Why China Needs Low Why China Needs Low Sulfur Fuels Sulfur Fuels - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Why China Needs Low Why China Needs Low Sulfur Fuels Sulfur Fuels

Michael P. Walsh Michael P. Walsh

Overview Overview

• Why Low Sulfur Fuels
• Worldwide Trends and Tendencies
• International Experience Regarding The

Benefits and Costs of Reducing Sulfur

• Comments on ExxonMobil Presentation

Why Low Sulfur Fuel? Why Low Sulfur Fuel?

• Lowers Emissions From Existing Vehicles

– SO2 From All Vehicles – PM From Diesel Vehicles – CO, HC, NOx, Toxics From All Catalyst Vehicles

• Enables Advanced Technologies & Tight

Standards For New Vehicles

• Enables Retrofit Technologies To Clean

Up Existing Vehicles

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 Sulfur in Fuel (PPM) 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Tons Per Million Gallons

Tons of Directly Emitted PM From Tons of Directly Emitted PM From Diesel Fuels Sulfur Diesel Fuels Sulfur

Derived From US EPA Data

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 PPM Fuel Sulfur 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 grams/kilometer PM Emissions Other PM Sulfur

Linkage Between Fuel Sulfur and Linkage Between Fuel Sulfur and PM Emissions PM Emissions

Oxidation Catalyst PM Filter

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 PPM Fuel Sulfur 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 grams/kilometer PM Emissions Other PM Sulfur

Linkage Between Fuel Sulfur and Linkage Between Fuel Sulfur and PM Emissions PM Emissions

Oxidation Catalyst PM Filter 500 PPM Sulfur Ox Cat Retrofit Viable 50 PPM Sulfur Reasonable PM Filter Feasible ~85% PM Reduction 10/15 PPM Sulfur Strong PM Filter Feasible ~95-99% PM Reduction

Fuel Sulfur Negatively Affects All Catalyst Fuel Sulfur Negatively Affects All Catalyst-

• Based Emission Control Technology

Based Emission Control Technology

• Impacts of Sulfur

– SO2 Sticks to Catalyst Sites (Chemisorption)

• Inhibits Gaseous Catalytic Reactions

– Catalytic Oxidation of SO2 to SO3

• SO3 Adds to Tailpipe PM Emissions – Up to 40 to 50% of SO2 Can

Be Oxidized to SO3

• SO3 Reacts with Catalyst Base Metal Oxides to Form Metal Sulfate

which reduces catalytic activity

–For Catalyst-Based Diesel Particulate Filters, Sulfur Adversely Effects the Regeneration of the Filter –For NOx Adsorbers, Sulfate Clogs Up and Shuts Down the NOx Storage Mechanism

Zeolite or refractory oxide support

SO SO3

3

SO SO4

4

H H2

2SO

SO4

4

O O2

2

Sulfate make

Sulfur inhibition

Sulfate Poisoning

SO SO2

2

Sulfur Effects

Summary of Influence of Fuel Sulfur on Summary of Influence of Fuel Sulfur on Diesel Exhaust Emission Control Devices Diesel Exhaust Emission Control Devices

• Control Technology

– Oxidation Catalyst – Lean NOx Catalyst – SCR with Urea – Catalytic Filters – NOx Adsorbers

• Sulfur Effects

– Inhibition, form SO3 PM – Inhibition, form SO3 PM – Inhibition, form SO3 PM – Inhibition, form SO3 and Affects Regeneration – Clogging, form SO3 and store as sulfate – requires periodic removal

All Catalyst Technologies Adversely Affected

2010 2010 2008 2008 2007 2007 2006 2006 2005 2005 2004 2004 2002 2002 2000 2000

EPA 07

NOx = 0.25 P = 0.01

EPA 04

NOx = 2.5 P = 0.10

EPA 98

NOx = 4.0 P = 0.10

EURO V

NOx=2.0 P=0.02

EURO IV

NOx = 3.5 P = 0.02

Combined EURO III-IV EURO III

NOx = 5.0 P = 0.10

Diesel 15 ppm Diesel 50/10 ppm

g/bhp-hr g/kW-hr

Consent Decree 10/02

10/05 10/08

Close Linkage Between Vehicle Emissions Close Linkage Between Vehicle Emissions Standards and Fuel Sulfur Levels Standards and Fuel Sulfur Levels

EPA EPA EURO EURO

15 months

Caterpillar, Cummins, Detroit Diesel, Volvo, Mack Trucks/Renault Navistar

CONCAWE Study On Advanced CONCAWE Study On Advanced Diesels Diesels

• “Fuel effects on PM and NOx emissions were

also observed. However, … DPFs were used … the impact of changing fuel properties OTHER THAN SULFUR became negligible.”

• “In the heavy duty engines, the 300 ppm sulfur

fuels were not considered relevant to test in the Euro 4 or Euro 5 engines.”

• In the [light duty] Euro 3 engine, lower sulfur

content reduced PM emissions.

New York City Retrofit New York City Retrofit Experience Experience

• 100%
• 80%
• 60%
• 40%
• 20%

0% 20% CO2 NOx THC CO PM CO2 NOx THC CO PM Percentage Change in g/ m i

OEM Catalyst / ULSD (50 ppm S) fuel CRT Catalyst / ULSD (50 ppm S) fuel

NYC Bus ID# 6019 NYC Bus ID# 6065

Ralphs Grocery Trucks

Average Grocery Truck Emissions, CSHVR(1&2)

0.78 0.41 0.272 0.197 0.01 0.35 0.003 0.15 0.34 0.001 0.24 0.30 0.010 0.011 Below Detection Limit Below Detection Limit

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

CO/10 NOx/100 HC PM

Emissions, g/mile

CARB Fuel w/o DPF 2000 2001 2002 ULSD with Johnson Matthey CRT T

M

Durability & Reliability Durability & Reliability

Ralphs Grocery Trucks

Average Grocery Truck Emissions, CSHVR(1&2)

0.78 0.41 0.272 0.197 0.03 0.32 0.003 0.51 0.29 0.002 0.014 0.37 0.18 0.042 0.028 Below Detection Limit

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

CO/10 NOx/100 HC PM

Emissions, g/mile CARB Fuel w/o DPF 2000 2001 2002* ULSD with Engelhard DPX T

M

Durability & Reliability Durability & Reliability

The Costs and Benefits of Shifting The Costs and Benefits of Shifting To Lower Sulfur Fuels To Lower Sulfur Fuels International Experience International Experience

Benefits Costs Net Benefits $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 Billions Tier 2 Standards & Low Sulfur Gasoline HD Diesel Standards & ULSD Off Road Diesel Standards & ULSD

Results of Three Major US Rules Results of Three Major US Rules

6/3/2005 6/3/2005 17 17

Canada Health Effects Consensus Findings

(Independent Expert Panel)

Reducing sulphur to 30 ppm improves the health of Canadians

2,100 2,400 6,800 3.3 million 1.6 million 11 million 93,000 7,600

Emergency Room Visits

Restricted activity days

Acute respiratory symptoms e.g.: new cases of croup, pneumonia

Asthma symptom days

New cases of bronchitis in children

New cases of chronic bronchitis

Number of Cases Extrapolated for All of Canada 2001 to 2020

Health Effects

• f Pollution

Mixture May Be Much Greater than Particles Alone

Mortality Hospital Admissions Canadian Study of Health Impacts of Low Sulfur Gasoline

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

costs or benefits (in billions of $CDN)

30 ppm

sulphur level

Costs and benefits of reduced-sulphur gasoline1

(in terms of net present value ; 1994$)

Costs Benefits Net benefits

1 costs and benefits

calculated for the years 2001 - 2020. Costs calculated country wide; benefits for seven cities including TORONTO, MONTREAL, VANCOUVER, HALIFAX, WINNIPEG,

• ST. JOHN, AND

EDMONTON

$0.11 $0.29 $0.29 $0.61

Gasoline Diesel $0.00 $0.10 $0.20 $0.30 $0.40 $0.50 $0.60 $0.70 Cents per Liter Low Estimate High Estimate

EU Estimate of Costs to Reduce EU Estimate of Costs to Reduce Sulfur From 50 ppm to 10 ppm Sulfur From 50 ppm to 10 ppm

Benefits Exceeded Costs By Factor of 2 to 3 Times

Ultra Low Sulfur Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel Is Spreading Diesel Fuel Is Spreading

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 PPM

U S U S 2 6 E U 2 E U 2 5 E U 2 5

• 9

D e n m a r k S w e d e n C l a s s 1 G e r m a n y 2 3 J a p a n J a p a n 2 4 J a p a n 2 5

• 7

H

• n

g K

• n

g S

• u

t h K

• r

e a 2 6 T a i p e i , C h i n a 2 7 A u s t r a l i a 2 6 T h a i l a n d 2 1 S a n t i a g

• ,

C h i l e 2 4 S i n g a p

• r

e 2 6

National Tax incentives For 50ppm sulphur fuels National Tax incentives For 50ppm & 10 ppm sulphur fuels (and or availability) 3.9Ec/l Diesel (2000) 0.3Ec/l 50ppm Petrol (2001) 5.7Ec/l 10ppm Diesel (2001) 10ppm Petrol (2002) 10ppm Diesel (2002) 2.5Ec/l 50ppm Diesel (1993) 3.1Ec/l 50ppm Diesel (1993) 1.5EC/l 10ppm Petrol/Diesel (2003) 1.5Ec/l 50ppm Petrol/Diesel (2001) 50ppm Diesel Available (2000) 10ppm Petrol/Diesel incentive (2004) 4.5Ec/l 50ppm Petrol (2000), Diesel (2001) 10ppm Diesel Available (2000) .076Ec/l 50ppm Petrol (2000), Diesel (2001) 2 Ec/l Petrol/Diesel (2001) 4 Ec/l Petrol/Diesel (2001) 2.4 Ec/l Diesel (1999)

European Tax Incentives Schemes To Encourage Low Sulfur Fuels

Conclusion Conclusion

• Fuel Quality Is an Integral Part of a

Complete Emission Control System for Both Gasoline- and Diesel-Powered Vehicles

• Fuel Sulfur Adversely Effects All Catalyst-Based

Emission Control Technology and Needs to Be Reduced

• Using a Systems Approach with Ultra-Low

Sulfur Fuel Combined with Advanced Engine Designs and Advanced Emission Control Technology, Cars, Trucks, and Buses Will Emit 99% Less Pollution As Compared to Vehicles in the 1960s Fuel Sulfur Content: The Lower, the Better

Conclusion Conclusion (continued)

(continued)

• Introducing Low Sulfur

Gasoline Fuel Will Immediately Improve the Emission Control Performance of Existing Catalyst-Equipped Vehicles

• Introducing Low Sulfur

Diesel Fuel Will Enable Existing Engines to be Retrofitted with Advanced Control Technology

Comments on Comments on ExxonMobil ExxonMobil Presentation On Presentation On Fuels Developments Fuels Developments and Specifications and Specifications

HC, CO NOx, Particulates

• Evap. HC

Vehicle technology can bring large emission reductions. Fuels must be suitable for the vehicles to perform well.

Analyze Vehicles and Fuels as a Analyze Vehicles and Fuels as a Single System Single System

I Agree!

Government

All Parties Can Contribute to an Effective All Parties Can Contribute to an Effective Regulatory Development Process Regulatory Development Process

Fuel Suppliers Vehicle Producers Fuel Regulations

I Agree!

Vehicle Emission Standards Give Significant Vehicle Emission Standards Give Significant Reductions Reductions

• European experience:

10 20 30 40 50 60 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

g/km

1 2 3 4 5 6 CO HC+NOx

Euro 2

Gasoline Cars Diesel Cars and Trucks

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 PM g/kWh NOx g/kWh

Euro 2

2 4 6 8 10 12 1980 1990 2000 2010

g/km

1 2 3 4 5 6

CO HC+NOx uncontrolled

Euro 2 Diesel Cars Diesel Trucks

I Agree!

China China’ ’s Future Fuel Specifications s Future Fuel Specifications

• Fuels must be appropriate for the vehicle technology
• Utilize Experiences From Other Regions But Incorporate Local Situation

Chinese Situation Considerations Fuel sulfur levels higher than regional average. China processing more imported crudes with higher sulfur content

• 1. Continue to look at all sources, including power

plants, to identify the most cost-effective emission reduction steps

• 2. Reduce fuel sulfur levels consistent with vehicle

equipment, air quality goals and cost- effectiveness of other available steps

• 3. THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING!

GASOLINE: GASOLINE: DEFINING THE FUEL DEFINING THE FUEL SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICATIONS

Lead and Sulphur are Most Important Fuel Parameters Lead and Sulphur are Most Important Fuel Parameters I AGREE! I AGREE!

• Exhaust catalysts are much more sensitive to the fuel

than the engine itself (I AGREE!)

• Most important fuel change is lead-free gasoline

– Allows use of Three-Way Catalyst (I AGREE!)

• Fuel Sulphur affects catalyst performance

– But very low levels not needed for Euro 2/3 emission limits

Sulphur Effects, Euro 2 Cars 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 100 200 300 400 500

NOx g/km

European Auto-Oil data, gasoline cars

Bangkok Real World Experience Indicates Euro 2 & Euro 3 Cars Are Cleaner with Low Sulfur Gasoline

Sulphur Effects Small for Modern Vehicles Sulphur Effects Small for Modern Vehicles

Car A Car B Car C Car D Euro 3 limit Euro 4 limit

• No significant effect of sulphur on four

advanced European gasoline cars

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Fuel Sulphur (mg/kg)

NOx

NOx (g/km) 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Fuel Sulphur (mg/kg)

HC

HC (g/km) 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Fuel Sulphur (mg/kg)

CO

CO (g/km) Source: SAE 2004-01-1886

Sulphur Effects Sulphur Effects – – US Study Comparison US Study Comparison

89 US Tier0 94 US Tier1 96 Euro2 97 CALEV 99 CALEV Car A Car B Car C Car D

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 200 400 600

Fuel Sulphur (mg/kg) NOx g/km

99 CALEV Study (100 mg/kg sulphur)

• Strong sulphur effects seen in early Calif LEVs not

repeated in other studies

CONCAWE study

}

• No evidence
• f non-linear

response to sulphur at levels up to 150 mg/kg

Concawe Test Programme Concawe Test Programme

• Fuels effects studied in more detail by CONCAWE
• Tested four modern European gasoline vehicles on

European driving cycle

– Car A – Euro 3 2.0 litre

• Stoich. DI

TWC – Car B – Euro 4 1.8 litre VVA – MPI TWC – Car C – Euro 3 2.0 litre Lean DI TWC + NOx trap – Car D – Euro 4 1.6 litre Lean DI TWC + NOx trap

Methodology Methodology

• Test Design

– Fuels tested in blocks – 1 test per fuel per block – Different randomised test orders for each block in each vehicle – Phase 1 (sulphur) minimum 4 tests / fuel – Extra tests if variability thresholds exceeded

• Additional Conditioning – Vehicle Specific

– Phase 1: Sulphur purge within conditioning for each test – Phase 2: Sulphur purge for NOx trap vehicles before each block OF COURSE YOU WOULD NOT EXPECT TO SEE ANY SULFUR EFFECT: – Sulfur was purged before every test – The durability of the catalyst exposed to the different sulfur levels was not monitored

Sulfur Purging Procedure Sulfur Purging Procedure

• Three Way Catalysts
• 1. 90 km/hr for 5 minutes
• 2. 50 km/hr for 1 minute
• 3. Wide Open Throttle Acceleration for at least 5

seconds to at least 115 km/hr; hold speed for 15 seconds; decelerate to 50 km/hr

• 4. Maintain 50 km/hr for 1 minute
• 5. Repeat steps 3 & 4 for 4 additional cycles
• NOx Storage Catalysts
• 1. Followed manufacturer guidelines

Limit Value of Gasoline Limit Value of Gasoline-

• powered

powered Vehicles Vehicles (2009) (Draft) (2009) (Draft)

Achivement

PM NOx NMHC CO

、 、 periods

0.005

Passenger car

Light-weight 0.005

t

(GVW1.7t or less) N.C. 2009

r

Middle-weight 0.007

u

～

c

(GVW over 1.7t 3.5t or less)

k

Heavy-weight 0.01

s

（ ）

GVW over 3.5t Unit Heavy-weight :g/kWh Except Heavy-weight :g/km

※1

：

GVW Gross weight Vehicle NMHC Non-methane hydrocarbons

※2 ： 、 ：

note) Target values of particulate matter are applied only to lean-burn, direct-injection vehicles mounted with storing-type NOx reduction catalyst.

Comparison of PM exhaust emission

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

ＰＭ（mg/km) 10.15/11 CD34

P.C. MPI 2005 ☆☆☆ G P.C. GDI/L 2000 ☆ G P.C. GDI/S 2005 ☆☆☆ G P.C. MPI/L 2005 ☆☆☆ G

LoQ 2.7～ 4.5mg/km

LDT MPI 2000 ☆ G P.C. MPI 2005 ☆☆☆ G P.C. GDI/L 2000 G P.C. GDI/L 2000 G P.C. GDI/L 2000 ☆ G P.C. GDI/L 2000 ☆ G P.C. GDI/L 2000 ☆☆ G P.C. GDI/L 2005 ☆☆☆ G P.C. GDI/L 2005 ☆☆☆ G LPC MPI 2000 ☆☆ G MDT DPF 2003 D

LoD 0.9～1.5mg/km

（JAMA DATA)

Sulfur Sulfur in Gasoline in Gasoline

• Highly efficient catalysts are much

more sensitive to sulfur (if a catalyst is 99%

efficient, a 1% decrease in efficiency will double emission)

• Advanced technologies such as lean

NOx traps and NOx reduction catalysts require < 5 ppm sulfur to operate

National Workshop on Clean Fuels and Vehicles in Vietnam National Workshop on Clean Fuels and Vehicles in Vietnam

Real World Experience From Bangkok- Dr. Supat Wangwongwatana

Impact of Impact of Sulfur Sulfur On Exhaust Emissions On Exhaust Emissions from Gasoline Vehicles from Gasoline Vehicles

CO/10 HC NOx

800 ppm 500 ppm 150 ppm

CO/10 HC NOx

EURO 2 EURO 2 EURO 3 EURO 3

National Workshop on Clean Fuels and Vehicles in Vietnam National Workshop on Clean Fuels and Vehicles in Vietnam

• 5.9%

5.9%

• 6.2%

6.2%

• 10.8%

10.8% -

• 10.8%

10.8%

• 22.1%

22.1%

• 23.5%

23.5%

• 18%

18%

• 11.6%

11.6%

• 34.9%

34.9%

• 17.7%

17.7%

• 28%

28%

• 16.1%

16.1%

Real World Experience From Bangkok

• Dr. Supat Wangwongwatana

Impact of Impact of Sulfur Sulfur On Diesel Vehicles On Diesel Vehicles

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 g/km CO/10 HC NOx PM

500 ppm 350 ppm 50 ppm

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 g/km CO/10 HC NOx PM

EURO 2 EURO 2 EURO 3 EURO 3

National Workshop on Clean Fuels and Vehicles in Vietnam National Workshop on Clean Fuels and Vehicles in Vietnam

• 29.1%

29.1%

• 25.3%

25.3%

• 4.2%

4.2%

• 12.7%

12.7%

• 47.3%

47.3%

• 48.4%

48.4%

• 4.6%

4.6%

• 24.6%

24.6%

• 30.5%

30.5%

• 22.7%

22.7%

• 1.8%

1.8%

• 15.6%

15.6%

• 51.9%

51.9%

• 38.3%

38.3%

• 4.5%

4.5%

• 27.9%

27.9%

Real World Experience From Bangkok

• Dr. Supat Wangwongwatana

 

“ “Sulfur Sulfur” ” is the is the “ “Lead Lead“ “ of the new century

• f the new century

 

Reducing fuel sulfur content in gasoline and diesel is crucial t Reducing fuel sulfur content in gasoline and diesel is crucial to any

• any

serious effort to reduce air pollution from existing and new serious effort to reduce air pollution from existing and new vehicles. vehicles.

 

Reducing sulfur in all transportation fuels (including non Reducing sulfur in all transportation fuels (including non-

• road

road machines) provides immediate air quality and public health machines) provides immediate air quality and public health

• benefits. Benefits include reduced PM emissions from all vehicl
• benefits. Benefits include reduced PM emissions from all vehicles

es as well as reduced acidification. For vehicles equipped with an as well as reduced acidification. For vehicles equipped with any y type of catalyst technology, sulfur reductions also reduce type of catalyst technology, sulfur reductions also reduce emissions of CO, HC, NOx, and secondary PM. emissions of CO, HC, NOx, and secondary PM.

 

Near Near-

• zero sulfur fuels (10 ppm or less) are required for advanced

zero sulfur fuels (10 ppm or less) are required for advanced vehicle technologies. vehicle technologies. Napa Statement Napa Statement International Council on Clean Transportation International Council on Clean Transportation 4 4-

• 6 May 2003, Napa, CA, USA

6 May 2003, Napa, CA, USA

National Workshop on Clean Fuels and Vehicles in Vietnam National Workshop on Clean Fuels and Vehicles in Vietnam

Conceptual Cost Analysis Conceptual Cost Analysis

• As gasoline sulphur is reduced

– Costs rise rapidly – Benefits decrease

• As technology improves

– Costs decrease, but shape of curve stays the same

• Euro 2/3 gasoline vehicles need

sulphur in range 150-500ppm

• Further reductions increase cost

without benefit

100 200 300 400 500 Sulfur maximum, ppm Cents Per Gallon (relative)

Costs Rise As Levels Go Down But The Benefits Far Outweigh Costs

• Meeting gasoline sulfur

specifications with minimal octane loss

– Proprietary catalyst technology – Clear octane advantage – Lower operating cost – Retrofit capability – Over 1 Mbd committed capacity

• Increasing ultra-low sulfur diesel

producability

– Proprietary catalyst technology – Activity level tripled – Rapid development / deployment

Technology Solutions Technology Solutions -

• New Catalyst

New Catalyst Development Development

SCANfining™ for Gasoline Nebula-20™ for Diesel

New Generation Catalysts Early Commercial Catalysts

Activity

300 600 900

1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005

‘55 ‘65 ‘75 ‘85 ‘95 ‘05 Cumulative On-Line Capacity

500 1000 '02 '03 '04 '05+

KBD

And Refinery Catalysts Are Improving!

Summary Summary

• Addressing vehicles and fuels as a single system can

significantly improve the cost-effectiveness of future regulations

• - benefiting consumers and society
• Government and industry should work together to develop

effective regulations to improve air quality

• China can benefit from experience in other regions -- but should

develop regulations appropriate for the Chinese situation

• For Euro I,II,III vehicles and engines, sulphur is the most

important fuel parameter (emphasis added!)

• I AGREE WITH THESE CONCLUSIONS BUT WOULD ADD

THAT EURO FUEL SULFUR LEVELS SHOULD BE MATCHED WITH VEHICLE STANDARDS