ITALIAN AGENCY FOR NEW TECHNOLOGY, …srvweb01.softeco.it/LIFE-CEDM/_Rainbow/Documents/Life...Life CEDM Project Lucca Lucca, 17th April 2008 CEDM Personnel Goods check-in Goods check-out

ITALIAN AGENCY FOR NEW TECHNOLOGY, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

Lucca, April 17th 2008Project Life CEDM Lucca Project Life CEDM Lucca

Lucca, 17th April 2008Life CEDM Project Lucca

www.enea.itwww.enea.it

CEDMCEDM

PersonnelPersonnel

Goods check-in Goods check-out

Supporting IT platform

forwarder, courier, regional delivery, etc.forwarder, courier, regional delivery, etc.

forwarder, courier, regional delivery, etc.




Ecological vehicles (CEDM fleet)Ecological vehicles (CEDM fleet)

Lucca historical centreand surrounding areas

goods types not handled by CEDM (foods, fresh goods, valuabes, etc.)




forwarder, courier, regional delivery, etc. “last-mile services” +Value Addes Services

• load consolidation• delivery plannin• delivery chain communication• Value Added Services (VAS) reverse logistics flows

VAS logistics flows

CEDM operational schemeCEDM operational scheme



ENEA Tasks for CEDMENEA Tasks for CEDM• Task 3.3 Clean Freight Fleets

(D4 = Clean van fleet study)

EVALUATION PROCESS:

• Task 5.1 - Evaluation Plan(D10 = Evaluation Plan)

• Task 4.3 - Environmental impact assessment(D9 = CEDM Demonstration results and

environmental impacts)



Lower range than diesel

Higher tank/fuel ratio

Refuelling operation

Low emissions

High transport capacityCNG

Higher vehicle cost

Limited operative range

Large time for recharging

Limited battery life time

Zero emission

Power plant emissions easier to control

Bi-directionality energy flow

High efficiency of electro-mechanical power train

Batteryelectric

DISADVANTAGESADVANTAGESVehicle

Alternative technology advantages/Alternative technology advantages/disdvantagesdisdvantages



complex electronic control

energy storage

higher cost

bi-directionality energy flow

high efficiency of electro-mechanical power train

direct transmissionmaximum torque at low rpm

low emission

Hybrid

DISADVANTAGESADVANTAGESVehicle

Alternative technology advantages/Alternative technology advantages/disdvantagesdisdvantages



Project Main PriorityProject Main Priority

In making comparison and drawing conclusions we had to take into account the project main priority:the environmental protection (from air and noise pollution) of Lucca central urban area



Main conclusionsMain conclusions

CNG vehicles are suitable for longer trips (more than 100 KM)Hybrid vehicles are suitable for working paths with higher extra urban percentage of travelElectric vehicles fit very well with the short range service planned in Lucca central urban area: they are fast enough and easy to driveTheir characteristics: very low noise and zero emissions will help in saving monumental buildings of Lucca historical centre



ElectricElectric vehiclesvehicles







CEDM clean vehicle fleetCEDM clean vehicle fleet

Isuzu 35 q. Porter



RisultatiRisultati attesiattesi• Riduzione degli impatti del traffico merci all’interno del centro storico

– riduzione del numero totale di veicoli merci nella ZTL– Maggiore efficienza degli schemi di distribuzione:

• ottimizzazione del carico (“consolidamento”), dei percorsi e delle consegne

• miglioramento dell’informarmazione e della comunicazione (es track-and-trace)

– Veicoli eco-compatibili

• Riduzione degli impatti ambientali (qualita’ dell’aria, rumore)

• Riduzione dei rischi per gli edifici di interesse storico

• Aumento della sicurezza dei pedoni

• Miglioramento della qualita’ della vita nel centro storico

• Creazione di nuove opportunita’ occupazionali



Evaluation Main Evaluation Main CategoriesCategories

• Energy (fuel & electric power consumption)

• Environment (NOx and PM emissions, noise, visual intrusion)

• Transport Efficiency (no. of vehicles in the area)

• Economy and Society (project feasibility)



Aerial view of Aerial view of LuccaLucca’’sshistorical historical centercenter



TransportTransport• Traffic volumes (Vkm)• Average route length per year by vehicle• Goods delivery volumes• No. of LDV vehicles• No. of deliveries

Initial CEDM study

• Average speed• Fleet composition

• LDV average occupancy• Timekeeping and service quality

National statistics

CEDM trials



CEDM Evaluation CEDM Evaluation ProcessProcess

• Reference scenario = “baseline” data collection

• Project scenario = CEDM trials data collection

• Environmental impact assessment• Comparison between the two scenarios



CEDM study AreaCEDM study Area


www.enea.itwww.enea.itCEDM goods deliveriesCEDM goods deliveriesin volume (min volume (m33))

2.663700756Totali

691181,7219Aree limitrofe

1.972518,3537Centro Storico

No. medio colliVol. merci (m3/giorno)Attività (no.)Area

Stima volume medio di merce distribuita nell’area di riferimento per giorno 15.9774.200756Totali

4.1451.090219Aree limitrofe

11.8323.110537Centro Storico

No. medio colliVol. merci (m3/sett.)Attività (no.)Area

Stima volume medio di merce distribuita nell’area di riferimento per settimana



LuccaLucca’’ss historical centrehistorical centre



Commercial vehicles entering the Commercial vehicles entering the historical centre historical centre –– Reference scenarioReference scenario

1.5389.2301001.680Tolale

784705,18510 -17

Autocarri (< 35 q)

6834.10044,47465 - 12Furgoni

6503.90042,37112 - 3City Van

1277608,21381 - 2Motocarri (tipo Ape)

Giornata media (no. ingressi)

Freq. Settimana

(no.ingressi)

%Dati rilevazione

(no.ingressi)

Capacità

(m3)

Tipologia veicoli



CEDM : servizi di riferimentoCEDM : servizi di riferimento

esempio: distribuzione urbana cooperativa

Agenzia Logistica UrbanaCEDM

Agenzia Logistica UrbanaCEDM

operatori lungo raggiooperatori medio raggio

Interscambio merci(“consolidamento”)

distribuzione locale(“ultimo miglio”)



CEDM CEDM

Autostrada Autostrada

A11 A11

Centro Centro StoricoStorico

Stazione Stazione FSFS

Fiume Fiume SerchioSerchio

CEDM locationCEDM location



Commercial vehicles entering the Commercial vehicles entering the historical centre historical centre –– Project scenarioProject scenario

1005701001.058Tolale

22,8130-----------Altri veicoli elettrici

14807,680Veicoli del CEDM

3,9224,447Autocarri (< 35 q)

30,417338.9412Furgoni

28,916537,1392City Van

-----------12127Motocarri (tipo Ape)

%Ipotesi “B”(no. ingressi)

%Ipotesi “A”(no. ingressi)

Tipologia veicoli



Energy consumption and COEnergy consumption and CO22emission emission –– Reference scenarioReference scenario

778.0472.931.725221.30025.090100Totale39.959149.49912.60505.1diesel

Autocarri (<35q)

349.8961.309.075110.377044.4dieselFurgoni347.6141.319.82787.26823.27042.3

benz.+ dieselCity Van

40.578153.32411.0501.8208.3benz.+ diesel

Motocarri (Ape)

Emissioni CO2(kg)

Tot. Energia(Kwh)

Consumo(kg

diesel)

Consumo (kg benzina)%

MotorizzazioneTipologia



Energy consumption and COEnergy consumption and CO22 emission emission ––Project scenario Project scenario –– ““AA”” casecase

506.4181.886.398137.91115.782100Totale

21.55057.600007,6ElettricaVeicoli CEDM

24.05590.0837.59604,4DieselAutocarri (<35q)

210.865789.66166.582038,9DieselFurgoni

209.407795.73052.68413.96237,1benz.+ dieselCity Van

40.541153.32411.0501.82012benz.+ diesel

Motocarri (Ape)

Emissioni CO2(kg)

Tot. Energia(Kwh)

Consumo(kg

diesel)





Energy consumption and COEnergy consumption and CO22 emission emission ––Project scenario Project scenario –– ““BB”” casecase

250.521836.63253.6535.923100Totale

40.99770.2000022,8ElettricaAltri veicoli

21.55057.6000014ElettricaVeicoli CEDM

11.26042.1663.55503,9DieselAutocarri (<35q)

88.543331.58127.958030,4DieselFurgoni

88.172335.08522.1405.92328,9benz.+ dieselCity Van

Emissioni CO2(kg)

Tot. Energia(Kwh)

Consumo(kg

diesel)





Pollutant emissions Pollutant emissions –– Reference Reference scenarioscenario

9004.2803004.690100Totale20240171005.1diesel

Autocarri (<35q)

1502.09015085044.4dieselFurgoni3301.8301203.00042.3

benz.+ dieselCity Van

400120137408.3benz.+ diesel

Motocarri (Ape)

VOC (kg)NOx (kg)PM (kg)CO (kg)%MotorizzazioneTipologia



Pollutant emissions Pollutant emissions –– Project Project scenario scenario –– ““AA”” casecase

7012.6321853.117100Totale

00007,6ElettricaVeicoli CEDM

1114410594,4DieselAutocarri (<35q)

931.2599151438,9DieselFurgoni

1961.105721.80537,1benz.+ dieselCity Van

4011241373912benz.+ diesel

Motocarri (Ape)




Pollutant emissions Pollutant emissions –– Project Project scenario scenario –– ““BB”” casecase

1271.061731.008100Totale

000022,8ElettricaAltri veicoli

000014ElettricaVeicoli CEDM

5675273,9dieselAutocarri (<35q)

395293821630,4dieselFurgoni

834653076428,9benz.+ dieselCity Van




Energy consumption and COEnergy consumption and CO22 emission emission –– Comparison between the scenariosComparison between the scenarios

6522932447653Occupazione

suolo (veic.eq.*h)

68250,52135506,418778,047CO2 (kg)

71836,632361,886,3982,931,725Energia (kwh)

Rid. %

Scenario di progetto

(Ipotesi "B")Rid. %


(Ipotesi "A")

Scenario di riferimento

Consumi ed emissioni



Pollutant emissions Pollutant emissions –– Comparison Comparison between the scenariosbetween the scenarios

8612722701899VOC (kg)

751,061392,6324,281Nox (kg)

767338185299PM (kg)

791,008343,1174,693CO (kg)

Rid. %


(Ipotesi "B")Rid. %


(Ipotesi "A")

Scenario di riferimentoEmissioni



LDV LDV –– Typical noise levelsTypical noise levels

negligible527474dB(A)

Electricpower

Natural gas DieselGasoline Fuel

Il rumore prodotto da un veicolo elettrico è quasi unicamente quello dovuto al rotolamento delle ruote sull'asfalto e dall’effetto aerodinamico, che alle velocità urbane (~25 km/h) è trascurabile

Nello scenario di progetto - caso “A” (sostituzione di 560 veicoli diesel con 80 veicoli elettrici), rispetto allo scenario di riferimento, nelle principali arterie del centro storico (*) si stima una riduzione del livello sonoro medio diurno (Lday : 7,00 -19,00) variabile da 3 a 10 dBA

(*) calcolato ad un metro di distanza dal bordo stradale e ad una altezza di 1,2 metri,