IEA Technology Network Cooperation:

Fuel and Technology Alternatives for Buses

Overall energy efficiency and emission performance

SAE 2012 Commercial Vehicle Engineering Congress

October 2-3, 2012

Rosemont, Illinois USA

Kati Koponen & Nils-Olof Nylund

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

SAE 2012-01-1981

2 03/10/2012

Contents

IEA and IEA’s Energy Technology Network

Objectives of the IEA Bus Project

Contents and actors

WTT analysis

TTW measurements

Summary

Acknowledgements

SAE 2012-01-1981

3 03/10/2012

About IEA

The International Energy Agency (IEA) is an intergovernmental

organisation which acts as energy policy advisor to 28 member countries

in their effort to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for their

citizens

Founded during the oil crisis of 1973-74, the IEA’s initial role was to co-

ordinate measures in times of oil supply emergencies

IEA is the ”energy arm” of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation

and Development OECD

Collaborative energy technology research is carried out in some 40

Multilateral Technology Initiatives also known as Implementing

Agreements

4 03/10/2012

IEA Implementing Agreements

with Transport Related Activities

End-Use

Advanced Fuel Cells AFC

Advanced Materials for Transport AMT

Advanced Motor Fuels AMF

Combustion

Hybrid and Electric Vehicles HEV

Renewable Energy

Bioenergy

Hydrogen

Renewable Energy Technology Deployment

http://www.iea.org/techno/index.asp

5 03/10/2012

Bus project objective

To produce data on the overall energy efficiency, emissions and costs,

both direct and indirect costs, of various technology options for buses

Provide solid IEA sanctioned data for policy- and decision-makers

Bring together the expertise of various IEA Implementing Agreements:

Bioenergy: fuel production

AFC & Hydrogen: automotive fuel cells

AMF: fuel end-use

AMT: light-weight materials

Combustion: new combustion systems

HEV: hybrids & electric vehicles

SAE 2012-01-1981

6 03/10/2012

Contents

Well-to-tank analysis based on existing data for various fuel options

ranges depending on feedstock and process

Tank-to-wheel analysis actual testing of the most relevant technology and fuel options

fuel efficiency and exhaust emissions

effects of driving conditions

new vehicles as well as fuel switches for older vehicles

Well-to-wheel analysis synthesis of WTT and TTW

Cost estimates direct costs (infrastructure, fuel and vehicle)

external costs (valuation of exhaust emissions)

SAE 2012-01-1981

7 03/10/2012

Partners in cooperation

ADEME (the French Environment and Energy Management Agency)

Argonne National Laboratory (USA)

AVL MTC (Sweden)

Environment Canada

Natural Resources Canada

von Thünen Institute and partners (Germany)

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland (lead partner)

SAE 2012-01-1981

8 03/10/2012

Elements of the project

Well-to-tank

•ANL

•NRCan

•VTT

Overall assessment of energy, emissions,

externalities and costs

•ADEME

•ANL

•EC

•NRCan

•VTT

Outlook

AFC

Outlook

AMF

Outlook

AMT

Outlook

HEV

Outlook

Combustion

Outlook

Biofuels

Outlook

Hydrogen

Task and cost sharing Task sharing

Tank-to-wheel

•EC

•VTT

•AVL MTC (on-board)

•vTI (engine tests)

9 03/10/2012

Well-to-tank

SAE 2012-01-1981

10 03/10/2012

GREET (USA) Abbreviation

used:GHGenius (Canada) Abbreviation

used:Renewable energy directive =

RED (EU)

Abbreviation

used:

Fossil Conventional diesel Diesel Conventional diesel (Canadian average) Diesel EU average fossil fuel (comparator) Diesel

fuels Oil sand diesel OS Oil sands to diesel OS Natural gas to GTL (remote plant) GTL

Natural gas to GTL GTL Natural gas to CNG CNG Natural gas to CNG (remote gas) CNG

Natural gas to CNG CNG Natural gas to LNG LNG Natural gas to DME (remote plant) DME (NG)

Natural gas to DME DME (NG) Natural gas to FT-diesel GTL

Coal to FT-diesel CTL

Bio Landfil l gas to CLG CLG Landfil l gas to CLG CLG Biogas to CBG (from wet manure) CBG (WM)

fuels Manure to CNG CNG (M) Landfil l gas to LLG LLG Biogas to CBG (organic waste) CBG (OW)

Sugarcane to EtOH ETOH (SC) Biogas to CBG (anaerobic digestor) CBG Sugarcane to EtOH ETOH (SC)

Corn to EtOH ETOH (C ) Biogas to LBG (anaerobic digestor) LBG Wheat to EtOH (NG as process fuel) ETOH (WH)

Corn stover to EtOH ETOH (CS) Rapeseed to HVO HVO (R) Straw to EtOH ETOH (ST)

Soybeans to HVO HVO (S) Rapeseed to FAME FAME (R) Rapeseed to HVO HVO (R)

Soybeans to FAME FAME (S) Palm oil to HVO HVO (P) Rapeseed to FAME FAME (R)

Switchgrass to EtOH ETOH (SG) Soybeans to HVO HVO(S) Palm oil to HVO (1) HVO (P1)

Farmed wood to EtOH ETOH (FW) Soybeans to FAME FAME (S) Palm oil to HVO (2) HVO (P2)

Wood residue to EtOH ETOH (WW) Wood residue to FT-diesel BTL (WW) Palm oil to FAME (1) FAME (P1)

Biomass to DME DME (B) Wood to FT-diesel (short rotation forest) BTL (FW) Palm oil to FAME (2) FAME (P2)

Tallow to FAME FAME (T) Farmed wood to FT-diesel BTL (FW)

Waste wood to FT-diesel BTL (WW)

Farmed wood to DME DME (FW)

Waste wood to DME DME (WW)

Jatropha to HVO HVO (J)

Jatropha to FAME FAME (J)

Waste/animal oil to HVO (3) HVO (T)

Waste/animal oil to FAME FAME (T)

Fuels evaluated (WTT)

11 03/10/2012

Well-to-tank

The results of the WTT assessment show that the impacts of the region of

biofuel production, the raw material used and the technology choices made

for the biofuel process are crucial to the GHG impacts.

In addition, many case specific characteristics, e.g. available energy

sources or transportation distances, may cause variation of the results.

The results may also vary depending on the calculation assumptions, data

uncertainties, and sensitivities.

The WTT tank part has the most important effect on the variation of the

total GHG emissions of biofuels.

Indirect land use change (ILUC) a big issue, now outside the assessment

SAE 2012-01-1981

12 03/10/2012

Example of emission factors

according to the RED

Sources:

RED, Directive of the European Parliament of the council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. 2009/28/EC

Edwards et al. Well-to-wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context.

Kirkinen et al. Greenhouse impact of fossil, forest residues and jatropha diesel: a static and dynamic assessment.

13 03/10/2012

TTW= Vehicle testing

SAE 2012-01-1981

14 03/10/2012

Environment Canada test matrix

Vehicles

5 diesel vehicles with conventional powertrain, EPA 1998 - 2010 certification

2 diesel hybrid vehicles, EPA 2007 certification

Fuels

ULSD (commercial, oil-sands derived and certification fuel)

biodiesel blends with FAME from canola, soy and tallow

in addition, EC tested HVO as a blending component and as such

Test cycles

7 different test cycles (UDDS, MAN, CBD, OCTA, BRA, ADEME, JE05)

Total number of combinations evaluated at EC was 68

SAE 2012-01-1981

15 03/10/2012

VTT test matrix

Vehicles

6 diesel vehicles with conventional power train, Euro II – EEV certification

4 diesel hybrid vehicles

4 alternative fuel vehicles: 2 CNG, 1 ethanol, 1 prototype DME vehicle

Fuels

conventional diesel, paraffinic GTL and HVO, FAME from Jatropha and FAME

from rapeseed, straight and blended fuels

methane, additive treated ethanol, DME

Test cycles

6 different test cycles (ADEME, BRA, UDDS, JE05, NYBUS, WTVC)

Total number of combinations evaluated at VTT was 112

SAE 2012-01-1981

16 03/10/2012

Regulated emissions

North-American vehicles, Manhattan cycle

8.0

12.8

16.418.1

1.5

17.2

5.0

1.40.9 0.02.1

0.50.7 0.5 0.4 0.51.0 1.40.3 0.9

0

5

10

15

20

25

CO*10 THC*100 NOx PM*100

g/

km

Regulated Emissions - Diesel Plaforms - Manhattan

EPA 1998 8.3 L EPA 2007 8.9 L EPA 2010 8.9 L (1)

EPA 2010 8.9 L (2) EPA 2010 8.9 L (3)

17 03/10/2012

NOx emissions of European vehicles

Braunschweig cycle

10.1

7.7 7.4

5.8 6.3

4.6

6.0

3.9

8.3

4.3

0.8

8.6

5.5 5.1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

g/km

NOx Emission - Braunschweig

18 03/10/2012

Energy consumption of European vehicles

Braunschweig cycle

18.8

15.8 16.414.9 15.2

12.6 12.711.3 10.9 10.7

21.120.0

16.4 15.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

MJ/

km

Energy Consumption - Braunschweig

19 03/10/2012

Fuel savings through hybridization

European vehicles

103

58

44

31 3529

64

3632

2632

27

38 3727

188 8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

NYBUS ADEME BRA JE05 UDDS WHVC

FC l/

10

0 k

m,

Fue

l sav

ings

%

Conventional Vehicles vs. Hybrids

AVG EEV AVG HYBRID FUEL SAVINGS %

20 03/10/2012

WTW GHG emissions - GHGenius

2 959

1 590 1 564 1 473

751

24

1 489

195 124

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

g C

O2

eq

v/km

WTW GHG - GHGENIUS

21 03/10/2012

WTW energy use - GREET

0

10

20

30

40

50

MJ/

km

WTW Energy Use - GREET

WTT TTW

22 03/10/2012

Summary

Based on the findings of the project it is possible to establish the

effects of various parameters on bus performance

Over the last 15 years, tightening emission regulations and

improved engine and exhaust after-treatment technology have

reduced regulated emissions dramatically

On the engine side the improvements in fuel efficiency have not

been that spectacular, but hybridization and light-weighting can

reduce fuel consumption

SAE 2012-01-1981

23 03/10/2012

Summary

The largest variations and also uncertainties can be found for

WTW CO2eqv emissions, or in fact the WTT part of the CO2eqv

emissions

The most effective way to reduce regulated emissions is to replace

old vehicles with new ones

The most effective way to cut GHG emissions is to switch from

fossil fuels to efficient biofuels.

SAE 2012-01-1981

24 03/10/2012

Summary - Vehicle

Old vs. new diesel vehicles

10:1 and even more for regulated emissions

100:1 for particulate numbers

close to neutral for fuel efficiency

Hybridization and light-weighting

20 - 30 % reduction in fuel consumption

not automatically beneficial for regulated emissions

energy consumption ratio between the least fuel efficient vehicle with

conventional power train and the most efficient hybrid 2:1

Effect of driving cycle

5:1 for fuel consumption and regulated emissions

SAE 2012-01-1981

25 03/10/2012

Summary – Fuel performance

Fuel effects on tailpipe emissions (when replacing regular diesel)

2.5:1 at maximum for regulated emissions (particulates)

4:1 for unregulated emissions

Alternative fuels (in dedicated vehicles)

low PM emissions but not automatically low NOx emissions

fuel efficiency depends on combustion system (compression or spark-

ignition)

diesel vs. spark-ignited CNG roughly equivalent for tailpipe CO2

SAE 2012-01-1981

26 03/10/2012

WTW - Biofuels

Biofuels vs. conventional diesel for CO2eqv

relative reduction ~ 30…70 % (biofuels from traditional feedstocks)

relative reduction ~ 85…95 % (biofuels from lignocellulosic

feedstocks or waste in vehicles using diesel combustion)

Conventional biogas vs. CNG for CO2eqv

relative reduction ~ 65…90 %

CTL vs. best biofuel for CO2eqv

120:1 (fuel only)

Biofuels vs. conventional diesel for overall energy

2.5:1…1.75:1

SAE 2012-01-1981

27 03/10/2012

IA contracting parties and agencies

contributing to the project

Advanced Motor Fuels:

Canada (task sharing): Natural Resources Canada, Environment Canada

Finland (task and cost sharing): Tekes – the Finnish Funding Agency for

Technology and Innovation, Helsinki Region Transport

France (task and cost sharing): ADEME - French Environment and Energy

Management Agency

Japan (cost sharing): LEVO - Organization for the promotion of low emission

vehicles, NEDO - New Energy and Industrial Technology Development

Organization

Sweden (cost sharing): the Swedish Transport Administration

Switzerland (cost sharing): BFE – Swiss Federal Office of Energy

Thailand (task sharing): NSTDA - National Science and Technology

Development Agency

USA (task sharing): US Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory

SAE 2012-01-1981

28 03/10/2012

IA contracting parties and agencies

contributing to the project

Bioenergy:

European Commission (cost sharing): DG Energy

Finland (cost sharing): VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

Germany (cost sharing): FNR - Agency for Renewable Resources

Total budget of the project 1 M€

SAE 2012-01-1981

29 03/10/2012

Final report now available

http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/technology/2012/T46.pdf

http://www.iea-amf.vtt.fi/8annexreports.html

Some 300 pages including a 20-page

Executive Summary

SAE 2012-01-1981

30 03/10/2012