FUEL AND TECNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES FOR BUSES Overall energy efficiency and emission performance

Transcription

1 FUEL AND TECNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES FOR BUSES Overall energy efficiency and emission performance IEA AMF Annex XXXVII & Bioenergy Task 41/Project 3 TransEco Bus Seminar Nils-Olof Nylund VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

2 2 About IEA.. The International Energy Agency (IEA) is an intergovernmental organisation which acts as energy policy advisor to 28 member countries in their effort to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for their citizens Founded during the oil crisis of , the IEA s initial role was to co-ordinate measures in times of oil supply emergencies IEA is the energy arm of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD

3 3..About IEA As energy markets have changed, so has the IEA. Its mandate has broadened to incorporate the Four E s of balanced energy policy making: energy security economic development environmental protection engagement worldwide. Current work focuses on climate change policies, market reform, energy technology collaboration and outreach to the rest of the world, especially major consumers and producers of energy like China, India, Russia and the OPEC countries Collaborative energy technology research is carried out in some 40 Multilateral Technology Initiatives also known as Implementing Agreements

4 4 IEA Implementing Agreements with Transport Related Activities End-Use Working Party Transport Advanced Fuel Cells AFC Advanced Materials for Transport AMT Advanced Motor Fuels AMF Hybrid and Electric Vehicles HEV End-Use Working Party Industry Combustion Renewable Energy Working Party Bioenergy: Task 39/Commercializing 1st- and 2nd-Generation Liquid Biofuels Hydrogen Renewable Energy Technology Deployment

5 5 Bus project objective To produce data on the overall energy efficiency, emissions and costs, both direct and indirect costs, of various technology options for buses Provide solid IEA sanctioned data for policy- and decision-makers Bring together the expertise of various IEA Implementing Agreements: Bioenergy: fuel production AFC & Hydrogen: automotive fuel cells AMF: fuel end-use AMT: light-weight materials Combustion: new combustion systems HEV: hybrids & electric vehicles

6 6 Contributors Advanced Motor Fuels: Canada (task sharing) Finland (task and cost sharing) Tekes HRT Neste Oil France (task and cost sharing) Japan (cost sharing) Sweden (cost sharing) the Swedish Transport Administration Switzerland (cost sharing) Thailand (task sharing) USA (task sharing) Bioenergy: European Commission (cost sharing) DG Energy Finland (cost sharing) VTT Germany (cost sharing)

7 7 Contents Well-to-tank analysis based on existing data for various fuel options ranges depending on feedstock and process Tank-to-wheel analysis actual testing of the most relevant technology and fuel options fuel efficiency and exhaust emissions effects of driving conditions Well-to-wheel analysis synthesis of WTT and TTW Cost estimates direct costs (infrastructure, fuel and vehicle) external costs (valuation of exhaust emissions)

8 8 WTT, TTW & WTW

9 9 Well-to-tank ANL NRCan VTT Tank-to-wheel EC VTT AVL MTC (on-board) vti (engine tests) Outlook AFC Outlook AMF Outlook AMT Overall assessment of energy, emissions, externalities and costs ADEME ANL EC NRCan VTT Task and cost sharing Outlook Biofuels Outlook Combustion Outlook HEV Outlook Hydrogen Task sharing

10 10 WTT assessment In the WTT comparison different fuel chains from different feedstocks were evaluated by: GREET model (USA) GHGenius model (Canada) RED methodology (EU).

11 11 Fuels covered in the WTT part GREET (USA) GHGenius (Canada) Renewable energy directive = RED (EU) low-sulfur diesel from conventional petroleum Fossil fuel comparator (Canadian average diesel) fossil fuel comparator (EU average) natural gas to Shell GTL and SASOL FT diesel Oil sands diesel remote natural gas to synthetic diesel (remote plant) natural gas to CNG (SI engine) Rapeseed (canola) FAME piped natural gas to DME sugar cane and/or grain to ethanol Soybeans FAME rapeseed to HVO soybeans to biodiesel (FAME) Tallow FAME rapeseed to FAME soybeans to renewable diesel (NExBTL/HVO) Rapeseed (canola) HRD palm oil to HVO (process not specified) Soybeans HRD palm oil to HVO (process with methane capture at oil mill) Palm oil HRD palm oil to FAME (process not specified) Compressed natural gas palm oil to FAME (process with methane capture at oil mill) Liquefied natural gas sugarcane to ethanol Landfill gas, compressed wheat to ethanol (NG as process fuel in conventional boiler) Landfill gas, liquefied wood to FT-diesel (farmed wood) Biogas from anaerobic digestor, compressed wood to FT-diesel (waste wood) Biogas from anaerobic digestor, liquefied wood to DME (farmed wood) FT-diesel from natural gas wood to DME (waste wood) FT-diesel from coal jatropha to FAME FT-diesel from biomass (wood residue) jatropha to HVO FT-diesel from biomass (short rotation forestry) waste vegetable or animal oil biodiesel biogas from wet manure biogas from organic waste

12 12 Example of emission factors according to the RED Sources: RED, Directive of the European Parliament of the council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. 2009/28/EC Edwards et al. Well-to-wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context. Kirkinen et al. Greenhouse impact of fossil, forest residues and jatropha diesel: a static and dynamic assessment.

13 13 Vehicle testing - VTT

14 Vehicle testing - Environment Canada Page 14 February 5, 2012

15 15 Test cycles

16 16 EC s test matrix 62 combinations

17 17 VTT s test matrix 110 combinations Vehicles: 6 diesel vehicles 4 diesel hybrids 2 CNG vehicles 1 ethanol vehicle 1 DME vehicle (prototype) Diesel replacement fuels: GTL, HVO (paraffinic) JME, RME (FAME) blended fuels Driving cycles: NYBUS ADEME Braunschweig UDDS JE05 WTWC

18 Performance North American vehicles 25 Regulated Emissions - Diesel Plaforms - Manhattan g/km CO*10 THC*100 NOx PM*100 EPA L EPA L EPA L (1) EPA L (3) Page 18 February 5, 2012

19 19 Performance European vehicles NOx Emission - Braunschweig g/km

20 20 Performance European vehicles NO2 and NO Emissions - Braunschweig 10 8 g/km Euro III EEV EGR EEV SCR EEV SCRT EEV CNG SM Euro V CNG LB EEV ethanol DME proto NO2 NO

21 21 Performance European vehicles PM Emission - Braunschweig g/km

22 22 Performance European vehicles NOx (g/km) NOx vs. PM - Braunschweig Euro III Euro IV EEV Euro V Euro VI PM (g/km) EEV EGR EEV SCR EEV SCRT EEV SCRT LW HYB 1 P HYB 2 P HYB 3 P HYB 4 S CNG SM CNG LB ETOH DME EPA 2010 (1)

23 23 Performance European vehicles Energy Consumption - Braunschweig MJ/km

24 24 Performance European vehicles g/km Tailpipe CO2eqv Emission - Braunschweig

25 25 Performance European vehicles Conventional Vehicles vs. Hybrids FC l/100 km, Fuel savings % NYBUS ADEME BRA JE05 UDDS WHVC AVG EEV AVG HYBRID FUEL SAVINGS %

26 26 Performance European vehicles g/km, MJ/km EEV CNG Stoichiometric NOx PM*100 Energy ADEME BRA UDDS 17.3

27 27 Fuel effects EEV Diesel - NOx Effects of HVO g/km EEV EGR EN590 EEV EGR 100% HVO EEV SCR EN590 EEV SCR 100% HVO EEV SCRT EN590 EEV SCRT 100% HVO

28 28 Fuel effects EEV Diesel - PM Effects of HVO g/km EEV EGR EN590 EEV EGR 100% HVO EEV SCR EN590 EEV SCR 100% HVO EEV SCRT EN590 EEV SCRT 100% HVO

29 29 WTW GHG emissions WTW GHG - RED g CO2eqv/km

30 30 WTW energy use WTW Energy Use - JEC MJ/km WTT TTW

31 31 External costs regulated emissions External Costs - Urban - Braunschweig "Mid-Size City" Values for Germany /km

32 32 External costs GHG emissions WTW GHG Costs - RED /km

33 33 Direct costs capital, fuel, urea & maintenance - Indicative - Operational Costs /km Vehicle cost Fuel cost Urea cost Maintenance cost

34 34 Summary Based on the findings of the project it is possible to establish the effects of various parameters on bus performance Over the last 15 years, tightening emission regulations and improved engine and exhaust after-treatment technology have reduced regulated emissions dramatically On the engine side the improvements in fuel efficiency have not been that spectacular, but hybridization and light-weighting can reduce fuel consumption

35 35 Summary The largest variations and also uncertainties can be found for WTW CO 2eqv emissions, or in fact the WTT part of the CO 2eqv emissions The most effective way to reduce regulated emissions is to replace old vehicles with new ones The most effective way to cut GHG emissions is to switch from fossil fuels to efficient biofuels.

36 36 Summary - Vehicle Old vs. new diesel vehicles 10:1 and even more for regulated emissions 100:1 for particulate numbers close to neutral for fuel efficiency Hybridization and light-weighting % reduction in fuel consumption not automatically beneficial for regulated emissions energy consumption ratio between the least fuel efficient vehicle with conventional power train and the most efficient hybrid 2:1 Effect of driving cycle 5:1 for fuel consumption and regulated emissions

37 37 Summary Fuel performance Fuel effects on tailpipe emissions (when replacing regular diesel) 2.5:1 at maximum for regulated emissions (particulates) 4:1 for unregulated emissions Alternative fuels (in dedicated vehicles) low PM emissions but not automatically low NO x emissions fuel efficiency depends on combustion system (compression or spark-ignition) diesel vs. spark-ignited CNG roughly equivalent for tailpipe CO 2

38 38 WTW Fossil fuels Conventional fossil diesel CO 2eqv WTT some 20 % and TTW some 80 % of total WTW 2:1 for WTW for a given fuel (least fuel efficient vehicle with conventional power train and the most efficient hybrid) CTL diesel CO 2eqv WTT some 60 % and TTW some 40 % of total WTW CTL vs. conventional diesel for CO 2eqv 2:1 CNG, DME, and GTL vs. conventional diesel for CO 2eqv (average) ~ +10 % CNG equivalent to diesel at its best (local gas) CNG and DME from remote natural gas and GTL vs. conventional diesel for overall energy ~1.5:1

39 39 WTW - Biofuels Biofuels vs. conventional diesel for CO 2eqv relative reduction ~ % (biofuels from traditional feedstocks) relative reduction ~ % (biofuels from lignocellulosic feedstocks or waste in vehicles using diesel combustion) Conventional biogas vs. CNG for CO 2eqv relative reduction ~ % CTL vs. best biofuel for CO 2eqv 120:1 (fuel only) 240:1 (fuel and vehicle combined) Biofuels vs. conventional diesel for overall energy 2.5:1 1.75:1

40 40 Costs External costs for NO x and PM 12:1 variation in unit prices depending on country and region 200:1 in calculatory external costs (including effects of country, region and vehicle, range /km) External costs for CO 2eqv (at a price of 40 /ton of CO 2 ) 2:1 for vehicle (least fuel efficient vehicle with conventional power train and the most efficient hybrid) 120:1 for fuel (CTL vs. FAME from tallow) 240:1 (fuel and vehicle combined) Direct costs (investment, fuel and maintenance), lowest vs. highest ~ +15 % (baseline) ~ +20 % (high diesel price)

41