DfT Vans CO 2 Emissions study Presentation by AEA Report on Task 5 - - PDF document

1

DfT Vans CO2 Emissions study Presentation by AEA Report on Task 5

Dr John Norris

Task 5 Assessment of the potential for CO2 emissions reductions

Sub tasks:

• 5a and 5b - Technologies that could be applied to reduce

emissions and the potential emissions reductions that could be achieved

• 5c -

Information to assist the production of a specification for the procurement of lower carbon vans

• 5d - the potential for accelerated emissions from LGVs

by shifting vehicle purchasing behaviour

• 5e - the extent to which vehicle pricing influences

purchasing decisions

2

Definition of van categories

Revisited following the discovery of errors in MVRIS database

Options

EC Emissions Class 1 1,305 kg RM Class 2 1760 kg RM Class 3 GVW Small 1,800 GVW Medium 2,600 GVW Large Payload Small <1,000 kg Medium ?? Large Qualitative Small Medium Large

Correlation

GVW 1,800 kg is equiv to RM 1,245 ± 83 kg GVW 2,600 kg is equiv to RM 1,753 ± 98 kg i.e. first two options are very similar, essentially equivalent

Definition of van categories

Original distribution Revised distribution

C

• unt of Registrations

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 Berlingo T ransit S printer N1 Class I N 1 C lass II N 1 C lass III S u m

• f c
• un

t o f reg is tra tio ns 5 00 1 00 1 5 00 2 00 2 5 00 3 00 3 5 00 4 00 4 5 00 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 B e rling

• T

ra nsit S printe r

3

Task 5a and 5b Review of technologies

Technologies

Power train Non-power train CO2 increasing

Cost

Table 2.2

Potential Effect

Figure 2.1 Table 2.2

Rate of Penetration

Figs 2.4 to 2.6 Table 2.2

Cost benefit i.e. £ per % saving

Figure 2.2 Table 2.2

Anticipated Impacts % saved

Figure 2.7 Table 2.3

Uncertainties Tech maturity Infrastructure

Table 2.1

Anticipated Impacts g/km

For 3 van classes Table 2.4

Task 5a and 5b Review of technologies

Levels of technology penetration Technology 2009 2013 2018 2022 Direct injection gasoline engines uncertain uncertain uncertain uncertain Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI) 0.00% 0.50% uncertain uncertain Micro-hybrid (stop-start) technology 0.08% 0.54% 1.92% 3.60% Mild hybrid technology 0.00% 0.05% 0.32% 0.80% Full hybrid technology (parallel or series) 0.01% 0.12% 0.83% 2.08% Plug-in hybrid technologies 0.01% 0.11% 0.84% 2.40% Battery-electric technology 0.38% 2.20% 8.00% 20% Hydrogen fuel cell technology 0.00% 0.00% uncertain uncertain Tyre pressure monitoring systems 0.00% 0.02% 0.53% Low rolling resistance tyres 0.12% 0.72% 1.79% 2.44% Gearshift indicators 0.05% 0.30% 0.76% 1% Mild light weighting 0.01% 0.12% 0.48% Strong light weighting 0.07% 0.68% 2.74% 1.84% Improved aerodynamics 0.04% 0.36% 1.44% 2.40% Piloted gearbox uncertain uncertain uncertain uncertain 6 speed gearbox uncertain uncertain uncertain uncertain Daytime running lights 0.00%

• 0.01%
• 0.21%

Implementation of Euro 6 emission standards 0.00%

• 0.25%
• 2.75%

Safety improvements

• 0.05%
• 0.50%
• 1.00%

Changes in use of electrical auxiliaries

• 0.25%
• 0.75%
• 1.25%

4

Task 5a and 5b Review of technologies

The cumulative effect of all technologies on the CO2 emissions relative to a business as usual baseline (excluding the impact of the four measures that will increase CO2 emissions) was found to be the following percentage reductions: 2009 0.8% (0.4%) 2013 5.7% (2.3%) 2018 19.6% (8.8%) 2022 36.6% (22.3%).

Task 5a and 5b Review of technologies

Anticipated fleet CO2 savings (g/km) by class type

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Percentage saving Fleet savings 2009 Fleet savings 2018

5

Task 5d – Basis for quantifying potential for accelerated emissions reduction.

Methodology:

• Selecting a reference mass category;
• Exclude the few petrol fuelled vans - use only the diesel fuelled vans;
• Sort the vans in order of increasing CO2 emissions;
• Exclude outliers (values >10% different from adjacent entries);
• Sub-divide into 10 groups (deciles), ideally at least 10 van variants;
• Check that especially the lowest decile of emitters that this group

contains at least two different manufacturers;

• Calculate the average CO2 emissions for each decile weighting by van

variants, then the numbers of new registrations in 2007.

Task 5d – Basis for quantifying potential for accelerated emissions reduction.

Figure 4.2 CO2 emissions distribution for Class 2 vans from revised MVRIS database :

Class 2 CO2 distribution function

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 Vehicle type count CO2 emissions g/km

6

Task 5d – Basis for quantifying potential for accelerated emissions reduction.

Table 4.4 Analysis of CO2 and other characteristics of Class 2 LGVs divided into deciles :

Decile Av CO2 emissions weighted by van types Av CO2 emissions weighted by no

• f registrations

Av payload mass Av payload volume Av power Number

• f sales

1 136.8 137.8 893.2 2.8 95.4 14 2 167.8 168.7 813.6 2.5 91.1 452 3 174.7 173.5 842.5 2.7 90.3 1005 4 204.4 187.9 1304.3 2.5 108.4 151 5 222 222 1157.3 7.3 103.3 163 6 222.7 222.3 1428.4 5.5 117.3 38 7 230.8 231.5 1302.9 5.2 132.6 76 8 246.3 242.7 1662.4 3.1 113.8 29 9 268.8 270.4 1807.1 2.3 121.4 41 10 284 281.5 1663.5 1.7 107.9 64

Task 5d – Basis for quantifying potential for accelerated emissions reduction.

The potential CO2 savings (from no of registrations in each decile) Average CO2 No of reg % of whole pop. For the first 3 deciles 171.7 g/km 1,471 72.4% For the last 7 deciles 225.5 g/km 562 27.6% For all Class 2 vehicles 186.6 g/km 2,033 100% First 3 deciles, diff between av and 1st decile (best in class) 34.9 g/km First 3 deciles, improvement if average became best in class 20.3% Last 7 deciles, diff between av and 4th decile (best in class) 21.1 g/km Last 7 deciles, improvement if average became best in class 9.4% For whole Class 2 van fleet, average improvement from 2 groups 17.3%

7

Task 5d – Basis for quantifying potential for accelerated emissions reduction.

Conclusions from defining best in class, and savings possible

Van group Emissions for best decile Emissions for whole group Emissions for best decile Emissions for whole group Smaller Class 1 too few data too few data too few data 119 Larger Class 1 too few data too few data 138 g/km 142.7 g/km Smaller Class 2 136.8 g/km 159.8 g/km 137.8 g/km 171.7 g/km Larger Class 2 204.4 g/km 240.4 g/km 187.9 g/km 225.5 g/km Class 3 199.1 g/km 241.0 g/km 204.7 g/km 248.7 g/km Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 17.70%

• 17.40%

14.80% Weighted by number of rows in MVRIS database Weighted by number of new registrations 3.30% 17.30% Savings if all vehicles in each class were the "best in class"

Task 5e – Quantification of extent to which vehicle pricing influences van purchasing

The ranking of 10 attributes for private cars, from Ecolane (2005)

Vehicle attribute Ranking for private cars Ranking for company vans Comment regarding company vans Reliability 1 2 Key aspect of running costs Safety 2 6 Cost (upfront investment) 3 4 Upfront economic consideration Fueleconomy/consumption 4 2 Key aspect of running costs Comfort 5 7 Assumed low priority Two door/ four door 6 9 Barely relevant Size 7 5 Van has to be of right size for purpose Style/ appearance 8 7 Assumed low priority Legroom 9 9 Barely relevant Running costs 10 1 Ongoing economic consideration

8

Task 5e – Quantification of extent to which vehicle pricing influences van purchasing

Conclusions

• Quite different purchasing behaviour of car and van purchasers
• For company vans economic (lifetime costs) are predominant
• Lifetime costs less important for private vans, but not 10th as is

the case for cars

• Upfront costs less important for vans
• Lack of published information by manufacturers on fuel

efficiency undermines this opportunity.

• Other externalities affect the detailed analysis, e.g. discount

rates, cost of fuel and general economic circumstances.

Task 5c – Information to assist the spec for the procurement of lower carbon vans

Type of van Recommended Low C Van threshold for 2009 Recommended Low C Van threshold for 2013 Smaller Class 1* 100 g/km 90 g/km Larger Class 1* 120 g/km 108 g/km Smaller Class 2 138 g/km 125 g/km Larger Class 2 190 g/km 170 g/km Class 3 200 g/km 180 g/km

9

Task 5d – Basis for quantifying potential for accelerated emissions reduction.

Table 4.4 Analysis of CO2 and other characteristics of Class 2 LGVs divided into deciles :

Decile Av CO2 emissions weighted by van types Av CO2 emissions weighted by no

• f registrations

Av payload mass Av payload volume Av power Number

• f sales

1 136.8 137.8 893.2 2.8 95.4 14 2 167.8 168.7 813.6 2.5 91.1 452 3 174.7 173.5 842.5 2.7 90.3 1005 4 204.4 187.9 1304.3 2.5 108.4 151 5 222 222 1157.3 7.3 103.3 163 6 222.7 222.3 1428.4 5.5 117.3 38 7 230.8 231.5 1302.9 5.2 132.6 76 8 246.3 242.7 1662.4 3.1 113.8 29 9 268.8 270.4 1807.1 2.3 121.4 41 10 284 281.5 1663.5 1.7 107.9 64

Task 5c – Information to assist the spec for the procurement of lower carbon vans

CO2 for best in class against GVW/KW for whole group

y = 16.158x - 34.745 R2 = 0.9872 y = 7.7905x + 274.75 R2 = 0.8883 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 50 100 150 200 250 Average GVW or KWt for Group CO2 emissions for best in class GVW KWt Linear (GVW) Linear (KWt)

10

Task 5c – Information to assist the spec for the procurement of lower carbon vans

Conclusions

• Specification for CO2 emissions from 5 discrete categories of

vans have been developed

• This is a much wider specification that generated by Ricardo for

their DfT project to LCVPP

• There is the opportunity of using a continuous function based
• n GVW or Kerb Weight, or Reference Mass
• This does not work with the “utility function”

maximum possible payload.