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

DfT Vans CO 2 Emissions study Presentation by AEA Report on Task 5 Dr John Norris Task 5 Assessment of the potential for CO 2 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 1

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 ount of Registrations S u m o f c o un t o f reg is tra tio ns 45000 4 5 0 00 N1 Class I N 1 C lass II N 1 C lass III 40000 4 0 0 00 T ra nsit T ransit 35000 3 5 0 00 30000 Berlingo 3 0 0 00 25000 2 5 0 00 B e rling o 20000 2 0 0 00 S printer S printe r 15000 1 5 0 00 10000 1 0 0 00 5000 5 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Task 5a and 5b Review of technologies Uncertainties Cost Cost benefit i.e. Tech maturity Table 2.2 £ per % saving Infrastructure Figure 2.2 Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Technologies Potential Power train Effect Non-power train Figure 2.1 CO 2 increasing Table 2.2 Anticipated Impacts Anticipated % saved Rate of Impacts Figure 2.7 Penetration g/km Table 2.3 Figs 2.4 to 2.6 For 3 van classes Table 2.2 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% 3

Task 5a and 5b Review of technologies The cumulative effect of all technologies on the CO 2 emissions relative to a business as usual baseline (excluding the impact of the four measures that will increase CO 2 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 40 35 30 Percentage saving 25 Fleet savings 2009 20 Fleet savings 2018 15 10 5 0 Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 4

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 CO 2 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 emissions distribution for Class 2 vans from revised MVRIS database : Class 2 CO 2 distribution function 350 300 CO2 emissions g/km 250 200 150 100 50 0 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 5

Task 5d – Basis for quantifying potential for accelerated emissions reduction. Table 4.4 Analysis of CO 2 and other characteristics of Class 2 LGVs divided into deciles : Av CO2 Av CO2 emissions emissions weighted by van weighted by no Av payload Av payload Number Decile types of registrations mass volume Av power of 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 CO 2 savings (from no of registrations in each decile) Average CO 2 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 4 th 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% 6

Task 5d – Basis for quantifying potential for accelerated emissions reduction. Conclusions from defining best in class, and savings possible Weighted by number of rows in Weighted by number of new MVRIS database registrations Emissions for Emissions for Emissions for Emissions for Van group best decile whole group best decile 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 Savings if all vehicles in each class were the "best in class" Class 1 - 3.30% Class 2 14.80% 17.30% Class 3 17.40% 17.70% Task 5e – Quantification of extent to which vehicle pricing influences van purchasing The ranking of 10 attributes for private cars, from Ecolane (2005) Ranking for Ranking for private cars company vans Comment regarding company vans Vehicle attribute 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 7

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 10 th 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 Recommended Low C Recommended Low C Type of van Van threshold for 2009 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 8