively. Other options are discussed in the appropriate sections. Recently the German Federal Environment Agency has published cost curves for passenger cars that give their estimate of the most likely cost associated with a given CO2 reduction on a vehicle level, with respect to a 2007/2008 baseline (Figure 7).[UBA, 2008]

petrol

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 50 100 150

CO2 reduction

costs [€]

small

medium

large

diesel

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 20 40 60 80 100

CO2 reduction

costs [€]

small

medium

large

Figure 7: Cost curves, reproduced using the polynomial parameters as published in [UBA, 2008]. The maximum reduction potential is only approximate since they are not explicitly included in the original publication. Whether the extra costs are compensated, e.g. because of fuel savings, can be graphically represented in a so-called marginal abatement cost curve (Figure 8 and Figure 9). From such MACCs, it can be learned that improvements on the conventional drive train are generally compensated

3 but that their reduction potential (represented as the width of the plateau) is

relatively small.

3 The ‘costs’ of those options are negative, which indicates the extra costs of the technology are

more than made up for by the total earnings, because of that technology, during the operational lifetime of the vehicle.


19

Figure 8: Marginal abatement cost curve for road transport in the UK in 2020 (social perspective) for a central oil price scenario: oil price = 70 US$/bbl. (reproduced from [CCC, 2008])

Figure 9: Marginal abatement cost curve for transport in Europe in 2030. (reproduced from [McKinsey & Company, 2009])


20

6.1.2 Long term overall reduction potential The reduction that can be obtained on a vehicle level is partly offset by a trend toward more vehicle kilometers (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Historical trends in vehicle kilometers for the UK situation of (from left to right) passenger cars, vans and HGVs. (reproduced from [CCC, 2008]) From a recent study by TNO on the CO2 reduction potential for continental transport in the Netherlands for 2040 a 40% reduction with respect to the 1990 situation has been found feasible, albeit ambitious.[Passier et al., 2008] This reduction potential is the total of all transport segments but the vast majority of the total emissions, in the Netherlands, can be attributed to passenger vehicles, vans and trucks. The total reduction potential in this study, however, includes options for the improvement of the power train efficiency and options that lower the energy requirements for propulsion. Other options that are included in the study but which are not part of this paper, however, are a significant use of biofuels (alternative fuels), electrification and (to a minor extent) the use of hydrogen (these options are discussed in Paper 2). In the UK, 30% emission reduction can be obtained already because of improvements on the conventional drivetrain and other options that do not involve hybridization. These options are close to the market...[King, 2007] By 2030 a 50% reduction, with respect to 2008 emissions, can be obtained by including hybridization. To obtain further reductions beyond 2030, zero emissions (on a tank-to-wheel basis) technology must be used.[King, 2007] Zero emissions technology and acvanced (plug-in) hybridization are discussed in Paper 2.

6.1.3 Timeframe and potential for application The options discussed in this paper may be expected to achieve full penetration by 2030. This means that from 2030 onward they do not contribute to the emissions reduction potential.[Hanschke et al., 2009] Most options, however, are potentially close to the market and, with the proper incentives, can significantly contribute by 2012-2015. Large scale application of advanced lightweight materials is probably not feasible on the short to middle long term but may contribute significantly by 2030. Fuel efficient driving reduces fuel consumption by:

• Operating the engine in its most efficient range;

• Reducing the waste of kinetic energy by unnecessary braking;

• Avoiding unnecessary energy demand by e.g. avoiding unnecessary accelerations and avoiding high speeds.

Options on the combustion engine dampen the effect of vehicle dynamics at the level of the engine so that it can continue to operate in its most efficient mode. This can be achieved in the easiest way and for the lowest cost for the vehicle use in which there is the lowest dynamics at the vehicle level, i.e. on the highways. Alternative CO2-reduction technologies, namely hybridization and electrification, also aim to remove the dynamic effects at the level of the engine but at a higher cost. This will be the most cost efficient only for the vehicle use in which there is the highest dynamics at the vehicle level, i.e. in the urban environment. It may therefore be reasoned that in the future a more explicit split in technology development for vehicles with primary urban or highway usage will occur. For the short to medium term fuel efficient driving may be expected to allow for 5-25% of fuel savings (the average reduction in practice may be expected in the order of 5-10%).[Keller et al.,


21

2006] For the longer term, however, improvements on the engine, as well as the incorporation of vehicle intelligence will limit the options left to the driver with which to exert influence. Eco driving will be further discussed in Paper 4. Non plug-in hybridization may be expected to be replaced by the plug-in variant by 2020.

6.1.4 Co-benefits .General: Research and development of new technologies may spill over to other sectors of the market. Less oil use:

• dependence on Middle Eastern countries. (reference to Paper ? –energy security)

• Fuel costs Specific per type of technology: Air quality Air quality in Europe, is determined mainly because of norms. Manufacturers will aim to comply with these norms and not to be better. Whereas some options, such as HCCI (Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition) also have a positive effect on the polluting emissions, this will probably not directly affect air quality. It may to some extend, however, lessen the need for more complex (and generally heavier) after treatment systems, which offers monetary benefits to the manufacturer as well as indirect additional fuel savings. Noise: Some options, e.g. electrification, may reduce engine noise but this will be effective only for low velocities. At high velocities noise is mainly determined by the vehicle’s aerodynamic properties and tyre noise. Because noise is on a logarithmic scale of sound energy the sound reductions of a single vehicle are easily cancelled out by the incidental proximity of noisy vehicles. The effect of noise reduction, therefore, is generally marginal.

6.1.5 Stakeholder vision To be concluded after the stakeholder consultation.

6.1.6 Barriers The infrastructure for innovations on conventional power trains is already in place and functioning. This also means, however, that manufacturers have already heavily invested in existing technology and are unlikely to be willing to switch to new technologies before these investments have been recouped. This delays the introduction of these technologies even when, technologically, they are already close to the market. Supply barrier It is generally cheaper to increase the performance of a car than to increase its fuel efficiency. Because consumers also tend to favor more powerful cars over efficient ones it is currently more profitable and less risky to sell high performance.[King, 2007] Political/industrial opposition to environmental legislation. ‘Demand’ barriers Myopic consumers: short term fuel saving options are valued higher. Poor relationship between real world fuel consumption and type approval data (customers have difficulty judging fuel consumption improvement with respect to their driving circumstances). New technologies may be expected to succeed only if they meet consumer expectations. Note that the majority of the public is unwilling to pay for environmental benefits (Error! Reference source not found.). This means that either the technology must be made available to the


22

customer, at least initially, at comparable cost to conventional technology (i.e. heavily subsidized) or together with some benefit that offsets the cost difference (e.g. entitlement to tax savings).[McKinsey & Company, 2009, King, 2007]

Figure 11: Role of CO2 and fuel efficiency in vehicle purchases. (reproduced from [McKinsey & Company, 2009]) In this view it is important to note that manufacturers cannot realize economies of scale if the demand is weak.

6.1.7 Policy options include setting of targets: o Standards (work on supply barriers)

• At a vehicle level

• At manufacturer level

• At manufacturer level including trading options o Fiscal and other financial measures (work on demand barriers)

• Subsidies for efficient vehicles

• excise duty

• km- charge with CO2 differentiation

• … o Information measures

• Improving labeling

• o Other stimulating measures

• Public procurement of low-CO2 vehicles (thereby creating an initial market). Diesel powered vehicles are currently more fuel efficient than petrol powered ones. The emissions of a car fleet could, therefore, be reduced if consumers could be influenced to choose for diesels. The gap between petrol and diesel is likely to narrow over time, whereas further efficiency increases of diesel engines may be as low as 5-10%, so the most benefits are to be expected if such transition could take place as soon as possible.[King, 2007] Rebound effects Note that some measures that must be applied to decrease polluting emissions (e.g. NOx storage catalysts or diesel particulate filters) may increase energy consumption and hence increase CO2-emissions.


23

Since aerodynamic losses scale with the square of the velocity, speed limits can be used as fuel conservation measures (Section 3.2.2).

6.1.8 Uncertainties and main open issues Difference between ex-ante and ex-post costs assessments. The only options that are discussed here are those that are presently known and of which sufficient information is available. Synergetic effects are not discussed for lack of information. Future developments that may displace present scenario options will only do so when they offer either a cost benefit or


24

7 Conclusions Technical options to reach demanding CO2-reduction targets on a vehicle level will always be expensive. Full penetration of the technological options may be expected by 2030, however, and therefore by 2050 significant cost reduction because of learning effects may be expected. Options, such as fuel efficient driving will become ineffectual as technological options will increasingly dampen the effects of dynamics at the level of the engine. Hybridization is an expensive option compared to downsizing, which represents a similar reduction potential but which can be achieved at lower cost. Hybridization, however, should also be viewed in the light of enabling energy saving (or consuming!) options that rely on the availability of sufficient electrical power. Weight reduction may significantly contribute to fuel efficiency if the weight advantage is not used to increase vehicle performance or to enable added safety features. Safety measures in general will lead to an increase in fuel consumption. This may be countered by including safety not in the vehicle design but in the vehicle intelligence. Friction losses from rolling resistance or sub-optimal lubricants contribute a few percent to the fuel consumption. LRRTs, TPMS and low viscosity lubricants can therefore increase the reduction potential by an equal few percent. The CO2 reduction potential of heavy duty vehicles is relatively small. Also, because of the typical lifetime of a trailer, the options on the trailer design (such as lightweight construction and aerodynamic design) will have a long penetration time. A more explicit split in vehicle technology for urban and highway vehicles will become apparent in the future. Changes in legislation will increase the extent of fuel efficiency options, for example by increasing the maximum load or length of heavy duty vehicles or by diversification of the safety requirements for urban and highway transport. A few percent of reduction potential can also be gained from improving the energy efficiency of components. Specifically noteworthy are MACs that do not only contribute to the GHG emissions by way of their energy consumption but also because of possible leakage of their refrigerant, which currently has a high GWP. In the near future, however, it is expected that MACs will become refrigerated using CO2. Also specifically noteworthy is the energy consumption by after treatment systems. More stringent type approval requirements will limit improvements in fuel efficiency. The reverse is also the case. Perversely, non-fuel efficient vehicles, being generally more luxurious, have larger margins and can afford to have better after treatment systems. It may be argued that this may be countered if there is a market for luxurious light weight vehicles (thus with equal margin). Generally, down rating of vehicles should not be perceived as loss of welfare without some compensation. This means that either the perception should be managed, which is a tall order indeed, or equivalent compensation should be offered either monetary or e.g. in the form of added luxury.


25

References [BERR & DfT, 2008] BERR & DfT. 2008. Investigation into the Scope for the Transport Sector

to Swithc to Electric Vehicles and Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles. report. BERR and Department for Transport, UK.

[CCC, 2008] CCC. 2008. Building a low-carbon economy - the UK's contribution to tackling climate change. report. Committee on Climate Change.

[Faber Maunsell, 2008] Faber Maunsell. 2008. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles: The Role of the European Commission Policy Instrument Recommendations. Report DG ENV 070507/2006/451163/MAR/C3. European Commission.

[GHK Consulting, 2008] GHK Consulting. 2008. Impact Assessment Study on Possible Energy Labelling of Tyres. Impact Assessment Report DG TREN No TREN/D3/375-2006. European Policy Evaluation Consortium (EPEC). Revised Impact Assessment Report To the European Commission Directorate-General Transport and Energy.

[Hanschke et al., 2009] Hanschke, C. B., Uyterlinde, M. A., Kroon, P., Jeeninga, H., & Londo, H. M. 2009. Duurzame innovatie in het wegverkeer. Een evaluatie van vier transitiepaden voor het thema Duurzame Mobiliteit. report ECN-E–08-076. ECN.

[Kahn Ribeiro et al., 2007] Kahn Ribeiro, Suzana, Kobayashi, Shigeki, Beuthe, Michel, Gasca, Jorge, Greene, David, Lee, David S., Muromachi, Yasunori, Newton, Peter J., Plotkin, Steven, Sperling, Daniel, Wit, Ron, & Zhou, Peter J. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. Chap. 5: Transport and its infrastructure, pages 323–386.

[Keller et al., 2006] Keller, Mario, Mauch, Samuel, Iten, Rolf, Gehrig, Sonja, Lambrecht, Udo, Helms, Hinrich, Fehrenbach, Horst, Gode, Jenny, Särnholm, Erik, Smokers, Richard, & Hausberger, Stefan. 2006. Cost-effectiveness of greenhouse gases emission reductions in various sectors. Report. INFRAS.

[King, 2007] King, Julia. 2007. The King Review of low-carbon cars. review. HM Treasury (UK).

[McKinsey & Company, 2006] McKinsey & Company. 2006. DRIVE: The Future of Automotive Power. Report. McKinsey & Company.

[McKinsey & Company, 2009] McKinsey & Company. 2009. Roads toward a low-carbon future: Reducing CO2 emissions from passenger vehicles in the global road transportation system. Report. McKinsey & Company.

[Passier et al., 2008] Passier, G. L. M., Driever, J. P. M., van Baalen, J., Foster, D., Kadijk, G., & Verbeek, R. 2008. CO2-reductie doelstelling voor 2040 (continentaal vervoer). TNO-rapport MON-RPT-033-DTS-2008-02880. TNO Industrie en Techniek.

[Samaras et al., 2008] Samaras, Zissis, Geivanidis, Savas, Ntziachristos, Leonidas, Xanthopoulos, Anastasios, Steven, Heinz, & Bugsel, Bernd. 2008. Study on possible new measures concerning motorcycle emissions. Report 08.RE.0019.V2. LAT.

[Smokers et al., 2006] Smokers, R. T. M., Vermeulen, Robin, van Mieghem, Robert, Gense, Raymond, Skinner, Ian, Fergusson, Malcolm, MacKay, Ellie, ten Brink, Patrick, Fontaras, George, & Zisis, Samaras. 2006. Review and analysis of the reduction potential and costs of technological and other measures to reduce CO2-emissions from passenger cars. TNO Report 06.OR.PT.040.2/RSM. TNO/IEEP/LAT.

[Smokers & Kampman, 2006] Smokers, Richard, & Kampman, Bettina. 2006. Energy Efficiency in the Transport Sector: Discussion paper prepared for the PEEREA Working Group on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects. Report. CE.


26

[Smokers et al., 2008] Smokers, Richard, van de Vreede, Gerdien, Brouwer, Femke, Passier, Gerben, van Asch, René, van Baalen, Janneke, Hensema, Amber, Zimmer, Wiebke, & Skinner, Ian. 2008. Impacts of regulatory options to reduce CO2 emissions from cars, in particular on car manufacturers. Report to European Commission AEA/ED05315010/Issue 1, Framework ENV/C.5/FRA/2006/0071. AEA.

[ten Brink et al., 2005] ten Brink, Patrick, Skinner, Ian, Fergusson, Malcolm, Haines, Dawn, Smokers, Richard, van der Burgwal, Erik, Gense, Raymond, Wells, Peter, & Nieuwenhuis, Paul. 2005. Service contract to carry out economic analysis and business impact assessment of CO2 emissions reduction measures in the automotive sector. Report REF:B4-3040/2003/366487/MAR/C2. IEEP.

[UBA, 2008] UBA. 2008. Estimate of the Technological Costs of CO2 Emission Reductions in Passenger Cars: Emission Reduction Potentials and their Costs. Report of the German Federal Environment Agency. Umwelt Bundes Amt (Ger.).


27

Annexes

Technic

al o

ptions f

or

fossil

fuel base

d r

oa

d tra

nsp

ort

E

U T

ransport

GH

G: R

oute

s to 2

050

?

AE

A/E

D45

405

/Paper

1

Contr

act

EN

V.C

.3/S

ER

/200

8/0

053

28

A

Reduction options for light commercial vehicles

EU

Tra

nsport

GH

G: R

oute

s to 2

050

?

Technic

al o

ptions f

or

fossil

fuel base

d r

oa

d tra

nsp

ort

C

ontr

act

EN

V.C

.3/S

ER

/200

8/0

053

A

EA

/ED

45

405

/Paper

1

29


30

Technical options for fossil fuel based road transport · TNO report, but which updates the...

Documents

Transcript of Technical options for fossil fuel based road transport · TNO report, but which updates the...