report - dearman...treatment of zero-emission trus. o develop a grant structure for infrastructure...

1 609/001 2.3

PROJECT

Temperature Controlled Transport in Leeds

10/09/2018

Independent, not-for-profit, low emission vehicle and energy for transport experts

A Study of Air Quality and Climate Change Emissions from Temperature Controlled Transport in Leeds

REPORT

2 609/001 2.3

Prepared for:

Robert Curtis, Leeds City Council [email protected] Florian Wagner, Commercial Manager, Dearman [email protected]

Prepared by:

Dominic Scholfield Associate Technical Specialist

Approved by:

Steve Carroll Head of Transport

Cenex Advanced Technology Innovation Centre Oakwood Drive Loughborough Leicestershire LE11 3QF

Registered in England No. 5371158 VAT Registered No: 933596983

Tel: 01509 635 750 Fax: 01509 635 751 Email: [email protected]

Twitter: @CenexLCFC Website: www.cenex.co.uk

Disclaimer

Cenex has exercised all reasonable skill and care in the performance of our services and we shall be liable only to the extent we are in breach of such obligation. While the information is provided in good faith, the ideas presented in the report must be subject to further investigation, and take into account other factors not presented here, before being taken forward. Cenex shall not in any circumstances be liable in contract, or otherwise for (a) any loss of investment, loss of contract, loss of production, loss of profits, loss of time or loss of use; and/or (b) any consequential or indirect loss sustained by the Client or any third parties.

Document Revisions

No. Details Date

1.0 First Draft for comment 19/07/2018

2.0 – 2.2 Final drafts 23/08/2018

2.3 Version for publication 10/09/2018

http://www.cenex.co.uk/

3 609/001 2.3

Contents

1 Table of abbreviations ............................................................................ 4

2 Executive summary ................................................................................ 5

3 Introduction ........................................................................................... 8

4 Temperature controlled transport ......................................................... 9

4.1 Diesel auxTRU ................................................................................................................. 9

4.2 Liquid nitrogen and the Dearman auxTRU ........................................................................ 9

4.3 Alternator connected TRUs ............................................................................................ 11

5 TCT Fleet and operations in Leeds ........................................................ 12

5.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 12

6 Emissions from a diesel auxiliary TRU................................................... 18

7 Leeds TCT fleet emissions estimation ................................................... 25

7.1 Air quality emissions ...................................................................................................... 25

7.2 Greenhouse gas emissions ............................................................................................. 31

8 Total cost of ownership analysis of Dearman TRU ............................... 32

8.1 Methodology and assumptions ...................................................................................... 32

8.2 Operating costs ............................................................................................................. 32

9 Impact of best practise on TRU emissions ............................................ 33

10 Policy, barriers and action plan ............................................................ 35

11 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 37

Leeds TCT Study Report

4 609/001 2.3

1 Table of abbreviations

AltTRU Alternator or Power Take-off Driven Transport Refrigeration Unit

AuxTRU Auxiliary Transport Refrigeration Unit

ANPR Automatic Number Plate Recognition

AQ Air Quality

CAZ Clean Air Zone

CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalence (including other greenhouse gases)

DVLA Driver Vehicle Licencing Authority

DVSA Driver Vehicle Standards Authority

ETS Electronic Tracking Systems

FORS Freight Operator Recognition Scheme

GVW Gross Vehicle Weight

GWP Global Warming Potential

HC Hydrocarbon

HGV Heavy Goods Vehicles

HVAC Heating Ventilation and Cooling

LCC Leeds City Council

LiN Liquified Nitrogen

NO Nitrogen Oxide

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide

NOx Oxides of Nitrogen

NRMM Non-Road Mobile Machinery

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer

PM Particulate Matter

PTO Power Take Off

TCO Total Cost of Ownership

TCT Temperature Controlled Transport

TfL Transport for London

TRL Technology Readiness Level

TRU Transport Refrigeration Unit

ULEZ Ultra-Low Emission Zone

WLC Whole Life Costs

WTW Well to Wheel

ZE Zero Emission


5 609/001 2.3

2 Executive summary

Leeds City Council and the Dearman Engine Company commissioned Cenex to investigate and report on the air quality and CO2 impacts of temperature-controlled transport (TCT) in Leeds, the potential for zero emission alternatives and to develop policy recommendations to encourage the use of zero emission temperature-controlled transport within Leeds and the UK.

Leeds City Council have recently consulted on the implementation of a Class B Clean Air Zone (CAZ) within its outer-ring road, meaning that commercial vehicles, taxis and buses will be incentivised to use only the latest emissions standard (Euro6/VI) vehicle whilst driving in the proposed CAZ. This study therefore focused on the quantifying temperature-controlled transport use within the proposed Leeds CAZ.

This study drew on results of a typical trailer mounted diesel-powered transport refrigeration unit (TRU) emission tested in a laboratory environment by portable emission testing (PEMs) experts, Emission Analytics, over representative operating states. This information was used to estimate the emissions and cost impact of TRUs in real-world operating patterns within the proposed Leeds CAZ. Key findings of the study are:

Leeds TCT fleet: Around 30,750 commercial vehicles enter the proposed Leeds CAZ each day, 750 (2%) of these are TCT vehicles, with around half being over 18t GVW and suitable for the Dearman liquid nitrogen (LiN) TRU. Whilst the total HGV fleet in Leeds is 20% Euro VI compliant, the overall commercial vehicle fleet (including vans) is just 4% Euro 6/VI compliant.

Air quality emission testing: Under laboratory emissions testing, a trailer mounted diesel powered TRU emitted between 16 and 22 grams of NOx per litre of fuel consumed. When compared to real-world emission testing of a Euro VI truck, the TRU emitted between 25 to 66 times more NOx per litre of fuel consumed, dependent on its operating state. Clearly a TRU consumes less fuel per day than a truck, therefore when compared on a distance travelled basis, the diesel TRU was estimated to emit around 5 times more NOx per km than a Euro VI diesel truck. Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM) standards regulate emissions from the auxiliary engines that are used to power transport refrigeration units. Data captured during the testing allowed an indicative assessment of the TRU’s compliance against the NRMM standards. This analysis showed that the engine on test could have emitted between 4.1 and 5.0 g/kWh of engine shaft power, dependent on its operating state. Although only indicative, this analysis suggests that this engine meets (and exceeds) the current NRMM Stage IIIA emission standard when in real-world operation, and indeed may also meet the NRMM stage V emission standard due in 2019 with little modification. For the engine tested, this indicates that real-world emissions from TRUs may not get cleaner on the introduction of NRMM Stage V as they are already within, or close to, compliance limits.

Emissions in Leeds: Using the current fleet and Euro standard mix operational in Leeds, refrigeration was estimated to account for around 37% of NOx emissions from the TCT vehicle fleet, and 2% of NOx from goods vehicles overall within the proposed CAZ. Of this, Dearman units could be suitable for the majority of the 18t + fleet, resulting in an emission saving of 52kg NOx per day, which is 70% of all emissions from TRUs in Leeds. When considering a 2020 scenario with the implementation of a Class B CAZ (which Leeds estimate will result in 87% compliance with the Euro VI emission standard), refrigeration would then account for around 54% of all NOx emissions from TCT vehicles as traction engines emissions reduce.

An indicative desktop assessment of emissions from alternator connected TRUs operating in city centres showed that across the current fleet, where a mix of Euro standards exist, NOx emissions


6 609/001 2.3

could be similar between an auxiliary engine and a traction engine (due to poor performance of emission after-treatment at low vehicle speeds). When compare to a Euro VI truck, alternator driven TRUs also connected to a Euro VI vehicle could reduce NOx emissions by around 90%. However, these are only indicative figures as this study also highlighted that there is a lack of evidence, and conflicting information on the emission performance of alternator connected TRUs, which should be subject to further independent study.

Operating costs: A whole life cost model of the Dearman refrigeration unit was developed. Use of the current technology version resulted in a 20% cost increase, while a more fuel-efficient version, currently being bench tested and due for wider commercial release post 2020, reduced the cost increase to just 10% (including infrastructure provision). The main cost barrier identified was that an auxiliary engine can operate on low-cost red diesel, which makes it difficult to compete with economically. The UK government has recently closed (24th July 2018) a call for evidence into whether red diesel for non-road mobile machinery discourages the purchase of cleaner alternatives, which may or may not result in a policy change. Assuming that the use of red diesel is prohibited in TRUs, then the broad picture is that the Dearman unit currently undergoing bench testing would yield a 20% (£2,000 per annum) cost saving compared to a diesel unit on a whole life cost basis.

Policy recommendations: The following policy steps are recommended as a result of this study.

o Further research

o There is very little data on TCT operations, and technology performance. National government should instigate a real-world trial of alternative TRUs to create a working knowledge of the technology costs, emissions and operational factors. Results should be used to inform policy and any potential grant structure.

o Instigate a Portable Emission Testing (PEMs) testing programme to develop an evidence base for air quality emissions from diesel TRUs (both alternator connected and diesel auxiliary TRUs).

o Instigate a feasibility study into the solutions required to police any incentives designed to promote the use of zero emission TRUs – e.g., a system to recognise the types of TRU attached to trailers.

o Policy considerations

o Remove the allowance for auxiliary engines powering TRUs to operate on red diesel. This will improve the business case for, and accelerate the development and deployment of, low emission TRUs.

o Remove auxiliary TRU engines from NRMM and classify them as a road engine – which would ensure that emissions from a TRU are comparable to emissions from the traction engine.

o Implement preferential and out of hours access for low emission, low noise TCTs, and review policy options with TCT and local authority stakeholders for preferential treatment of zero-emission TRUs.

o Develop a grant structure for infrastructure to support zero emission operation of TRUs. This would include alternative fuel infrastructure and plug-in points at depots to allow TRUs to operate on electricity whilst unloading. This could be investigated in line with


7 609/001 2.3

reviewing the legislation in other countries, such as California, that are introducing idle restrictions on auxiliary TRU engines.

o General best practise

o Develop toolkits and guidance documents to encourage best practice operations in TCT transport: these can include alternative technology information, case studies, advising industry on factors such as vehicle body colour, curtains, reduced door openings etc. The technology guidance would also need to include an initial research step to develop the required evidence for guidance. Compliance with best practice can be linked with the Freight Operator Recognition Scheme (FORS).

Conclusions: Emissions from TCT are a growing concern as air quality rises up the political agenda, motive engines become cleaner and cities start to regulate against older, more polluting vehicles entering their boundaries. In this environment it is difficult to envisage a near future where restrictions are not placed on the types of TRUs allowed to enter cities. This has already started in California with the introduction of anti-idling laws for TRUs.

The Dearman product is well placed to provide a solution for TRU emissions for heavier vehicles. The current premium cost of owning the unit appears to be easily reversed with the introduction of incentives such as removing the use of red diesel in TCT, or access charges for auxiliary engines operating on diesel.

What was clear throughout the study is the limited data set available on TCT operations and performance. Whilst emissions testing has been undertaken in this project, a much more thorough and rigorous approach at scale to study and collect independent evidence on real-world performance (costs, emissions, integration issues, barriers, infrastructure requirements etc.) of current and alternative TRU technologies is required. This could be provided by a large-scale government-supported technology development and demonstration trial.


8 609/001 2.3

3 Introduction

Leeds City Council (LCC) and Dearman Engine Company commissioned Cenex to undertake an independent investigation in the environmental impacts of temperature-controlled transport (TCT) in Leeds, the potential for zero emission alternatives and develop policy recommendation to encourage the use of zero emission (ZE) TCT within Leeds and the UK.

Outdoor air pollution contributes to around 40,000 early deaths a year in the UK, according to the Royal Colleges of Physicians and of Paediatrics and Child Health. In July 2017, the UK government released the UK Plan for tackling roadside Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) concentrations. This plan requires local authorities to take action to reduce the annual mean average values to under the 40µg/m3 statutory limit. NO2 is found in the NOx (oxides of nitrogen) emissions from transport, so improving transport emissions is a major part of this plan. In total, 28 local authorities and London have been mandated to produce a plan to reduce air quality pollution; London has begun steps with its ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) and toxicity charge. Leeds, Nottingham, Derby, Birmingham and Southampton have all been mandated to introduce a clean air zone (CAZ). Leeds have recently consulted on the implementation of a Class B CAZ within its outer-ring road, meaning that commercial vehicles, taxis and buses will be incentivised to use only the latest emissions standard (Euro6/VI) engines whilst driving in the proposed CAZ.

Diesel auxiliary engines are frequently used to power transport refrigeration units (TRUs), primarily for the distribution of chilled and frozen consumable goods in TCT. Emissions from TRUs are regulated by Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM) standards. However, these standards are widely considered as insufficient to protect public health in cities. Policy development around TRUs is hindered by a lack of data on their energy usage and emissions.

Dearman Engine Company has developed a TRU powered by liquid nitrogen (LiN), offering a TRU which is ZE at point of use, which is particularly suited to larger (18t+) vehicles.

This study focuses on the quantifying TCT use and emissions within the proposed Leeds CAZ and the potential for emission reduction through the use of ZE options such as the Dearman engine.

This work was undertaken in part requirement of a DEFRA air quality grant awarded to LCC and Dearman.


9 609/001 2.3

4 Temperature controlled transport

The main TRU technologies discussed in this report are briefly outlined in this chapter.

4.1 Diesel auxTRU

A typical diesel-powered auxiliary transport refrigeration unit (auxTRU) unit is shown below in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Typical diesel auxTRU unit (source: Thermo King)

Figure 1 shows a generic auxTRU and some of the key components. Typically, a diesel-powered auxiliary engine operates a refrigerant loop where (like a domestic fridge or freezer) a working fluid (known as a refrigerant) is pumped around a circuit. The refrigerant is first compressed in the condenser and then relieved through an expansion valve into an evaporator where it undergoes a pressure drop. Fluid expansion in this pressure drop creates a cooling effect which is then used to cool air which is blown into the vehicle body to maintain a low temperature. Many auxTRUs can also run from electrical power when at the depot. Connecting the TRU to an electricity supply in this way is referred to as cold ironing.

4.2 Liquid nitrogen and the Dearman auxTRU

Several companies provide alternatives to diesel driven TRUs which make use of cryogenic liquids, usually liquid nitrogen, at a temperature of -196°C. Basic systems simply make use of the intense cold of the cryogenic liquid to cool air circulated from the chilled compartment via a heat


10 609/001 2.3

exchanger. By contrast the Dearman engine improves on the efficiency of basic systems by using the phase change expansion as the liquid turns to gas, as well as simply transferring heat to the gas.

When liquid nitrogen absorbs heat and its temperature rises above -196°C, it turns to gas. The volume of the gas (at atmospheric pressure) is 694 times that of the liquid, so if this phase change happens in a confined space, a lot of pressure is generated.

Simple cryogenic systems allow liquid nitrogen to absorb heat, expand, and then vent to the atmosphere in an uncontained manner. The Dearman engine injects the liquid nitrogen and heat (via a heat exchange fluid) into the cylinder of a piston engine. The heat is transferred to the nitrogen causing it to evaporate in the same way as in other systems, but the pressure generated by this process is also used to generate shaft power, which is used to drive a refrigerant cycle in the same way as the engine in a conventional TRU. Thus both cryogenic methods of heat exchange uses Liquid nitrogen, only the Dearman system makes use of the expansion and therefore its overall cooling efficiency is greatly improved.

The Dearman Engine is currently suitable for application on rigid type delivery vehicles and can pull down compartment temperatures from +15°C to -21°C in under 30 minutes. Table 1 provides Dearman’s specification for the TRU. A key advantage of the Dearman TRU us its ability to undertake near-silent operation.

Figure 2: The Dearman Engine as installed on a rigid delivery vehicle


11 609/001 2.3

Dearman Zero-Emission TRU

Compatibility 18t + Rigid trucks

Chilled compartments 1 – 2 chiller compartments

Cooling capacity 16 kW @ -20°C

Pull down rate < 30 mins +15°C to. -21°C

Operating capacity 1 to 2 days, duty cycle dependent

Noise < 60 dB(A)

NOx and PM emission Zero

CO2 reduction 30-85% well to wheel

Table 1: Dearman Zero-Emission TRU specification

The Dearman system is capable of supporting multi-temperature distribution configured vehicles, or the more traditional single temperature compartments. A limiting factor of the technology is the weight and space required to fit the Dearman TRU. Comparative Thermoking TRUs have a fully fuelled weight of around 880 kgs, with the current Dearman technology being twice as heavy as this (including the LiN). To avoid a reduction in cargo volume due to the size of the engine and LiN tank, Dearman package their LiN-TRU to sit below the chassis of the vehicle. These factors, coupled with the power output and costs of the engine, mean that the unit is most suited to heavier vehicles, and applicable to vehicles of 18t GVW and greater. It should be noted that a nose-mount version of the Dearman system is currently in development and will be available by 2019.

The Dearman unit is currently in a customer testing phase, available for fleet trial and purchase with strong field support from Dearman. A higher-volume commercially available version of their product is expected to be available from 2019.

4.3 Alternator connected TRUs

Electric transport refrigeration units (also called alternator units, PTO units or direct drive units, and here referred to collectively as altTRUs) use an electric motor to drive the refrigeration unit. PTO units can be powered by an additional on-board battery for brief periods of time, a direct drive connected to the alternator, or a power take off drive shaft. They can be plugged in during depot stops or delivery stops which makes it possible to have zero emission and near silent running deliveries. The emission performance of these units should be superior to auxTRUs as they use the more heavily regulated traction engine for power. These units are extensively used and hold near 100% of the market in 3.5t and smaller vehicles, and significant market share in other weight categories. There is limited adoption in articulated trailers due to infrastructure requirements as large TCT trailers are required to maintain low temperatures for up to 24 hours a day, while the traction engine may be switched off during deliveries. AltTRUs are considered in this report due to their popularity in some sectors of the TCT cold chain.


12 609/001 2.3

5 TCT Fleet and operations in Leeds

This section estimates the size of the TCT fleet operating in Leeds and the proposed CAZ, the type of vehicles and the typical TCT duty cycle

5.1 Methodology

Key steps

Methodology

• ANPR data from the inner ring road in Leeds was used to assess the make-up of the goods vehicle fleet, proportion of insulated vehicles, and composition in terms of Euro standard;

• A relationship between the UK vehicle stock and activity (in this case population and number of businesses) were established. This factor was used to increase the number of vehicles caught on ANPR cameras to those likely to service the proposed CAZ, whilst keeping the fleet mix proportionate;

• The number of insulated trailers was not available from ANPR data, therefore articulated vehicles pulling insulated trailers were estimated from the number of food premises, specifically supermarket numbers, in the proposed CAZ;

• The vehicle fleet was divided into four representative classes, and fleet manager interviews and literature review used to assess a ‘typical’ duty cycle for each vehicle class;

• The number of insulated vehicles with auxTRUs and altTRUs were estimated.

The total size and make-up of the chilled distribution fleet operating in Leeds was determined. Furthermore, in order to assess the emissions associated with this fleet in the proposed CAZ, it was necessary to estimate the proportion of these vehicles with auxTRUs, and the typical duty cycle of the vehicles in terms of speed, distance travelled, and number of drops made.

The following data sources were used to complete this part of the project:

• Literature review;

• Fleet operator interviews;

• ANPR data;

• Public records of licensed food service premises in Leeds; and

• Average vehicle speeds on the Leeds road network.

Leeds Proposed CAZ For reference, the map below shows the proposed CAZ (outer ring) and the inner ring road (inner ring), plus all the licensed food premises (dots). Please note that the outline for the CAZ has since been amended as a result of public consultation, however the effect of this on the results contained in this report and its conclusions would be negligible.


13 609/001 2.3

Figure 3: Map of Leeds showing proposed CAZ (outer ring) and the city centre ring road (inner ring).

ANPR data was reviewed. Two sets of data were collected in Leeds, on two different weeks. One set was from cameras around the city, and the second set was from four camera locations on the inner ring road at the centre of the city. The inner ring road cameras recorded more vehicles per day than the cameras spread around the rest of the city. Therefore, these data were assumed to provide a good estimate of the proportionate breakdown of the fleet by Euro standard, and the proportion of insulated vehicles (excluding artics), but to underestimate the total number of vehicles entering the city per day, as not all journeys will include the inner ring road.

Activity related vehicle number estimate. To assess the scale of the ANPR underestimation, three different estimates were made of the likely number of vehicles entering the proposed CAZ per day: one used the proportion of the UK population living in Leeds and applied this to the total UK vehicle fleet, one used the proportion of UK businesses in Leeds, and one used a bottom up approach based on the full list of licensed food premises in the proposed CAZ and likely numbers of vehicles delivering to them each day. All three estimates produced similar numbers, so an average was taken of all three and the ANPR vehicle per day numbers were scaled up accordingly.

Estimating the number of insulated vehicles. As well as the total number of goods vehicles, the number of vehicles with insulated bodies was extracted from the data, based on Department for Transport records. Numbers of insulated bodies are not available for articulated vehicles, as this depends on the trailer the vehicle is towing – the number of articulated tractor units with chilled trailers was instead calculated from the number of supermarkets in the study area, see explanation below. In addition to the above, interviews with representatives of supermarket fleets were used to


14 609/001 2.3

examine the typical use of articulated chilled vehicles, allowing for a bottom up estimate of their numbers. Based on the interviews, it was established that around one artic per day is required per 6,000 sq. ft. of store space. This information was combined with online research into the number and type of supermarkets in the Leeds CAZ area to estimate the number of insulated artics likely to be entering on a typical day.

Table 2 below shows the total numbers of vehicles of different weights and body types captured by the inner ring road cameras over the course of a week. It also shows the average number of unique vehicles captured per weekday.

Weight class Per day:

All goods

Per day:

Insulated

Van <3.5t 9,489 110

3.5-7.5t Rigid 465 35

7.5-12t Rigid 53 1.8

12-14t Rigid 27 2

14-20t Rigid 366 42

20-26t Rigid 230 21

26-28t Rigid 2 1

28-32t Rigid 167 0

32+t Rigid 7 0

20-28t Artic 27 NA

28-34t Artic 18 NA

34-40t Artic 43 NA

40-50t Artic 236 NA

Table 2: Breakdown of all vehicles recorded by ANPR cameras in Leeds by weight category

Dividing into representative classes. Based on the fleet composition, it was decided to divide the fleet into four representative vehicle types to make for a more practical analysis. Vans (all vehicles <= 3.5t) were the largest group. The majority of vehicles heavier than 3.5t and up to and including 7.5t were in fact 7.5t, and these formed the second group – these vehicles were typically Iveco Daily or Mercedes Sprinters, both commonly used by supermarket fleets for home deliveries. Of the rigid vehicles greater than 7.5t, almost all were either 18t or 26t, with 18t accounting for around 60%, so these were all combined and represented in analysis by 18t vehicle class. Finally, the majority of articulated vehicles were rated to approximately 40t, so all artics were combined into this group.

The original ANPR data, amalgamated into four representative vehicle classes, is shown in Table 2 below.


15 609/001 2.3

Weight class Per day:

All goods

Per day:

Insulated (% of total fleet)

Van <3.5t 25,481 252 (1%)

7.5t 1,249 97 (8%)

18t 2,288 202 (9%)

Artic 1,736 201 (12%)

Total 30,754 752 (2%)

Table 3: Fleet numbers and vehicles per day, amalgamated into four representative classes

Typical duty cycle. Details of the typical daily operation of chilled vehicles were derived from stakeholder interviews. In total the fleet managers of 15 fleets were contacted, along with representatives of chilled distribution industry bodies. The findings were combined with information gathered during the Auxiliary Transport Refrigeration Units in the Greater London Area study (the London Study)1. The key points addressed were:

• The proportion of vehicles in each representative group that use an auxiliary TRU;

• Typical annual mileage and daily number of deliveries made by each vehicle type;

• Typical fuel consumption of each vehicle type;

The average speed of the TCT fleet were established from data logged on five vans operating in the proposed CAZ over a four-month period. Figure 4 and Figure 5 below shows the average vehicle speeds across the proposed CAZ segregated by a 1-mile fishnet grid.

1 Auxiliary Temperature Reduction Units in the Greater London Area, TfL, http://content.tfl.gov.uk/auxiliary-

temperature-reduction-units-in-the-greater-london-area.pdf

Figure 4: Average vehicle speeds (kph) in and around the proposed CAZ

Figure 5: Red dot per speed recording (over 1,000,000 speed points)

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/auxiliary-temperature-reduction-units-in-the-greater-london-area.pdf



16 609/001 2.3

Since artics typically have very few drops in the area and use the most efficient road network to reach their destination, it were assumed that they would travel at the average speed of the road network, with the average speed reducing in line with the number of drops and vehicles size. Average speed was used to calculate the proportion of time vehicles spend in the proposed CAZ and, importantly, the air quality emissions from the motive engine which were derived from COPERT speed related emission factors.

Table 4 below summarises the key data points with regard to the four representative classes of TCT vehicle.

Vehicle category Common uses Avg. stops per day in

CAZ

% using auxTRU

Estimated speed in

CAZ (km/h)

Van (<=3.5t)

Deliveries by independent producers to independent premises and supermarket home deliveries

23 0% 17.5

7.5t (>3.5t – 18t)

Supermarket home deliveries, independent commercial deliveries

16 25% 23.2

18t (Rigid 18t +)

Deliveries by larger commercial fleets to large premises and chains

6 50% 28.8

Artic

Deliveries to supermarkets

3 95% 34.5

Table 4: Summary of modelled ‘typical’ duty cycle for representative vehicle classes

Finally, the ANPR data was also used to break down the fleet by Euro standard, in order to allow the correct emissions factors to be applied in calculating the overall transport fleet emissions in the proposed CAZ. This breakdown is shown below.


17 609/001 2.3

Euro std All vans Insulated vans

All rigid Insulated rigid

All artic

0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1/I 1% 0% 1% 0% 0%

2/II 2% 1% 2% 1% 1%

3/III 15% 7% 17% 10% 5%

4/IV 28% 24% 17% 14% 9%

5/V 53% 68% 46% 57% 59%

6/VI 1% 0% 17% 18% 27%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 5: Breakdown of vehicles recorded by ANPR cameras in Leeds by Euro standard


18 609/001 2.3

6 Emissions from a diesel auxiliary TRU

This section reports the emissions and fuel consumption of an auxTRU under laboratory conditions

Key steps

• Independent tests were carried out by Cambridge Refrigeration Technology and Emissions Analytics in controlled conditions;

• The unit tested was a diesel auxiliary TRU installed into a 13.6m artic trailer;

• Tests were run at three ambient temperatures – 10°C, 20°C and 30°C;

• Tests consisted of a pull down, temperature maintenance and periods of stop-start operation;

• Target temperature in all tests was -20°C

• Emissions monitored were CO, CO2, NOx, PM2.5

Background and test equipment. As part of this project, independent emissions testing was carried out on a diesel fuelled auxiliary TRU. The tests were run by Cambridge Refrigeration Technology (CRT) in a controlled environment at their purpose-built test facility, and emissions measurement was carried out by Emissions Analytics.

The unit tested was an in-service 13.6m semi-trailer fitted with a Carrier Transicold Vector 1950MT refrigeration unit, as shown in Figure 6 below. The TRU had a refrigeration capacity of 18.2 kW at 0°C and 9.8 kW at -20°C when at high speed with an ambient temperature of 30°C. The tests were carried out between the 21st and 23rd May 2018. The testing programme was designed by Dearman.

Carrier Transicold Vector 1950MT auxiliary diesel TRU fitted to the semi-trailer

Interior of the trailer, which was set up for a single internal set temperature

Figure 6: Photographs of the trailer and TRU used for emissions testing

Emissions Analytics provided portable emissions measuring system (PEMS) equipment measuring the following:

• Carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2)


19 609/001 2.3

• Nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2)

• Oxides of nitrogen (NOx=NO + NO2)

• Particles (PM2.5)

• Fuel consumption (L/100km)

The equipment provided was a Sensors SEMTECH-LDV for gaseous emissions and a Pegasor Mi2 for particulates. Figure 7 below shows the installation of the equipment.

Figure 7: PEMS equipment installed on TRU

Test procedure. Each test cycle consisted of four phases. These were an initial ‘pull down’ from ambient to 0°C, followed by a period of temperature maintenance at 0°C, followed by a pull down to -20°C, followed by a period in which the set point was -20°C and the door of the trailer was opened for 10 minutes every 30 minutes (known as stop-start operation).

Three test cycles were carried out, with only the ambient temperature varied – one at 10°C, one at 20°C and one at 30°C. During the test at 10°C one extra element was added on the end of the test, a period of stop-start operation when the set point was lowered further to -25°C.

The length of the tests varied from four to five hours, depending on the length of the initial pull down (which took longer the higher the ambient temperature). Measurements were taken every 10 seconds.

Overall the test procedure was based on EN16440 part 5.6.7 which is the standardised procedure used in testing refrigerated trailers for regulatory purposes. The procedure was modified slightly by reducing the period of temperature maintenance to 1 hour, and repeating the test at 10°C and 20°C

ambient.

Test phases. Figure 8 to Figure 10 below are graphs showing the temperature both inside and outside the trailer under test during one of the TRU test cycles carried out.


20 609/001 2.3

Figure 8: Graph showing temperature during pull down phase of TRU test cycle

Figure 9: Graph showing temperature during maintenance phase of TRU test cycle


21 609/001 2.3

Figure 10: Graph showing temperature during second pull down and stop-start phases of TRU test cycle

As can be seen from the graphs, the ambient temperature in the test chamber shows a tendency to rise a little as a result of the waste heat pumped out by the TRU when it is under load.

Results. Table 6 shows some of the primary test results from every phase of the three tests conducted, for CO2, NOx and PM2.5.


22 609/001 2.3

Test number

Phase CO2 (g/s) NOx (g/s) PM2.5 (g/s)

Test 1 20°C pull down to Zero 3.8714 0.0268 0.0000337

Zero Continuous mode 2.349 0.0184 0.0000312

Zero pull down to -20°C 3.6365 0.0241 0.0000346

-20°C in stop/start mode 2.8665 0.0188 0.0000306

Average 3.0088 0.0206 0.0000319





20°C ambient rpt of -20°C in s/s mode

2.0115 0.0128 0.0000214

-25°C with stop/start 1.883 0.0119 0.0000215

Average 2.1776 0.0142 0.0000251





Average 2.8506 0.021 0.0000286

Table 6: Subset of primary test results from TRU testing

Result analysis - emissions in context

By applying an emission factor (2.578 kgCO2 / litre of diesel burnt) to the CO2 test results, the fuel consumed during each phase were calculated. This showed that, dependent on its operational state, the auxTRU emitted between 16 and 22 grams of NOx per litre of fuel consumed, and between 0.02 and 0.04g PM2.5. The measurement of NOx is put into context and discussed further below comparing this with real-world emission testing of trucks and the legislative standards. Emission testing standards apply total PM and as such is not directly comparable with PM2.5.

Compared to Euro VI. To put these emission test results into context they can be compared with emission testing of heavy goods vehicles similar to ones that may pull the trailer on test. Table 7 below shows the emissions from two Euro VI HGV Artics tested over three real-world drive cycles by the LowCVP in January 2017, with the final column showing the increase in emissions from the auxiliary engine compare with a Euro VI HGV engine.


23 609/001 2.3

Vehicle Duty cycle (avg. speed kph)

gNOx/km gNOx/litre Euro VI times lower

44t Artic 320 hp Euro VI

Urban delivery 0.20 0.41 39 - 54

Regional delivery 0.13 0.35 46 - 62

Long haul 0.11 0.34 48 - 66

44t Artic 460 hp Euro VI

Urban delivery 0.33 0.65 25 - 34

Regional delivery 0.22 0.50 32 - 44

Long haul 0.22 0.54 30 - 41

Table 7: gNOx per litre of fuel burnt comparison

The analysis above shows that the auxiliary engine on test emitted between 25 – 66 times more NOx than a Euro VI truck engine.

Compared to Euro V. Heavy duty Euro VI regulation introduced aggressive NOx reduction targets along with other new stringent testing conditions for truck emission (not to exceed limits and real-world emission testing) and is widely proven to be much more effective at reducing emissions in real-world scenarios compared with earlier Euro standards. The COPERT emission factors show that, on average, a Euro VI engine emits 15 times less NOx than a Euro V engine2. Applying this reduction factor gives a theoretical value that the auxiliary engine on test would emit between 1.7 to 4.4 times more NOx per litre of fuel burnt than a Euro V engine.

Compared to NRMM standard. The NRMM standards regulate emissions from the auxiliary engines that power transport refrigeration units. The engine unit tested was a Kubota 03-M Series rated at 35.9 kW and as such is legislated to comply with an emission limit of 7.5g HC+NOx / kWh of engine shaft power under the current NRMM Stage IIIA emission standards. It should be noted that NRMM Stage V emission limits are due to come into force in 2019 where the same engine will have a stricter compliance limit of 4.7g/kWh HC+NOx. By comparing the emissions per kWh from the project emission testing we can understand whether the engine on test meets with emission limits under real world operating scenarios. This analysis was conducted by Dearman engine company and peer reviewed by Cenex. Whilst engine power was not recorded during the emission testing, the engine on time and engine speed were recorded. By cross referencing engine speed against the manufacturers performance curve of the engine, the kWh could be estimated. Furthermore, because the compliance limits are for combined NOx + HC, and HC was not measured by emission analytics, the split of NOx and HC was assumed to be 2/3rds NOx – in line with the NRMM stage V standards for engines over 56kW where NOx and HC do have individual compliance limits.

This analysis gave an indicative figure that the engine on test could have emitted between 4.1 and 5.0 g HC+NOx /kWh dependent on it operating state. Although only indicative, this analysis suggests that this engine meets (and exceeds) the current NRMM Stage IIIA emission standard when in real-world operation and indeed may also meet the NRMM stage V emission standard due in 2019 with little modification. For the engine tested, this indicates that real-world emissions from

2 Artic at zero gradient, 50% load, average of SCR and EGR aftertreatment systems operating from 10 – 90 kph


24 609/001 2.3

auxTRUs may not get cleaner on the introduction of NRMM Stage V as they are already within or close to compliance limits.

% of primary NO2. NOx is made up NO and NO2. NO2 is the primary concern for human health in cities and the focus of the current CAZ legislation due to the UK not meeting legal limits for NO2 levels in many areas. Primary NO2 is released into the atmosphere directly from vehicles as a by-product of the fuel combustion process. Secondary NO2 is formed from NO under certain atmospheric conditions. NOx emissions are primarily made up of NO, but due to the fact that NOx has the potential to be converted to NO2, then total NOx is a concern. The emission testing showed that the primary NO2 released from the auxiliary engine constituted 4 – 16% of the total NOx dependent on the TRU’s operating state.


25 609/001 2.3

7 Leeds TCT fleet emissions estimation

The results from the testing of the auxiliary TRU were combined with the overall fleet data to estimate the total NOx and PM2.5 emissions within the Leeds CAZ area. In addition, total GHG

emissions from the insulated vehicle fleet operating in Leeds were estimated

Key steps

• Laboratory emission testing data were used to estimate emissions from a representative real-world cycle for an auxTRU;

• AuxTRU emissions were applied to a duty cycle model for each vehicle class, test data scaled by vehicle body volume;

• Motive engine emissions of NOx in proposed CAZ were calculated using COPERT emissions factors;

• AltTRU emissions in proposed CAZ calculated by scaling motive emissions by diesel consumption;

• GHG emissions calculated for vehicle fleet overall based on fuel use, and refrigerant leakage.

7.1 Air quality emissions

Estimating auxTRU emissions. The fuel consumption and emissions of TRUs are strongly affected by ambient temperature as well as other factors (for example door opening times, insulation and vehicle body colour). Climate records for Leeds were consulted, and a reference temperature of 10°C was recognised to be most representative of daytime conditions in the city over the whole year (tests having been conducted at 10, 20 and 30°C). Therefore, data for the pull down from 10°C were used. This test data was then used to estimate emissions from three different components of the overall TRU operation. These were the initial ‘pulldown’ of the insulated body temperature assumed to occur at a depot outside the proposed CAZ area, a period of temperature maintenance during the stem mileage, and a pulldown occurring after each delivery.

The temperature rise from a ‘typical’ delivery event (consisting of one longer or several short door openings) was estimated at around 6°C. This was observed in the TRU testing and is similar to other measurements in the literature. The diesel TRU took 14 minutes to pull the temperature back down to -20°C. Table 8 below shows the fuel consumption and emissions values for an auxTRU in a 13.6m artic trailer, as taken from the controlled testing results. These figures were taken as the representative altTRU cycle and form the basis of most of the emissions estimates.

Cycle element Diesel litre NOx g PM2.5 g

Pulldown 4.3 79.88 0.15

1hr Temp maintenance 2.7 66.27 0.1

Stop-start (door opening) 1.1 19.2 0.04

Table 8: Fuel consumption and emissions of auxiliary TRU in 13.6m trailer for different phases of duty cycle, at -20oC and 10oC ambient


26 609/001 2.3

Scaling of results to different size auxTRUs. As only test results for a 13.6m articulated trailers were collected, auxTRU emissions of the other vehicle classes were estimated by scaling according to load compartment volume. Although load compartment volume is not the only factor that will affect the TRU emissions, it is the main factor that varies systematically across the different vehicle classes. Due to uncertainly around the scaling factor, the key results discussed and concluded upon relate to the performance of the artics, as this is the class where test data were available.

Estimating emissions from engine driven TRUs. To estimate the total emissions from the Leeds TCT fleet, the fuel consumption for TRUs driven from the main vehicle engine by alternator or a power take off from the gearbox (PTO) must also be estimated. These units are referred to as altTRUs and have the advantage of using the vehicle’s motive engine to run the TRU unit. The disadvantage of such units is that TRU (and hence temperature control) cannot be operated when the engine is switched off without plugging the TRU into an external electricity supply. The manufacturers of such units claim a 50% fuel use reduction compared to auxiliary diesel units. This estimate seems high, and is likely due in large part to an assumption that the TRU will run on mains electricity while loading/unloading. Anecdotal evidence from fleets varies, with some fleets claiming similar fuel consumption to auxTRU units. In the absence of independent data a mid-point was selected and it was therefore estimated that such units would add an amount of diesel to the fuel consumption of the vehicle engine equating to 75% of the diesel that would be used by an auxiliary unit for the same operation. In calculating GHG emissions, this fuel consumption was applied to the stem mileage and delivery phases of the duty cycle, but not the initial pulldown at the point of origin. NOx emissions were assumed to be the same per litre of diesel consumed in the relevant phases of the duty cycle.

NOx emissions for the delivery phase of each vehicle’s duty cycle, i.e. that part taking part in the proposed CAZ, were calculated using the COPERT speed-related emissions factors. No adjustment was made to the emission factors to account for the difference in engine speed (and hence emissions) for a vehicle that is using its traction engine to provide cooling power as well as motive power. The overall emissions of the fleet were calculated by using the ANPR breakdown of the fleet by Euro standard to apply the correct emissions factors to the correct number of vehicles.

7.1.1 Results

Emission per vehicle per day in CAZ. Combining these results with the vehicle classes and their duty cycles, as estimated in Section 5, it is possible to estimate the NOx emissions per vehicle. Figure 11 below shows the NOx emissions per insulated vehicle per day in the CAZ – broken down to show the emissions from moving the vehicle and the emissions from the TRU, for both vehicles with auxTRUs and those driven from the alternator/PTO.


27 609/001 2.3

Figure 11: Per vehicle NOx emissions within the CAZ, for vehicles with auxiliary and alternator-driven TRUs

Emissions from altTRU vehicles are shown as see-through, as no evidence were available for these vehicles and the emissions estimate has a high margin of uncertainly. The graph shows that for the trailer type tested, the auxTRU accounts for 37% of the total NOx emissions from the Leeds auxTRU TCT vehicle fleet.

Emissions versus speed. The analysis above indicates that the average NOX emissions from the altTRUs are generally lower than those from auxTRU units. This goes against the conventional understanding of emission performance from these units, where emissions from a motive engine are expected to be significantly lower than an auxiliary TRU. This is like to be a factor of i) uncertainty around the actual fuel savings available from altTRUs and ii) this assessment used typical vehicle speeds based around vehicle performance in the Leeds CAZ, where average vehicles speeds are expected to be low, and the aftertreatment system of the vehicles is less effective, particularly on pre-Euro VI vehicles. Currently in Leeds 80% of the HGV fleet is below Euro VI.

This effect is demonstrated in the graph below (using the COPERT speed related emission factors) where it can be seen that a vehicle operating at low speeds emits significantly more NOx that higher speed operation, and that the Euro VI emission factors are an order of magnitude lower than Euro V emission factors.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Van 7.5 t 18 t Artic

NO

x (g

/day

/veh

icle

)

Per vehicle NOx emissions in proposed CAZ

Aux TRU (motive) Alt TRU (motive)

Aux TRU (temp control) Alt TRU (temp control)


28 609/001 2.3

The graph above shows that trucks operating at 20 – 30 kph emit 2 – 8 times more NOX per km dependent on the installed after-treatment type than when operating at 80 kph.

Total emission per day in CAZ. It can be seen in Table 9 that refrigeration is estimated to account for around 37% of NOx emissions from insulated vehicles, and 2% of NOx from goods vehicles overall. Of this, the Dearman units could be suitable for the majority of the 18t + fleet, resulting in an emission saving of 52kg NOx per day, or 70% of all TRU emissions.

Vehicle class Van 7.5 t 18 t Artic All Unit

All vehicles

Total NOx emissions per day in CAZ 1981 190 704 533 3409 kg/day

Total PM2.5 emissions per day in CAZ 48 3 8 6 65 kg/day

Insulated vehicles

Motive NOx emissions per day in CAZ 20 10 44 47 121 kg/day

NOx emissions from altTRUs per day in CAZ 11 6 13 1 30 kg/day

NOx emissions from auxTRUs per day in CAZ

0 3 11 26 40 kg/day

Refrigeration NOx emissions as % of NOx from insulated fleet

35% 44% 35% 37% 37%

Refrigeration NOx emissions as % of NOx from whole fleet

1% 4% 3% 5% 2%

Table 9: NOx emissions from all goods vehicles and from the insulated fleet

0

5

10

15

20

25

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

NO

x em

issi

on

s (g

/km

)

Average drive cycle speed (kph)

COPERT speed related emission factors (gNOx/km)

Artic Euro VI

Artic Euro V (SCR emission after-treatment system)

Artic Euro V (EGR emission after-treatment system)

Figure 12: Euro VI and V COPERT emission factors by average vehicle speed


29 609/001 2.3

Comparison against Euro VI in the proposed CAZ Leeds are considering the implementation of a Class B CAZ. This would include a financial disincentive for operators of HGVs (>3.5t GVW) to operate anything below a Euro VI compliant vehicle from 2020. Using the same inputs as the analysis above, Figure 13 below shows the NOx emissions from TCT for just Euro 6/VI compliant vehicles.

Figure 13: Per vehicle NOx emissions from insulated vehicles within the CAZ once all vehicles are EuroVI

The figure shows that incentivising Euro VI compliance would have a large effect on the emission from the motive engines. Previous analysis showed that the NOx emissions from the Leeds population of artic auxTRUs contributed around 37% of NOx emissions from the vehicle, when considering a Euro VI vehicle (and the COPERT emission factors), this percentage increases to 84% of their emissions in the proposed CAZ, which means that NOx emissions from auxTRUs could be around five times greater per km than the motive engine. When compared to a Euro VI vehicle, the emissions from artics with altTRU systems offer 90% lower NOx emissions compared to an equivalent auxTRU. However, even with this solution the emissions of the altTRU still account for 35% of the total emissions of the refrigerated vehicle. It is also assumed that, as shown in section 6, the introduction of NRMM Stage V will have relatively little influence on the real-world emissions on diesel auxTRUs.

Table 10 below shows how the proportion of TCT emissions in Leeds changes if 87% of HGVs are Euro VI compliant, as per the expected compliance in 2020 under a Class B CAZ. In this scenario TRUs account for 54% of emissions from the TCT fleet in Leeds.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450


NO

x (g

/day

/veh

icle

)

Per vehicle NOx emissions in CAZ - all vehicles Euro VI

Aux TRU (motive) Alt TRU (motive)

Aux TRU (temp control) Alt TRU (temp control)


30 609/001 2.3

Vehicle class Van 7.5 t 18 t Artic All Unit

All vehicles

Total NOx emissions per day in CAZ 1981 52 195 127 2355 kg/day

Total PM2.5 emissions per day in CAZ 48 1 2 1 52 kg/day

Insulated vehicles

Motive NOx emissions per day in CAZ 20 3 14 12 50 kg/day

NOx emissions from altTRUs per day in CAZ 11 2 4 0 17 kg/day

NOx emissions from auxTRUs per day in CAZ

0 3 11 26 40 kg/day

Refrigeration NOx emissions as % of NOx from ins fleet

35% 57% 52% 68% 54%

Refrigeration NOx emissions as % of NOx from whole fleet

1% 9% 8% 21% 2%

Table 10: Estimated air quality emissions in the CAZ once 87% of vehicles 7.5t and above are Euro VI

Limitations. Estimating the Leeds fleet wide TRU emissions from limited test data has significant limitations. All units were modelled as per the testing data (pull down and maintenance to -20°C – which does not take account the proportion of chilled delivery or multi-temperature deliveries, which will have different energy requirements and hence emissions. The estimates also assume the tested equipment and its insulation class are representative. No real-world evidence as to fuel savings from altTRU emissions could be found.


31 609/001 2.3

7.2 Greenhouse gas emissions

The model also considered greenhouse gas emissions from the Leeds TCT fleet. Since these are not local pollutants, emissions from the whole vehicle drive cycle, including pull-down at the depot and stem mileage, were considered. Refrigerant leakage was also considered, estimated at 5% per year based on industry estimates. The results are shown in Figure 14 below, and clearly reflect the much higher stem mileage done by the larger 18t and articulated vehicles. Refrigeration was estimated to account for 18% of overall GHG emissions from the insulated fleet.

Figure 14: Sources of GHG emissions from TCT, by vehicle class

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000


WTW

GH

G e

mis

sio

ns

(tC

O2

e/yr

)

Sources of GHG emissions by vehicle class

Motive GHG emissions GHG emissions from auxTRUs

GHG emissions from altTRUs GHG emissions from refrigerant leakage


32 609/001 2.3

8 Total cost of ownership analysis of Dearman TRU

A cost model was established to assess the total cost of ownership (TCO) of operating a Dearman engine compared with a conventional auxTRU

8.1 Methodology and assumptions

The duty cycle model developed as part of this project was used to carry out a simple analysis of the total cost of ownership (TCO) for a Dearman TRU vs conventional auxiliary diesel unit. The key element of this analysis was the diesel consumed by the conventional TRU, vs the liquid nitrogen (LIN) consumption of the Dearman unit over the same duty cycles. All cost and performance figures used in this analysis were provided by Dearman.

Table 11 below shows the diesel and LIN consumption figures used for the TCO. Two sets of numbers for LIN consumption were provided by Dearman, since their innovative product is still undergoing development. The first set of figures were based on data collected from a unit currently undergoing field trials with a fleet operator in Leeds. The second set of figures were based on a more recent iteration of the system currently undergoing bench trials in their manufacturing facility.

Standard TRU info from lab tests

Dearman unit currently on field trials

Dearman unit currently on bench trials

Cycle element Diesel (litre) LIN (kg) LIN (kg)

Pulldown 4.3 66.54 54.1

1hr Maintenance 2.7 36.26 29.5

Stop-start 1.1 14.5 11.8

Table 11: LIN consumption by Dearman units during different elements of duty cycle model. Data provided by Dearman.

8.2 Operating costs

A whole life cost model of the Dearman refrigeration unit and LiN dispenser was developed. Use of the current technology version resulted in a 20% cost increase compared to auxTRUs. A more fuel-efficient version is currently being bench tested. This new Dearman TRU model is scheduled for commercial release post 2020 and is predicted to result in a 10% cost increase (including infrastructure provision) compared to auxTRUs. The main cost barrier identified was that an auxiliary engine can operate on low-cost red diesel, which makes it difficult to compete with economically. The UK government has recently closed (24th July 2018) a call for evidence into whether red diesel for non-road mobile machinery discourages the purchase of cleaner alternatives, which may or may not result in a policy change. Assuming that the use of red diesel is prohibited in TRUs, then the broad picture is that the Dearman unit currently undergoing bench testing would yield a 20% (£2,000 per annum) cost saving compared to a diesel unit on a whole life cost basis.


33 609/001 2.3

9 Impact of best practise on TRU emissions

In this section, operational factors that can have significant impact on the fuel use and emissions of TCT are discussed.

There are a variety of external and operational factors that can greatly influence the amount of energy needed to maintain the low temperatures required for safe delivery of TCT goods. These include:

• Infiltration Load: any source of high temperature entering the refrigerated compartment.

• Precooling load: ideally goods should only be loaded into the vehicle at, or below, the temperature they are to be transported.

• Product load: the mass of goods being transported, once at the desired temperature for transport, acts as a cold store. The removal of this mass of cold at each delivery has an impact on the energy required to cool the remaining goods.

• Transmission load: the ambient air temperature, air speed and incident sunlight on the surface of the vehicle all impact the energy required to maintain the refrigerated compartment at the desired temperature.

The table below summarises the key operational factors, and potential fuel savings, that can influence energy consumption of TRUs.3

Door Opening

The time where ambient air and other sources of heat (such as ambient temperature goods) can enter the refrigerated body of the vehicle is a critical factor of the total cooling power required. Analysis of TCT operations in London by Brunel University shows the reduction in fuel consumption available due to reducing the door opening time by 25% for the different vehicle classes over their typical London duty cycle

Case study: Detailed telemetry data on TCT door opening times supplied to Cenex (from a fleet of double shifted vans with similar operating cycles) showed the average door opening duration was 8 minutes and 45 seconds. 80% of drivers operated with an average door opening time of 5 minutes and 30 seconds. The remaining 20% were far higher than this, with some drivers leaving the door open for 20+ minutes at a time. This indicates that in some cases average door opening duration could be reduced by over 25% simply through training all drivers to minimize door opening times.

Refrigerant emissions

Many refrigerants used in TCT have a significant global warming potential, and therefore any leakages would be harmful to the environment. For example, the organic refrigerant R404a, used in over 90% of TCT vehicles in the UK, has a GWP nearly 4,000 times higher than CO2. The 5% leakage rate reported is based on average manufacturers’ estimates across all vehicle segments. In the absence of independent studies, it is possible that refrigerant leakage rates are being under reported by the industry. Lower GWP refrigerants should be investigated and used.

3 Auxiliary Temperature Reduction Units in the Greater London Area, TfL, http://content.tfl.gov.uk/auxiliary-

temperature-reduction-units-in-the-greater-london-area.pdf. Analysis undertaken by Brunel University London.




34 609/001 2.3

Insulation

ATP is an international standard focused on maintaining the integrity of temperature critical goods that are traded and transported across international borders. Stakeholders estimated that only 40% of the UK TCT fleet is ATP compliant. Based on modelling completed by Brunel University, it has been assumed that non-ATP-compliant TCT vehicles have an average insulation thickness of 75mm. ATP-compliant vehicles need an equivalent of 100mm thickness of insulation. Based on this estimate, there is potential to save 2.3% of total fuel consumption (and associated emissions) by increasing insulation to ATP standards.

Vehicle body colour

Incident solar radiation increases the refrigeration load of a trailer’s body. The solar radiation value can vary considerably depending on the absorption and emissivity values of the exterior colour of the body, the ambient temperature, and the insulation properties. Previous work has found the cooling requirement of stationary vehicles to increase by 20% when exposed to sunlight for several hours. Modelling by Brunel University showed that on an average day, for a dark bodied 18t vehicle, the refrigeration unit must consume an additional 0.15 litres of fuel per hour compared to one on a light bodied vehicle, and therefore emits an additional 0.4 kg CO2e per hour.

Best practise training

TCT fleet manager, purchasing officer and driver training has the potential to offer significant emissions savings. Minimal upfront costs can lead to significant fuel savings if the evidence can be made available to persuade TCT fleets of the cost-benefits of changes to their existing fleet operations. Cemafroid offer a broad range of refrigeration and the environment training courses and report benefits to companies that implement their policies. However, there is a lack of independent evidence to support some of the claims made for operational changes.

Table 12 Summary of best practise for TCT


35 609/001 2.3

10 Policy, barriers and action plan

A variety of possible TCT policy levers are available. There is no single operational or technological solution to the issue of emissions from TCT. A combined approach of legally enforced requirements, stakeholder training, and technology adoption will be required. Successful implementation will require clear, consistent leadership from government, education of stakeholders, enforcement of policy and the creation of support infrastructure for new technologies, operational practices, and sustainable power generation.

Wider research was undertaken to assess the barriers for against zero emission TRUs. The table below summarises each policy area and makes a recommendation for a required action.

Further research

Technology trial and testing

Background: This study shows that the Dearman technology is a feasible technical solution for removing NOx and PM emissions from refrigerated transport. However, very limited real-world data on operational performance and suitability exits from zero emission TRU options (including but not limited to the Dearman solution). Recommendation: Instigate a real-world trial of alternative TRU options (similar to the Low Emission Freight and Logistics Trial) to create a working knowledge of the technology costs, emissions and operational factors. Results should be used to inform supporting policy and any potential grant structure. Responsibility: Local or National government (more suited to national government due to the requirement for large scale demonstration and duty cycle variation)

Emission testing programme

Background: Limited independent data exists on the real-world emission performance of diesel TRUs (including alternator drive TRUs). This project provided a valuable and unique evidence towards the impacts of TRUs. The evidence base. Recommendation: Instigate a Portable Emission Testing (PEMs) testing programme to develop an evidence base for air quality emissions from diesel TRUs (both alternator connected and diesel auxTRU). Responsibility: Local or National government (more suited to national government due to the requirement for large scale demonstration and duty cycle variation)

Trailer recognition

Background: There is currently no register of or recognition system for the type of TRU attached to a vehicle or trailer. Any scheme designed to promote the use of zero emission TRUs would need to be effectively policed. Recommendation: Instigate a feasibility study into the solutions required to police any incentives designed to promote the use of zero emission TRUs. Responsibility: Local or National government

Policy Considerations

Reclassify as road engine – removal of red diesel allowance

Background: Auxiliary engines are currently classified as non-road mobile machinery and as such can benefit from the use of red diesel (diesel without fuel duty applied). This presents a significant disincentive for fleets to operate zero emission TRUs, adversely affecting the business case. Recommendation: Remove the allowance for auxiliary engines powering TRUs to operate on red diesel. Responsibility: National government

Reclassify as road engine – set more stringent emission standards

Background: The NRMM emission standards, which regulate emission from TRUs, are insufficient compared to Euro emission standards regulating motive engine. Recommendation: Remove auxTRUs from NRMM and classify it as a road engine. Responsibility: National government


36 609/001 2.3

Preferential treatment

Background: Soft options could be considered to encourage the use of zero emission TCT. Recommendation: Implement preferential and out of hours access for low emission TCT, review policy options with TCT and local authority stakeholders for preferential treatment of zero-emission TRUs. Responsibility: Local government

Infrastructure grants

Background: The vast majority of TRUs are of hybrid configuration, allowing them to be plugged into an electricity supply. Whilst electrical infrastructure is often available at the fleet depot, it is rarely provided at delivery points. Alternative fuels for zero emission TRUs (such as LIN) have additional infrastructure requirements and costs compared with diesel. Recommendation: Develop a grant structure for infrastructure to support zero emission operation of TRUs, this could be investigated in line with reviewing the legislation in other countries, such as California, who are introducing idle restrictions on auxiliary TRU engines. Responsibility: Local or National government

General best practise

Stakeholder training

Background: Whilst the focus of this study has been on the performance of the Dearman TRU, some examples of the impact of best practise on TRU fuel and emissions have been considered. There appears to be little awareness or adherence to best practise recommendation in TCT. Recommendation: Develop toolkits and guidance documents to encourage best practice operations in TCT transport, these can include alt. technology information, case studies, advising industry on factors such as vehicle body colour, curtains, reduced door openings etc. The technology guidance would also need to include an initial research step to develop the required evidence for guidance. Compliance with best practice can be linked with the Freight Operator Recognition Scheme (FORS). Responsibility: Local or National government


37 609/001 2.3

11 Conclusions Emissions from TCT are a growing concern as air quality rises up the political agenda, motive engines become cleaner and cities start to regulate against older, more polluting vehicles entering city boundaries. In this environment it is difficult to envisage a near future where restrictions are not placed on the types of TRUs allowed to enter cities. This has already started in California with the introduction of anti-idling laws for TRUs.

The Dearman product seems well placed to provide a solution for TRU emission for heavier vehicles. The current premium cost of owning the unit may well be reversed with the introduction of incentives such as removing the use of red diesel in TCT, or access charges for diesel auxiliary engines.

There are many emerging technologies capable of providing zero and low emission TCT. A government -supported technology development and demonstration trial would be timely to provide a rich source of evidence on which to base future policy decisions.

What is clear throughout this study is the limited data set available on TCT operations and performance. Whilst emission testing has been undertaken in this project, a much more rigorous approach to understanding and collecting independent evidence on real-world performance (costs, emissions, integration issues, barriers, infrastructure requirements etc) is required.

Considering the statement above, Table 13 below summarises the confidence level in the data used in this report.

High Confidence

The following information were established from independent sources and verified through stakeholder consultation and/or trial data.

• CO2 and NOx and PM2.5 emissions from auxTRUs in articulated vehicles: This project included independent, controlled testing of emissions from a typical auxTRU in a 13.6m artic trailer.

• Emissions from TCT traction engines: Real world data and validated numeric models for other freight and logistics sectors, developed by Cenex, were applied to the TCT fleet duty cycles.

• Proportion of Leeds goods vehicle fleet with insulated bodies (excluding artics): ANPR data gives a good indication of the proportion of insulated rigid vehicles. However, there is some uncertainty due to the unregulated nature of aftermarket insulated vehicle conversions.

• Breakdown of Leeds vehicle fleet by Euro standard: This is clearly provided by the ANPR data.

Medium Confidence

The following information were established from incomplete data sets and a clear consensus from stakeholders was not formed.

• Overall number of insulated vehicles operating in Leeds: Examination of the data, and common sense, suggest that the inner ring road ANPR cameras will not capture all goods vehicles entering the city on a given day, and there is no way of directly measuring the scale of this underestimate. However, three other methods of estimation were used to assess the correction factor required, and since all three methods produced similar results there is a reasonable level of confidence in the resulting estimate.

• Number of auxTRUs vs altTRUs operating in Leeds: Estimates of the proportion of insulated vehicles of each class that use aux- or alt-TRUs was based primarily on estimates from earlier projects in the literature.

• Leeds TCT vehicle duty cycle: This made extensive use of interview and stakeholder data from the literature, but also required an estimate to be made of the distance covered by vehicles within the CAZ. In the absence of any other data, this was made on the basis of a simple mathematical model which has not been validated.

• CO2 and NOx and PM2.5 emissions from auxTRUs in 7.5t and 18t vehicles: These are a simple extrapolation from the measured artic emissions, based on vehicle body volume.


38 609/001 2.3

Low Confidence

The following information were gained from manufacturers and/or is unverified by independent real-world trials or data.

• Fuel consumption and air quality emissions from altTRUs: No robust evidence of the additional motive engine fuel consumption caused by use of an alternator-driven TRU. Manufacturers claim a 50% reduction compared to auxiliary TRU, but this is assumed to include periods of operation on mains electricity. Further study of this point is recommended.

• Emission savings from alternative technologies (incl. alternator connected systems): rigorous, real world, tests of the latest TCT refrigeration technologies have not been published. The Brunel University study used as a reference for this section relied on manufacturer data for alternative technologies.

• Cost assessments: cost assessments in this report are based on manufacturer claims.

Table 13: Data quality assessment

4119/001 of 39

Cenex Advanced Technology Innovation Centre Oakwood Drive Loughborough Leicestershire LE11 3QF Tel: 01509 635 750 Fax: 01509 635 751 Email: [email protected] Website: www.cenex.co.uk Twitter: @CenexLCFC

Independent, not-for-profit, low carbon vehicle technology experts

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.cenex.co.uk/

https://twitter.com/CenexLCFC

report - dearman...treatment of zero-emission trus. o develop a grant structure for infrastructure...

Documents