5 1 peter danielsson

Information about 5 1 peter danielsson

Published on January 23, 2008

Author: Sebastiana

Source: authorstream.com

Content

Low CO2 fuels and Powertrains:  Low CO2 fuels and Powertrains Local Government Innovations in Climate Protection July 19-21, 2004 Mexico City Peter Danielsson Volvo Bus Corporation Sweden Background:  Background Of the worlds primary energy use crude oil answers for 39 % The transport sector uses 57 % of the crude oil More than 97% of energy used in the transport sector is coming from crude oil. Crude oil is a finite resource and production will peak within the next decades. Many oil fields have already passed its peak and are on the way “downhill”. The overwhelming majority of known crude oil reserves are located in politically instable parts of the world. Society has largely, both scientific and political, has recognized that the increasing greenhouse effect is real, and that this increase is at least partly due to CO2 from burning of fossil fuels. Increasing energy demand:  Increasing energy demand The world energy demand is projected to grow approximately 2.0% per year, the demand in the transport sector is growing faster than other sectors approximately 2.5%. The increasing energy demand, in combination with the CO2 issue and crude oil availability, will have an impact on the choice of powertrain and fuel in the future. The choice of transportation modes are also likely to be influenced. Energy demand projections IEA Share of global CO2 emission from transport is 25 %:  Share of global CO2 emission from transport is 25 % Availability of fossil energy resources:  Availability of fossil energy resources The total fossil energy resources are long lasting, but crude oil supply will be less than demand within one to two decades. Source: US Geological Survey, Campbell, Laherrere Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context:  Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context A joint study by EUCAR / JRC / CONCAWE Establish, in a transparent and objective manner, a consensual well-to-wheels energy use and GHG emissions assessment of a wide range of automotive fuels and powertrains relevant to Europe in 2010 and beyond. Consider the viability of each fuel pathway and estimate the associated macro-economic costs. Have the outcome accepted as a reference by all relevant stakeholders. Well-to-Wheels Pathways:  Well-to-Wheels Pathways Powertrains Spark Ignition: Gasoline, CNG, Ethanol, H2 Compression Ignition: Diesel, DME, FAME Fuel Cell Hybrids: SI, CI, FC Hybrid Fuel Cell + Reformer Tank-to-Wheels Matrix:  X X: 2002-2010 X: 2010 only Tank-to-Wheels Matrix Vehicle Assumptions:  Vehicle Assumptions The simulations of GHG emissions and energy use were based on a model vehicle representing the European C-segment and on the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC). The model vehicle results are not representative of the EU fleet When necessary, the vehicle platform was adapted to ensure that each fuel and powertrain combination met a set of minimum performance criteria ( speed, acceleration, graedability etc). The criteria reflect European customer expectations Compliance with Euro III / IV was ensured for the 2002 / 2010 case No assumptions were made with respect to availability and market share of the vehicle technology options proposed for 2010 and beyond Heavy duty vehicles (truck and busses) were not considered in the study Overall Results – GHG Emissions vs. Energy Use:  Overall Results – GHG Emissions vs. Energy Use Conventional Fuels from Crude Oil:  Conventional Fuels from Crude Oil Compressed Natural Gas (CNG):  Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Alternative Liquid Fuels:  Alternative Liquid Fuels Overall Results – Costs of CO2 avoided:  Overall Results – Costs of CO2 avoided The cost estimates in this study are based on the following assumptions: In a business as usual scenario  - 5% of the conventional EU-25 fleet (marginal diesel and gasoline) will emit ca 37 Mt CO2eq/a in 2010 (280 M vehicles, fleet average consumption 137 g CO2/km, 16000 km/a average mileage, 140 Mt/a of gasoline and 60 Mt/a of diesel) If this portion of the EU transportation demand were hypothetically to be replaced by alternative fuels and powertrain technologies, the GHG savings vs. incremental costs would be as indicated CO2 avoided costs are calculated from incremental capital and operating costs for fuel pathway and vehicle Overall Results – Costs of CO2 avoided:  Overall Results – Costs of CO2 avoided Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context:  The study report is available on the WEB: http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/Download/eh For questions / inquiries / requests / notes to the consortium, please use the centralised mail address: [email protected] Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context Heavy Duty vehicles:  Heavy Duty vehicles Heavy Duty vehicles:  Heavy Duty vehicles Heavy Duty vehicles:  Heavy Duty vehicles Biogas for buses:  Biogas for buses Biogas have low CO2 emissions and high WtW efficiency When produced from wastewater treatment sludge or organic waste cost are comparable low Low regulated emissions Same tank and engine technology as for CNG Sweden have 5 % of bus fleet running on biogas, 400 buses Feedstock potential to run the entire bus fleet of 8.000 buses in line operation Biomass potential in future energy scenarios:  Biomass potential in future energy scenarios Logics for DME:  Logics for DME Highest efficiency (WtW) GTL fuel from natural gas Next generation DME production tech. on par with diesel in production cost from stranded natural gas Highest efficiency biomass fuel with lowest cost Wide base of feedstock from biomass Vehicle cost on par with diesel (Euro 5/6) since lower cost for emission controls (heavy duty) Low regulated emissions No major change in base diesel engine – primarily fuel system DME properties:  DME properties Gaseous - liquefies at 5 bar, 20 C Infrastructure comparable to LPG High cetane rating (76 vs. 50 for diesel) Energy density 60 % of diesel Higher density than air Low viscosity Poor compatibility with polymers Poor lubricating properties Oxygenate No C-C bonds High H/C -ratio None toxic DME - next generation fuel Prototype bus, 1999 Demonstration truck, 2004:  DME - next generation fuel Prototype bus, 1999 Demonstration truck, 2004 Conclusions:  Conclusions Gasoline and diesel engines will become more efficient Hybrid technology can make a good contribution to efficiency improvements CNG can make minor improvement to lowering CO2 in light duty vehicles Stranded natural gas can play a role in providing GTL fuels at reasonable costs but will increase CO2 emissions Advanced biofuels can make large CO2 reductions at a reasonable cost for CO2 reduction Of advanced biofuels DME in both light and heavy duty vehicles have clear advantages in terms of CO2 reductions and cost Biogas have lowest CO2 emissions and good WtW efficiency Electricity from wind and nuclear to produce hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles have a comparable high cost Buses for BRT Find more information on www.volvo.com:  Buses for BRT Find more information on www.volvo.com

Related presentations


Other presentations created by Sebastiana

2007 1 9 physical hazards
05. 03. 2008
0 views

2007 1 9 physical hazards

ElectricalSafety
22. 01. 2008
0 views

ElectricalSafety

Sea Power and Maritime
09. 01. 2008
0 views

Sea Power and Maritime

20071031 dijkstra
11. 01. 2008
0 views

20071031 dijkstra

27831
15. 01. 2008
0 views

27831

endangered species
15. 01. 2008
0 views

endangered species

P078 00005
17. 01. 2008
0 views

P078 00005

film distributor
21. 01. 2008
0 views

film distributor

l2
21. 01. 2008
0 views

l2

203 Lec 21 St Lucia Conservation
22. 01. 2008
0 views

203 Lec 21 St Lucia Conservation

jane eyre
04. 02. 2008
0 views

jane eyre

The ministry of prayer
05. 02. 2008
0 views

The ministry of prayer

Adelante HHM 2007
12. 02. 2008
0 views

Adelante HHM 2007

ppt07
24. 01. 2008
0 views

ppt07

Prune
08. 01. 2008
0 views

Prune

Class1
09. 01. 2008
0 views

Class1

IRSL Q2 FY2006 Analyst Meet 17th
25. 01. 2008
0 views

IRSL Q2 FY2006 Analyst Meet 17th

returns2004
07. 02. 2008
0 views

returns2004

BackupAirways
14. 02. 2008
0 views

BackupAirways

VisualBasic
20. 02. 2008
0 views

VisualBasic

Question of rivers
11. 03. 2008
0 views

Question of rivers

pomeroy
15. 03. 2008
0 views

pomeroy

lockmart
21. 03. 2008
0 views

lockmart

case study cement plants
11. 02. 2008
0 views

case study cement plants

APESlec ppt ch13
03. 04. 2008
0 views

APESlec ppt ch13

Optimized PSTN Oct 05
08. 04. 2008
0 views

Optimized PSTN Oct 05

l5 mike
25. 02. 2008
0 views

l5 mike

3 1 11
16. 04. 2008
0 views

3 1 11

global2
24. 04. 2008
0 views

global2

030826wto
08. 05. 2008
0 views

030826wto

OlympicGames
02. 05. 2008
0 views

OlympicGames

customerforum 2007
30. 01. 2008
0 views

customerforum 2007

36188 Textilindustri
22. 01. 2008
0 views

36188 Textilindustri

Add Some Spice
26. 02. 2008
0 views

Add Some Spice

BMcCracken Presentation
04. 02. 2008
0 views

BMcCracken Presentation

TOP training pt1
13. 01. 2008
0 views

TOP training pt1