Programme Review 28 & 29 November 2012 Carlos Navas, FCH JU Project Manager http://www.fch-ju.eu/
Rationale: Only through a fuel shift can transport in the EU achieve its target of 95% GHG abatement Road transport needs to decarbonize 95% by 2050 to achieve EU overall commitment Majority decarbonization needs to come of 80% abatement from fuel shift Road transport 5.9 95% 0.9 Energy efficiency 20% -80% Fuel shift 75% 1.2 0.1 -95% 1990 2050 Total road commitment transport decarbonization 1990-2050 1 Source: Roadmap 2050
It is uncertain if conventional combustion engines will be able to fulfill requirements by a potential EURO VII norm or beyond EURO I EURO EURO III EURO IV EURO V EURO VI EURO VII? II 4.5 4.0 CO 2.1 1.5 1.5 g/kWh ? 1.10 1.10 HC 0.66 Will 0.46 g/kWh 0.13 conventional ? combustion powertrains 8.0 7.0 be able to NO x 5.0 achieve a 3.5 g/kWh potential 0.4 ? EURO VII and 0.36 beyond? 0.25 PM g/kWh 0.10 0.02 0.01 ? 0.8 Smoke 0.5 0.5 m -1 ? 1992 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2020 SOURCE: Dieselnet; team analysis 2
Result is that European cities focus on getting newest diesel engines until 2015 but, beyond that, seem to demand powertrains with lower emissions Restrictions on diesel engine Non-fossil powertrain requirements Amsterdam Brussels Stockholm Renewable 1 All buses at No procurement least EEV 2 of diesel- public transport norm. Locally, powered buses only only EEV+ from 2015 buses deployed onwards Cologne London Oslo Hamburg Only All buses meet All buses use Only procurement of EUROIV. 300 renewable procurement of EEV 2 (and fuels 1 . EURO III hybrids in emission-free better) buses service by phased out buses 2012YE before 2013 20 2005 10 15 2025 1 Includes biofuels 2 EEV: Enhanced Environmentally friendly Vehicle is a EURO norm in-between EUROV and EUROVI 3 Source: Roadmap 2050; Dieselnet; Local city websites; 2001/81/EC; team analysis
Operators and policy makers wonder how to balance lower emissions with potentially increased costs and decreased performance Cost Emissions Performance 4
Objectives, approach and scope of the study Objective Approach ▪ Large coalition including all Fact-based evaluation of relevant stakeholders conventional and ▪ Assessment on cost, emissions , most promising and performance alternative ▪ Proprietary industry data powertrain technologies objectivity and confidentiality collected by a external ‘ clean team ’ for urban buses Scope ▪ 8 powertrains ▪ Standard 12 meter city buses Representing ~65% of European bus market ▪ Articulated 18 meter buses 5 SOURCE: FCH JU; McKinsey
The ‘Urban Buses: Alternative Powertrains for Europe’ coalition consists of more than 40 companies and organizations Technology Transportation Other Bus OEMs Providers Infrastructure Companies organizations / HyER / 7 70% 14 6 1 12 4 1 Bombardier, Hydrogenics and ABB participate in both the Technology Providers and the Infrastructure working groups 6 SOURCE: FCH JU; McKinsey
Diesel, CNG and diesel hybrids are powertrains in scope which rely (partly) on a conventional engine ICE powertrain Transmission Electric powertrain Battery or supercaps Diesel powertrain CNG powertrain Parallel hybrid powertrain Serial hybrid powertrain Fuel tank CNG tank Fuel tank Fuel tank Engine and Engine and periphery periphery Engine and Engine and Generator Electric periphery periphery and inverter storage Electric storage E-motor and E-motor and inverter Gearbox Gearbox inverter Intermediate Gearbox gearbox Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical drive line drive line drive line drive line 7 SOURCE: Study analysis; EvoBus; MAN; Iveco Irisbus
Hydrogen fuel cell, trolley and two e-buses are powertrains in scope with zero local emissions ICE powertrain Transmission Electric powertrain Battery or supercaps FC powertrain Hydrogen fuel cell powertrain Trolley powertrain Opportunity e-bus Overnight e-bus High pres- Charging Charging sure/storage Trolley poles equipment equipment system BOP and APU/generator periphery and inverter Electric Electric storage storage Other fuel cell Fuel cell stack E-motor and E-motor and inverter inverter Electric E-motor and storage inverter E-motor and Intermediate inverter Intermediate gearbox gearbox Intermediate Intermediate gearbox gearbox Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical drive line drive line drive line drive line 8 SOURCE: Study analysis; EvoBus; HESS; Solaris
Powertrains were evaluated on three dimensions Dimension Main evaluation criteria ▪ Overall well-to-wheel emissions ▪ Local emissions Environment ▪ Noise ▪ Range ▪ Route flexibility/free range Performance ▪ Refueling time ▪ Acceleration ▪ Purchase and financing costs Total Cost of ▪ Running costs Ownership ▪ Infrastructure costs (TCO) 9
Powertrains were evaluated on three dimensions Dimension Main evaluation criteria ▪ Overall well-to-wheel emissions ▪ Local emissions Environment ▪ Noise ▪ Range ▪ Route flexibility/free range Performance ▪ Refueling time ▪ Acceleration ▪ Purchase and financing costs Total Cost of ▪ Running costs Ownership ▪ Infrastructure costs (TCO) 10
Only the hydrogen, e-bus and trolley buses have the potential to drastically reduce well-to- wheel emissions… WELL-TO-WHEEL 12 METER BUS Diesel CNG Parallel hybrid Serial hybrid Hydrogen fuel cell Trolley E-bus opportunity E-bus overnight Abatement needed Decarbonization limit with for 95% reduction conventional powertrains 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 GHG emissions 2 , gCO 2 e/km 11 SOURCE: Study analysis
…and only the hydrogen, e -bus and trolley buses can achieve zero local emissions TANK-TO-WHEEL 12 METER BUS Diesel Parallel hybrid Opportunity e-bus CNG Serial hybrid Overnight e-bus Tank-to-wheel greenhouse gas emissions Trolley Hydrogen fuel cell g CO 2 e/km 1,091 1,057 1,100 1,019 1,012 1,014 1,005 962 1,000 895 881 869 900 819 796 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I II III I II III I II III 2012 2020 2030 12 SOURCE: Study analysis
Perceived noise of a fuel cell hybrid is more than 3x lower than that of a conventional diesel 12 M BUS Noise (standing), dB Diesel 80 Conven- tional CNG 78 Parallel Diesel parallel hybrid 75 hybrid Diesel serial hybrid 69 Hydrogen fuel cell 63 -3x Serial Trolley <63 electric n/a 1 Opportunity e-bus Note that dB-scale is not linear – perception of noise: ▪ 10dB: Noise is halved n/a 1 Overnight e-bus ▪ 20dB: Noise is quartered 1 No measure figures available yet – expectations are similar to hydrogen fuel cell bus 13 SOURCE: Study analysis
Powertrains were evaluated on three dimensions Dimension Main evaluation criteria ▪ Overall well-to-wheel emissions ▪ Local emissions Environment ▪ Noise ▪ Range ▪ Route flexibility/free range Performance ▪ Refueling time ▪ Acceleration ▪ Purchase and financing costs Total Cost of ▪ Running costs Ownership ▪ Infrastructure costs (TCO) 14
Performance of the hydrogen bus is similar to conventional powertrains 12 M BUS 2030 Similar Differentiated performance performance D Diesel P Diesel parallel hybrid H Hydrogen fuel cell O Opportunity e-bus ▪ Only hydrogen fuel C CNG S Diesel serial hybrid T Trolley V Overnight e-bus cell and trolley can Passenger capacity Acceleration, time to accelerate to 30 km/h in s drive with zero- emissions at almost 12.5 10.0 7.5 5.0 Curb weight no range limitation (12 m bus) ▪ E-buses limited in V O H C P S D T Lowest: operational range – Range, in km Diesel (11.6 tonnes) long charging times for overnight 0 50 100 150 200 250 >300 Highest: ▪ Diesel hybrids, Overnight e-bus O V serial in particular, (13.5 tonnes) H T D C P S capable of zero- emission driving on Range in pure-electric mode, km (logarithmic scale) certain stretches of 0 3 10 30 100 >300 the route with same P 1 operational O 2 C D V H T S 1 conditions as conventional Refuelling time, (logarithmic scale) powertrain; serial 10 hr 5 hr 2 hr 1 hr 30 min 10 min 5 min 1 min V C H O D P S T 1 Typical values shown here – pure electric range of hybrid powertrains varies depending on concept of auxiliary units and battery capacity 2 Based on a 60 kWh battery and a consumption (including losses from charging) of 2 kWh/km 15 SOURCE: Study analysis
Powertrains were evaluated on three dimensions Dimension Main evaluation criteria ▪ Overall well-to-wheel emissions ▪ Local emissions Environment ▪ Noise ▪ Range ▪ Route flexibility/free range Performance ▪ Refueling time ▪ Acceleration ▪ Purchase and financing costs Total Cost of ▪ Running costs Ownership ▪ Infrastructure costs (TCO) 16
Recommend
More recommend
