the path to cleaner buses & trucks cleaner fuels tighter new vehicle standards inspection and...
Post on 18-Dec-2015
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
The Path To Cleaner Buses & The Path To Cleaner Buses & TrucksTrucks
• Cleaner Fuels• Tighter New Vehicle
Standards• Inspection and
Maintenance• Other
– Scrappage– Retrofit– Alternative Fuels
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
NOx
PM0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% reduction
Euro I Euro II Euro III Euro IV Euro V
EU Emissions Standards For EU Emissions Standards For Heavy-duty Vehicles on ETCHeavy-duty Vehicles on ETC
●Nitrogen oxides (NOx) ●Particulate matter (PM)
Japan
00 02 04 06 08 1098
12
45
78
(g/kWh)
0
6
3
E.U.
U.S.
Japan
12
3.38
Limits
YearYear00 02 04 06 08 1098
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.250.30(g/kWh)
0
E.U.U.S.
12
0.18Limits
YearYear
0.027
2.0
International Emission Regulations: International Emission Regulations: - Heavy-duty vehicles (GVW>3.5t) -- Heavy-duty vehicles (GVW>3.5t) -
EURO II Vehicles & Fuels with I/M
EURO III Vehicles & Fuels with I/M
EURO IV Vehicles & Fuels with I/M
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percent Reduction in Emissions
NOx 2005
NOx 2020
PM10 2005
PM10 2020
Source: Camarsa, BAQ 2003
Impact of Clean Vehicles and Fuels On Diesel Vehicle Emissions
Diesel Oxidation Diesel Oxidation CatalystCatalyst
PAHC2H2n+2
SO2+H2OMetals
SootCO + 1/2 O2
HC + O2
PAH + O2
Aldehydes + O2
CO2
CO2 + H2OCO2 + H2OCO2 + H2O
Flow through monolithwith catalytic coating
SO2+H2O
Metals
Soot
COAldehydes
HCPAHSO2
NOx
CO2
H2OSO2 /SO3
NOx
Exhaust flow
catalysed filter
Catalytic particulate trap cell
Filter is regenerated by hot exhaust at a rate that varies with exhaust temperature(may plug if exhaust temperature stays low)
PM
Exhaust flow
NO
NO
NO2NO2
NO2
NO to NO2
Catalyst
NO2 (a good oxidant) causes combustion of filtered PM (thus regenerating the filter)
Continuously regenerating particulate trap (CRT)
NOx Reduction OptionsNOx Reduction Options
Aftertreatment NOx Technology OptionsEngine NOx Technology
NOxAdsorber
UreaSCR
DeNOxCatalyst
AdvancedDiesel
Combustion
• Engine-Out NOx Measures Reduce Size / Cost of Aftertreatment
• Aftertreatment Options Need to be Evaluated for Maturity and Cost
• Combination of Engine Out and Aftertreatment may Provide Best NOx Reduction Value Path
TC
TC
ParticulateFilter
NOxAT
NOx ReductionNOx Reduction
Engine control
measures
EGRVariable geometry turbo-charger
Fuel injecti
on timing
Exhaust treatmen
t measures
urea-SCR
catalyst
NOx adsorbe
r
Active &
Passsive HC-deNOx
H S OV
urea
(NH2)2CO
Exhaust Gas
Hydrolysis Catalyst (H)
(NH2)2CO + H2O 2NH3 + CO2
SCR Catalyst (S)
4NH3 + 4NO + O2 4N2 + 6H2O
2NH3 + NO + NO2 2N2 + 3H2O
8NH3 + 6NO2 7N2 + 12H2O
Oxidation Catalyst (O)
4NH3 + 3O2 2N2 + 6H2O
Oxidation Catalyst (V)
2NO + O2 2NO2
4HC + 3O2 2CO2 + 2H2O
2CO + O2 2CO2
Urea-Selective Catalytic Urea-Selective Catalytic ReductionReduction
Source - AECC
2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010
EPA 98NOx = 4.0 P = 0.10
EPA 04NOx = 2.5 P = 0.10
EPA 07NOx = 0.25 P = 0.01
EURO IIINOx = 5.0 P = 0.10
Combined
EURO III-IV
EURO IVNOx = 3.5 P = 0.02
EURO VNOx=2.0 P=0.02
Diesel 15 ppm
Diesel 50/10 ppm
g/bhp-hr
g/kW-hr
Consent Decree
10/02
10/05 10/08
Close Linkage Between Vehicle Emissions Close Linkage Between Vehicle Emissions Standards and Fuel Sulfur LevelsStandards and Fuel Sulfur Levels
EPAEPA
EUROEURO
15 months Caterpillar,Cummins,Detroit Diesel,Volvo,Mack Trucks/RenaultNavistar
-80% -80%
0%
-35%
0%
PM HC NOx Noise-90%
-80%
-70%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
Level B Level C
19931994
19951996
19971998
19992000
20012002
20032004
20051995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
No Retrofit
Level B Only
Levels B&C
Swedish Retrofit ProgramAll Trucks Above 3.5 Tons
Very Low Sulfur Fuel Dominates The Market
Measurement results indicate that Diesel PM levels have been significantly reduced.
( With cooperation from the Bureau of Construction )
Cancer-causing agents
Up to - 58%
Carbon (EC)- 49%
Comparison of two two-day periods Mar. 11-12, 2001 (Left bars, black and yellow)
Nov. 9-10, 2003 (Right bars, black and yellow)
Comparison of two two-month periods Sept.-Oct. 2001 (Left bar) Sept.-Oct. 2003 (Right bar)
Carbon (EC)
- 30%
Cancer-ausing agents- 36%
Comparison of two six-day periods Sept.-Oct. 2000 (Left bar) Oct.- Nov. 2003 (Right bar)
Meguro St. roadside(By Prof. Uchiyama of
Kyoto University)
Osakabashi Air Monitoring Station
Iogi Tunnel ( Loop 8 ) ( Emissions reduced per vehicle )
RoadsideAutomobile tunnel
Without WithWeather influence
( By the Research Institute for Environmental Protection )
Metropolitan in-Use Diesel Program
New York City Retrofit New York City Retrofit ExperienceExperience
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
CO2 NOx THC CO PM CO2 N Ox THC CO PM
Perc
enta
ge
Ch
ang
e in
g/m
i
OEM Catalyst / ULSD (50 ppm S) fuel
CRT Catalyst / ULSD (50 ppm S) fuel
NYC Bus ID# 6019 NYC Bus ID# 6065
General Regulatory ApproachGeneral Regulatory Approach
• Retrofit mid-aged engines– Filters 85% PM – Catalysts 25% PM – Other 50% PM typical
• Replace older engines– Re-power– New vehicle
Verified Devices and ApplicationsVerified Devices and Applications
Type #1 PM NOx Years1 On/off
Filter 5 85 1994-2004 On
Filter 3 85 25-40 1993-2003 On
Filter 1 50 1991-1993 On
Fuel 2 50 15 1996-2002 On
Ox catalyst 2 25 1973-2003 On
Ox catalyst 2 25 25-80 1991-1998 On
Filter 1 85 1996-2004 Off
Fuel+ox cat. 1 50 20 1996-2002 Off
Ox catalyst 1 25 1994-2002 Off7/05 1 Individual devices may have a more limited model year application
Cost of Retrofits in CaliforniaCost of Retrofits in California
• Passive filter $8500
• Flow through filter $5000
• Catalyst $2000
• Cost benefit ratio1 > 4:1
1 Based on trash truck rule
Experience With RetrofitsExperience With Retrofits
# of Retrofits
Transit bus ~1000
Trash truck >1000
School bus >2000
Cost Estimates for Retrofit Cost Estimates for Retrofit TechnologiesTechnologies
Technology Cost per Device/System ($)
Diesel Oxidation Catalysts (DOC) 500 to 2,000
Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) 3,000 to 5,500Combined Lean NOx Catalyst/DPF Systems 5,000 to 10,000
EGR Systems 13,000 to 15,000
SCR Systems 10,500 to 50,000
Note: DPF costs are higher for active systems and systems that include backpressure monitoring.
Retrofit Technology Verification Retrofit Technology Verification ProgramProgram
• Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and CARB– EPA recognizes and accepts those retrofit hardware strategies or device-
based systems that have been verified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
• Retrofit technologies to reduce PM and NOx emissions currently verified Retrofit technologies to reduce PM and NOx emissions currently verified by EPA & CARB:by EPA & CARB: – DPFs, DOCs, Crankcase Filtration, Emulsified Fuel, Biodiesel, EGR and DPFs, DOCs, Crankcase Filtration, Emulsified Fuel, Biodiesel, EGR and
SCR systems.SCR systems.
• Information about EPA’s Verification program: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit/retroverifiedlist.htm
Conclusions Regarding Conclusions Regarding RetrofitsRetrofits
• A wide variety of retrofit options are available for all types of diesel engines to reduce HC, CO, PM and toxic emissions
• NOx retrofit controls are emerging- Technology development continues to expand the range of applications available for retrofit
• A successful retrofit program must be properly designed and implemented
• States as well as the Federal government are responsible for making diesel emission reductions possible
Average Grocery Truck Emissions, CSHVR(1&2)
0.78
0.41
0.27
2
0.19
7
0.01
0.35
0.00
3
0.15
0.34
0.00
1
0.24
0.30
0.01
0
0.01
1
Bel
ow
Det
ecti
on
Lim
it
Bel
ow
Det
ecti
on
Lim
it0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
CO/10 NOx/100 HC PM
Em
iss
ion
s,
g/m
ile
CARB Fuelw/o DPF2000
2001
2002
ULSD with Johnson Matthey CRTTM
Retrofit Retrofit Durability & ReliabilityDurability & Reliability
Average Grocery Truck Emissions, CSHVR(1&2)
0.78
0.41
0.27
2
0.19
7
0.03
0.32
0.00
3
0.51
0.29
0.00
2
0.01
4
0.37
0.18
0.04
2
0.02
8
Bel
ow
Det
ecti
on
Lim
it0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
CO/10 NOx/100 HC PM
Em
issi
ons,
g/m
ile
CARB Fuelw/o DPF
2000
2001
2002*
ULSD with Engelhard DPXTM
Retrofit Retrofit Durability & ReliabilityDurability & Reliability
Natural Gas VehiclesNatural Gas Vehicles• Very Low Emissions• Good Performance• Lower Cost Fuel
• Limited Range, but Adequate for Most Applications
• Few Refueling Stations• Higher Cost Vehicle
Ford Crown Victoria Ford F-150
Honda Civic New Flyer D40 LF Bus
Emissions Test Results - CRT vs. CNG Emissions Test Results - CRT vs. CNG CBD CycleCBD Cycle
CRT CNG0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
CRT CNG0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
CRT CNG0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
CRT CNG0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0.05
Mas
s E
mis
sio
ns
(g/m
ile)
PM CO NOxTHC
0.024
0.017 9.81
0.12 0.015
16.26 25.1
23.68
Emissions Test Results - CRT vs. CNG Emissions Test Results - CRT vs. CNG NY Bus CycleNY Bus Cycle
CRT CNG02468
1012141618202224262830323436384042444648505254565860
CRT CNG0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
CRT CNG0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
CRT CNG0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
Mas
s E
mis
sio
ns
(g/m
ile)
PM CO NOxTHC
0.037
0.07
32.9
0.23 0.06
66.6
73.3
51.86
CRT CNG0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.7
3
3.3
Carbonyl
2.937
0.00
NYC ConclusionsNYC ConclusionsClean Diesel vs. CNGClean Diesel vs. CNG
• PM emissions from CRT-equipped buses appear to be about equivalent to those from CNG buses– Average PM emissions with CNG is lower on CBD cycle,
but higher on NY Bus cycle
– Much wider range of values with CNG, especially on NY Bus cycle
• CO and HC emissions from CRT-equipped buses are much lower than those from CNG buses
• NOx emissions are generally lower from CNG buses than from CRT-equipped buses, but show a wider range of variability
• Carbonyl emissions from CNG buses are much higher than from CRT-equipped buses.
RATP Emissions Tests: RATP Emissions Tests: Distribution of Particulate Size Distribution of Particulate Size
Diamètre en µm
Mas
s in
µg
Diameter in µm
ULSD with particulate filter
CNG
LPG
ULSD
Fuel DiversityFuel Diversity• Increase alternative fuel use in urban fleets.• Use gas-to-liquids.• Develop hydrogen infrastructure to support
fuel cell commercialization.
SmartWay TransportSmartWay Transport(Freight Sector)(Freight Sector)
• Objective: – Eliminate unnecessary idling from trucks and locomotives– Target federal and state fleets for major PM reductions– Create diesel emission reduction projects at borders– Create demand for lower emission freight services
• Freight traffic exists on highways, at ports and on construction sites
• SmartWay Transport challenges trucking companies to improve the environmental performance of their fleets– Emphasis on saving fuel and greenhouse gas emission reductions as well
as PM, NOx, and toxics– New SmartWay Ad Campaign launched– FY05 $5 million anti-idling grant competition
top related