Workshop on EU Policies to Workshop on EU Policies to Improve the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

LABORATORY OF APPLIED THERMODYNAMICS ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY THESSALONIKI SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

• DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Leonidas Ntziachristos Zissis Samaras

Workshop on EU Policies to Workshop on EU Policies to Improve the Contribution of Improve the Contribution of Urban Busses and other Urban Busses and other Captive Fleets to Air Quality Captive Fleets to Air Quality

Brussels, 2005 Brussels, 2005-

• 01

01-

• 14

14

LABORATORY OF APPLIED THERMODYNAMICS ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY THESSALONIKI SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

• DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Captive Fleets Today Captive Fleets Today

Captive Fleets Today

Contribution of Taxis – 1(2) Taxis

difficult to provide a Europe-wide overview Specific cases examined

London taxis (congestion charging applicable)

23% of vehicles in the city centre 40% of total traffic in central hub 24% of total PM10 12% of total NOx London taxi fleet (June 2002):

Captive Fleets Today

Contribution of Taxis – 2 Athens taxis (large taxi fleet – no diesel passenger cars)

~15,000 taxis (cars 1.8 M) ~89,000 urban km / year (cars ~4,200 urban km/year) Contribute to 15-20% of passenger cars urban activity 84% diesel , ~16% LPG Taxi age distribution:

5 1 1 5 2

ETH

% 2 5 % 5 % 7 5 % 1 %

Age (years)

Captive Fleets Today

Total urban bus fleet (TREMOVE) Urban Bus Fleet according to TREMOVE (2004):

EU15 Urban bus population in 2004 (thousand vehicles) 50 100 150 200 250 300 Conventional EURO I EURO II EURO III CNG

x 1000

Captive Fleets Today

Urban bus technologies around Europe More detailed information reveals a higher fraction of alternative technologies.

LPG: CNG: A few thousand units in total in several European countries incl.

new MSs (e.g. France (~700), Greece (~400))

Biogas: A few decades of busses in Sweden, Austria, Germany Ethanol: Some 250 busses in Stockholm

Captive Fleets Today

Comparison of national and centralised data Swedish fleet (end of 2001): TREMOVE data

No detailed technology categorisation Comparable with other sources (fleet size, activity) Detail adequate to provide a nation-wide estimation Detail not sufficient to produce conclusions for individual cities

Captive Fleets Today

Total urban bus emissions Total urban bus emissions in EU15 (TREMOVE 2004):

EU15 urban bus emissions [t] for 2004 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000

Conventional EURO I EURO II EURO III

NOx, CO 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 VOC, PM NOx VOC PM CO Contribution (%) of each technology to total urban bus emissions 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Conventional EURO I EURO II EURO III CO NOx PM VOC

Absolute Scale Technology Contribution

Captive Fleets Today

Urban bus contribution to total emissions/activity (TREMOVE) Percentage of urban activity (total mileage):

2 4 6 8 10 12 CO NOx PM VOC

Percentage (%) of total urban activity operated by busses in 2004 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 AT BE DE DK ES FI FR GR IT LU NL PT SE UK

Percentage of total urban transport emissions (based on TREMOVE data):

Captive Fleets Today

Needs for a more detailed characterisation/understanding - 1 (2) Monitoring of technology evolution: A more precise monitoring, management and assessment of individual initiatives around Europe may be required to better design an efficient policy in the area. Development of more precise emission factors:

Engine type approval data may not appropriate for inventories

(g/energy instead of g/distance, specific to engines NOT vehicles)

Engine management may change from “fuel-efficiency” to “low-

emissions”, depending on driving requirements

Aftertreatment devices may have a condition-specific efficiency Hybrids and bi-fuelled vehicles have an irregular emission pattern There is the necessity to enhance the emission performance reporting

by means of chassis dyno tests over representative cycles, OBM and remote sensing (real-world operation)

Captive Fleets Today

Needs for a more detailed characterisation/understanding - 2 Understanding the effect of the resolution on AQ: Some fleets, and in particular urban busses, operate on specific routes, hence their contribution to pollution maximizes in these areas.

Example (TU Lisbon): Bus contribution in two routes in Lisbon

• PM : 60%
• NOx: 86%
• This may be alternatively looked at on a per-passenger basis:

Captive Fleets Today

Future AQ Targets - CAFÉ Clean Air for Europe (CAFÉ):

Main technical tool for the development of air pollution regulations Identification of cost-effective sectoral measures to reach AQ targets Development of thematic strategy on air pollution up to 2020 Objective: “achieve levels of AQ that do not give rise to risks to

human health and the environment”

Spatial resolution: 50×50 km² ⇒ not detailed for urban air quality

understanding, in particular hot-spots

Captive Fleets Today

Future AQ Targets – CITY-DELTA CITY-DELTA looks at urban PM & O3 with a finer grid (5×5 km²): Ozone

On a regional level, little scope for further improvements of emission

controls beyond current legislation

Important sub-grid effects, identified only at fine modelling resolution Consistency of model predictions and measurements depends on city Air quality (model) results are highly sensitive to the quality of the

emission inventories Particulate Matter

Limited understanding on PM mass (models underestimate

concentrations). This brings implications for the cost-effectiveness estimation of different measures

Large part of PM comes from the regional background, but there is

linear correlation between emissions and concentrations

This demonstrated:

The clear link (even hourly) between emissions and concentrations That actual concentration ratios depend on season and time of day

more than emission ratios (using current emission factors)

That detailed emission factors are needed

SEC was initiated by the EEA/ETC/ACC to identify the origin of pollution hot-spots in different European cities. Main focus was:

To develop a typology of cities and streets as a function of emissions,

meteorology and geometry

To study the origin of air quality standards exceedences

Captive Fleets Today

Future AQ Targets – Street Emission Ceilings (SEC)

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Time of day PM2.5 / NOx

Ratio of emissions Workdays - summer Workdays - winter Weekends - summer Weekends - winter

Captive Fleets Today

European regulations relevant to captive fleet emissions Air Quality Framework Directive (96/62/EC) and daughter directives set ambient emission standards for major pollutants and heavy metals and 2001/81/EC sets national emission ceilings. Based on these, 70/220/EEC (light duty) and 88/77/EEC (heavy duty) and their several amendments set the emission standards and the supplementary regulations (OBD, in-use compliance, etc.). Roadworthiness is of particular interest to captive fleets. Directive 96/96/EC (light duty) requires an annual smoke test, starting one year after vehicle registration. Directive 2000/30/EC sets the same requirements for heavy duty vehicles. Mineral fuel quality should fulfill the requirements of directives 98/70/EC and 2003/17/EC (fuel sulphur down to 10 ppm). Biofuels are promoted by 2003/30/EC to replace a 2% and 5.75% of gasoline + diesel energy by 2005 and 2010 respectively. 2001/27/EC also covers TA of alternative fuel engines.

Captive Fleets Today

European regulations for captive fleet financing / Regulation gaps Directive 2003/96/EC allows for a different tax level to mineral fuels and biofuels. The recent public procurement related directives (2004/27/EC, 2004/18/EC) allow for green procurement, i.e. environmental criteria may also be used in the decision process.

• Evaluation of existing regulation

Emission standards:

• Fuel Regulations:

(emulsions )

Roadworthiness:

• Retrofitting:
• Green public procurement: allowed , specifications

Captive Fleets Today Summary of Specific Points Captive fleets are contributors to urban PM and NOx The significance of the contribution depends on spatial resolution AQ is orientated towards a finer resolution (regional→ urban→ hot-spots) which will eventually highlight these issues Local societies have been taking measures to reduce emissions from captive fleets These are not widely known and might not be representatively taken into account in inventories It is even more difficult to estimate the actual AQ benefit of such measures due to the lack of detailed emission information Emission regulations / technical specifications do not cover the range of

• ptions available (e.g. retrofitting)

New tools available to local authorities (i.e. green public procurement)

Captive Fleets Today Points for Discussion / Consideration 1. Is the contribution of captive fleet emissions sufficiently detailed in today's emission inventories? Do we need to improve fleet estimates, activity data and emission factors for a more accurate representation, despite their relatively small contribution to total emissions? If yes, what is the best approach? 2. Are there detailed studies for the contribution of captive fleet vehicles in local hot-spots (street canyons, bus stations, etc.)? 3. How is the impact of control measures reflected to local air quality models? 4. Is there a need to develop a central mechanism for monitoring pilot and demonstration studies in different cities in order to be used as examples in other parts of Europe?

LABORATORY OF APPLIED THERMODYNAMICS ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY THESSALONIKI SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

• DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Improved Maintenance Improved Maintenance

Improved Maintenance

Maintenance and Emissions Bus fleets follow a maintenance schedule prescribed by the bus manufacturer as part of the contract. Generally followed by the fleet

• perators in order for warranty to apply.

Presumably, maintenance frequency and practices, at least with regard to the emission performance of vehicles, degrade as the fleet grows older. This may be even more true for taxis and refuse trucks. Emissions from diesel vehicles with no aftertreatment systems should be expected to significantly deteriorate only with respect to PM. Combustion inefficiency reduces NOx. Main diesel malfunctions involve faulty injectors and pump components and may increase PM from a few percentage units up to an order of magnitude higher than the emission standard. Pumps and injectors are the most expensive parts of the diesel engine. The mean repair cost is in the range of 1000 € for busses and 90-500 € for smaller vehicles.

Improved Maintenance

Maintenance Enforcement Badly maintained busses may be ideally identified by an independent

• inspection. An annual inspection and maintenance scheme is already in

place in the European legislation. This only looks at smoke emissions (opacity) and does not differentiate between different diesel technologies. Smoke and PM are roughly correlated (one-way correlation), especially as technology improves and engines become smokeless. There will soon be the necessity to modify the inspection and maintenance procedure, including a better PM emission characterisation (also due to the upcoming HDV OBD regulations). The current legislation still seems effective in identifying ultra emitters,

• nly with regard to old and smoky busses or taxis.

Improved Maintenance Points for Discussion / Consideration 1. (Question with a larger scope than captive fleets) Is the current roadworthiness legislation sufficient for the cost-effective control of diesel vehicle emissions? Is there a need to differentiate between different engine technologies? What about NOx? 2. (Question with a larger scope than captive fleets) Is smoke measurement a suitable surrogate of PM emissions and is its relevance decreasing for new technologies? 3. Is there evidence that taxis, busses or refuse trucks are badly maintained with respect to their emission controls in order to reduce

• peration costs? Is there a need to respond with additional measures

(i.e. random visits to taxi or bus depots with mobile labs, remote sensing measurements, etc.)?

LABORATORY OF APPLIED THERMODYNAMICS ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY THESSALONIKI SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

• DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Refuelling Refuelling

Refuelling

Definition Refuelling should be seen in two major directions:

Replacement or blending of fuels on existing engines Introduction of new fuels for new engines

Classification/Evaluation criteria

Engine/vehicle modifications Blending AQ improvement WTW GHG Experience in use Costs Availability / Infrastructure Feedstock …

Example only. Positions may change depending on assumptions.

LABORATORY OF APPLIED THERMODYNAMICS ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY THESSALONIKI SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

• DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Refuelling Refuelling

(Existing Diesel Engines) (Existing Diesel Engines)

Refuelling (Existing Diesel Engines)

Emulsions – 1 (2) Definition: Emulsions are water in diesel systems (~83% diesel, ~14% water, ~3% additives). Feedstock: Crude oil (diesel) and water Engine: Diesel with no modifications AQ potential:

Based on information of their manufacturers, emulsions may achieve

reductions of 30-80% in smoke, 10-40% in PM and 5-30% in NOx

Independent studies indicate reductions but lower in magnitude and

engine and operation mode specific WTW GHG: Similar to diesel (slight efficiency improvement, slight upstream energy increase) Experience: A few thousand busses operate on emulsified fuels in Europe (Italy, France, Germany, UK, Switzerland) Costs: Depending on the taxation of water Availability: Similar to conventional diesel

Refuelling (Existing Diesel Engines)

Emulsions - 2 Issues:

Suitable for old – high PM engines Compatibility / effects on new engines (EGR optimised) Increased noise Increased fuel consumption / lower range Water separation, freezing Need of engine restart (cost burden)

Refuelling (Existing Diesel Engines)

Gas-to-Liquid from Natural Gas Feedstock: Natural Gas Engine: Diesel (Fischer-Tropsch), Converted Diesel (DME, Methanol) AQ potential:

Cleaner combustion (simple chemical structure) No sulphur Oxygenated (DME, Methanol) -> Low PM

WTW GHG: More energy demanding than diesel, hence higher GHG emissions Experience: Limited Costs: Much higher than conventional diesel (energy intensive) Availability: Better than crude oil Issues:

Production processes may still be optimised Cost is the major obstacle today Not much experience of their use and AQ benefits in new engine

technologies

Refuelling (Existing Diesel Engines)

Biofuels: Biodiesel Feedstock: Biomass (Rapeseed, sunflower, cooking oil) Engine: Diesel (5% blend) or few modifications to diesel (30% blend) AQ potential:

Depending on blending proportion, increase of NOx, decrease of

sulphate and carbon PM, increase of organic PM

Lower PAHs (simpler structure) and smoke

WTW GHG: Decreasing with its increasing blend in the fuel (is N2O from agriculture an issue?) Experience: Widely available in several countries (Germany, France, Austria, …) as a 5% blend. Pure biodiesel in pilot programmes (Austria) Costs: Higher than conventional diesel Availability: Depending on the cost of the procedure Issues:

No major AQ benefits Cost and GHG benefits depend on the procedure

Refuelling (Existing Diesel Engines) Points for Discussion / Consideration 1. Is there realistic and updated information on emission benefits from the use of emulsions at European level (e.g. Italy)? What is the status of their standardization within the CEN group? What is the best approach for their taxation? 2. Biodiesel may be used with none or minor engine modifications to existing fleets but offers limited air quality benefits over low sulphur diesel and is produced at a higher cost. What are the options for other synfuels or biofuels like FTD, DME today from an air quality point of view?

LABORATORY OF APPLIED THERMODYNAMICS ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY THESSALONIKI SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

• DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Alternative Fuels Alternative Fuels

(Alternative Engines) (Alternative Engines)

Alternative Fuels (Alternative Engines)

Natural Gas (CNG, LNG) Feedstock: Natural Gas as a fuel requires only a moderate purification compared to natural gas feedstock Engine: Dedicated NG with spark ignition (or bi-fuel). Stoichiometric or lean-burn AQ potential:

Depending on technology and aftertreatment but lower PM and NOx

than diesel. Hydrocarbons (methane) are an issue WTW GHG: Worse than diesel (15-20%), better than gasoline (10%), improvements are expected Experience: A few thousand CNG busses all over Europe (France, Greece, …) Costs: Bus cost +35-40 k€ over diesel equivalent, NG cheaper than diesel per energy unit Availability: Depending on city infrastructure. NG reserves good for 65 years Issues: More to be presented in individual presentations

Alternative Fuels (Alternative Engines)

Biofuels: Biogas Feedstock: Biomass (Wastewater treatment, animal manure, …) Engine: Natural gas AQ potential: Natural gas WTW GHG: Low Experience: 500 dual-fuel municipal cars in Stockholm, 130 busses in Lille, 68 busses and 150 cars in Linköping, etc… Costs: High Availability: Limited Issues: A field for demonstration studies

Alternative Fuels (Alternative Engines)

LPG Feedstock: Crude Oil Engine: Dedicated LPG with spark ignition (or bi-fuel). AQ potential:

Depending on technology, but similar to gasoline for regulated

pollutants

Lower PAHs (simpler structure)

WTW GHG: Close to diesel Experience: Several thousand vehicles around the world, both busses and light cars. Large manufacturers produce LPG vehicles Costs: Cost of gasoline car conversion ~1000 €, cost of diesel bus conversion 25-40 k€, cost of fuel 50-60% of petrol/diesel Availability: Small due to limited production Issues:

Small availability (production and fuel stations) Cost of diesel bus conversion / maintenance (depot, frequency) Not much experience of its use in new engine technologies

Alternative Fuels (Alternative Engines)

Biofuels: Ethanol / Methanol Feedstock: Biomass (Sugar beet, wheat, corn, sugar cane, …) NG (Methanol) Engine: Petrol (blend – ET10) or dedicated engine (pure, ET85) AQ potential: Depending on the technology, lower PM and NOx than diesel (similar to gasoline) WTW GHG: Lower than diesel, depending on the process Experience: A fleet of ~250 urban busses operate in Stockholm. Ethanol in gasoline (up to 100%) used in Brazil Costs: Much higher than diesel, depending on the process Availability: Rather limited and depending on the cost of the procedure Issues:

Production cost / process GHG-driven rather than AQ-driven

Alternative Fuels (Alternative Engines) Points for Discussion / Consideration 1. What is the present status of NG bus emission levels? Are there realistic emission factors for their operation in cities, also for non-regulated pollutants? Is methane emission still a problem with current technology? Effects should be seen separately for stoichiometric and lean-burn engines. 2. Is NG only an option for new vehicles or is it also available as a retrofit

• ption? What is the status of NG in other vehicle categories? Are there

any concepts for LNG vehicles in Europe? 3. Is LPG a better option for taxis and light duty trucks than diesel both with regard to air quality and operation costs? Is there a need to promote its use? 4. What are the actual AQ benefits from ethanol/methanol and what is their future potential?

LABORATORY OF APPLIED THERMODYNAMICS ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY THESSALONIKI SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

• DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Retrofitting Retrofitting

Retrofitting

Diesel Oxidation Catalyst Description: Open channel devices installed in exhaust line AQ Effect:

PM: Oxidize the organic fraction and reduce PM by 10-50% NOx: No effect on total NOx but NO2/NO may be an issue Non-regulated: Inconsistent effect

Costs:

Passenger cars: 300 - 500 € Busses: 1500 €

Experience:

Large retrofitting activities throughout the world Used in all Euro III diesel passenger cars

Issues

No reduction of soot NO2 production by Pt-based catalysts

Retrofitting

Continuous Regeneration Diesel Particle Filters (CRDPF) Description: Wall flow devices installed in the exhaust line combined with a DOC to enable NO2-based regeneration AQ Effect:

PM: Over 99% filtration of soot particles, oxidation of organic fraction,

• verall efficiency as high as 95%

NOx: No effect on total NOx but NO2/NO may be an issue Non-regulated: Large reductions of PAHs, nitro-PAHs, carbonyls

Costs:

Not available for PCs (low NO2/PM ratios, low exhaust temperature) Busses: 4.5-9.5 k€ (+0.02-0.05 €/bus km maintenance cost)

Experience:

Retrofitting activities throughout the world Appears as a candidate technology for (future) heavy duty vehicles

Issues

Applicability for different vehicle technologies and duty cycles NO2 production by Pt-based catalysts Reliability, maintenance

Retrofitting

Fuel-Borne Catalyst Diesel Particle Filters (FBDPF) Description: Wall flow devices installed in the exhaust line. Require a fuel-borne catalyst to facilitate soot combustion AQ Effect:

PM: Over 99% filtration of soot particles, lower oxidation of organic

fraction than CRDPF

NOx: No effect on total NOx Non-regulated: Reductions of PAHs, nitro-PAHs on PM.

Costs:

Just available for passenger car retrofitting in Germany (600-700 €) No commercial system for busses

Experience:

Demonstration studies of busses and passenger cars in France, UK,

Germany, … Issues

Infrastructure for FB catalyst delivery required Regeneration strategy Reliability, maintenance

Retrofitting

Exhaust Gas Recirculation Description: Recycling of exhaust gas in the cylinder to reduce flame temperature and thus NO production AQ Effect:

PM: Low effect expected (reductions when combined with DPF) NOx: Up to 40% (retrofitting manufacturer’s data) Non-regulated: Depending on DPF application

Costs:

Just available for bus retrofitting in Sweden, combined with CRDPF

(14 k€) Experience:

Used in new engines No experience with retrofitting

Issues

Field for demonstration studies

Retrofitting

Selective Catalytic Reduction Description: Open channel devices with urea injection for the reduction

• f NOx to nitrogen and water

AQ Effect:

PM: Low effect expected (reductions when combined with DPF) NOx: Up to 80% (retrofitting manufacturer’s data) Non-regulated: Depending on DPF application

Costs:

Commercial systems (presented in 2004) in the order of 20-25 k€

(+DPF). Urea consumption 0.005-0.01 €/bus-km Experience:

Considered as a technology for future HDV emission standards Limited for retrofitting

Issues

System complexity / reliability / applicability Need for urea infrastructure

Retrofitting

Demonstrations / Approaches: USEPA/CARB Voluntary Diesel Retrofit Programme (EPA)

Approval / Verification procedure for retrofit devices / systems (e.g.

biodiesel is also included)

Assessment of environmental benefits (as part of the verification but

also in-use)

Financial support by EPA grants, tax credits, court settlements Other initiatives (e.g. Clean School Bus)

Diesel Risk Reduction Plan (CARB)

Verification procedure to classify PM control measures,

depending on reduction potential

Reciprocity of verifications with EPA

Retrofitting

Examples of EPA Supported Activities Clean School Bus Programme

21 Projects running 5000 busses in 30 states (DOCs and CRDPFs)

NY State Clean Diesel Air Quality Demonstration Programme

Some 500 busses retrofitted with CRDPFs 92% reductions in THC, 94% in CO, 88% in PM, 99% carbonyls, 78%

in PAHs, 79% nitro-PAHs (no effect on NOx)

According to studies from this project “8 months of operation on 25

buses without a failure or any significant increase in fuel economy indicates that the CRDPF has no adverse effect on the operation, reliability or maintainability of the vehicles thus retrofitted “

Also evaluated CNG/CRDPF options and found an incremental cost of

M$2.3 for CNG and M$ 0.34 for CRDPF (200 busses)

VERT Project and follow-ups (Switzerland)

Started with DPF retrofitting of diesel machinery in tunneling Developed a protocol for durability evaluation and emission

performance of different DPFs

This is supported and revised by SAEFL (indicative, not required) Some 6500 DPF retrofits in on- and off-road applications. Failure rates in the order of 2% (6% for earlier systems)

Swedish Environmental Zones Programme (EZP)

Since January 2002, the 4 largest Swedish cities introduced EZP All HDVs entering EZP no more than 8 years old Vehicles 9-15 years need to be retrofitted to achieve 80% PM and HC

reductions (1st step) and 35% NOx (2nd step).

List of approved aftertreatment devices published Effectiveness of the programme was estimated 20% PM, 8% NOx

Retrofitting

Examples of Practices in Europe – 1(2)

Retrofitting

Examples of Practices in Europe – 2 Bus Retrofitting in La Rochelle (France)

47 Euro 1 and Euro 2 busses retrofitted with FBDPFs Fuel (30% biodiesel) is additized in the pump by an electronic dosage

• pump. The same fuel pump also used for non retrofitted busses

(electronic recognition)

Filter ash cleaning every 18000 km Buildsupon earlier experience from Athens pilot study, Paris RATP

retrofitting, Lyon experiment. Black Cabs retrofitting in London (UK)

"Taxi Emissions Strategy" requires all cabs to meet Euro 3 by 2007. Special flat fare (20 p. per trip) to cover the cost of upgrading Three options for taxi owners

• A new cab
• Retrofit SCRT system (?)
• Convert to LPG

Retrofitting

Examples of Practices in Far East Tokyo Metropolitan Government initiative

Ban of diesel trucks and busses (older than 8 years) if not equipped

with aftertreatment (200 thousand vehicles)

Two PM reduction classes (60% old vehicles, 30% more recent

vehicles)

Verification list for DPFs (~20 models) and DOCs (~30 models) Financial support up to (DPF) ~3k€/veh. and (DOC) ~1.5k€/veh. Problems are cost of retrofitting, failure rates, falsified data, etc.

Hong-Kong Activities

Reduction of PM by 80% and NOx by 30% in 2005 (over ?) Diesel taxi fleet replaced with LPG (18000 vehicles) Incentives to replace diesel light busses with LPG ones (3/4 of

new registered light busses are LPG)

Mandatory retrofit of pre-Euro diesel vehicles

Retrofitting Points for Discussion / Consideration 1. Is there a need to develop a technical specifications / applicability list of retrofit devices for use in different fleets (similar to USEPA, Switzerland)? 2. What is the actual applicability and maturity of aftertreatment devices for application to fleets of different vehicle technology and characteristics (e.g. Euro I taxis, Euro III buses, etc)? 3. For measures associated with similar environmental benefits and costs (e.g. CNG vs diesel+SCRT retrofitting) how is it possible to evaluate the actual cost-effectiveness of each option as a guidance to public authorities?

Improved Maintenance

Effect of Maintenance on 26 smoking HDVs

Alternative Fuels (Alternative Engines)

Natural Gas Emissions over Diesel Typical emission behaviour of lean-burn CNG and diesel busses (CARB data) Comparison of CNG technologies over a Euro 2 diesel bus (VITO Data)

Alternative Fuels (Alternative Engines)

LPG, CNG and Diesel Euro III Car Emission Comparison (TNO Data)

Retrofitting

NO2 / NOx ratios for different vehicle technologies

Retrofitting

Urea (AdBlue) Network Infrastructure

Retrofitting

Excerpt of EPA verified retrofit devices

PM CO NOx HC Platinum Plus Purifier System (fuel borne catalyst plus DOC) Engelhard DPX Catalyzed Diesel Particulate Filter Highway, heavy-duty, 4 cycle, model year 1994 - 2002, turbocharged or naturally aspirated 60 60 n/a 60 Engelhard CMX Catalyst Muffler Heavy Duty Highway 2 cycle engines 20 40 n/a 50 38 to 41 n/a 49 to 66 Donaldson Series 6100 DOC & Spiracle (closed crankcase filtration system) Highway, heavy-heavy and medium-heavy duty, 4 cycle, non-EGR, model year 1991 - 2003, turbocharged or naturally aspirated 28 to 32a 31 to 34 n/a 42 Donaldson Series 6100 DOC Highway, heavy-heavy and medium-heavy duty, 4 cycle, non-EGR, model year 1991 - 2003, turbocharged or naturally aspirated 20 to 26 50 to 66* 0 to 9* 75 to 89* Donaldson Series 6000 DOC & Spiracle (closed crankcase filtration system) Highway, heavy-heavy and medium-heavy duty, 4 cycle, non-EGR, model year 1991 - 2003, turbocharged or naturally aspirated 25 to 33a 13 to 23 n/a 50 to 52 Clean Diesel Technologies, Inc. Platinum Plus Fuel Borne Catalyst/Catalyzed Wire Mesh Filter (FBC/CWMF) System Highway, medium-heavy duty, 4 cycle, model year 1991 - 2003, non-EGR, turbocharged or naturally aspirated 55 to 76* 20 na 40 Clean Diesel Technologies, Inc. Highway, medium-heavy and heavy-heavy duty, 4 cycle, model year 1988 - 2003, turbocharged or naturally aspirated 25 to 50 16 to 50 0 to 5 40 to 50 Caterpillar, Inc. Catalyzed Converter/Muffler (CCM) Highway, heavy-heavy and medium-heavy duty, 4-cycle, non-EGR, model year 1998 - 20 Manuf. Technology Applicability Reductions (%)

Continues…

Retrofitting / Refuelling

CNG vs Clean Diesel (DPF) incremental costs

…CNG also achieves lower NOx

Qualitative characterization of different technologies, relative to a conventional (Diesel Euro II/III) diesel bus

Effect of biodiesel on diesel engine emissions