Transcript Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions by Mode/Power Source in g/km

Comparative Energy Consumption
(in MJ per vehicle km)
25
24.1
20
15
9.84
10
5
0
Diesel bus
Trolleybus
Source: BC Transit (1994)
Description of Transportation Emissions
Hydrocarbons: Essentially unburned fuel. Hydrocarbons are a significant contributor to poor air quality. In sunlight, they combine with NOx to form ground level
ozone (smog).
Carbon Monoxide: A toxic gas that induces headaches, loss of visual acuity, drowsiness and decreased motor coordination. Contributes to smog as it combines in
the atmosphere with NOx. Also implicated in global warming as a greenhouse gas and typically assigned a GWP value of 1.6 or 3.0.
Oxides of Nitrogen: A mixture of oxides of nitrogen, including nitrous oxide (N2O), that results in the brown composition of smog and is a significant contributor
to poor air quality. A primary target of emissions reduction programs in urban areas. NOx has been shown to affect health, suppress growth of vegetation and
corrode metals. It essentially combines with other pollutants to form ground level ozone, negatively affecting the air quality index. Ground level ozone or smog is a
major concern in Canadian cities, particularly during the summer months. NOx also combines with atmospheric water to produce nitric acid, a component of acid
rain. NOx is considered a greenhouse gas and is typically assigned a GWP value of 7.
Oxides of Sulphur: Substances formed by the combustion of sulphur in fuel, including sulphur dioxide (SO2). Oxides of sulphur react with atmospheric water to
form sulphuric acid and are thus considered a contributor to acid rain. They are also a lung irritant. In terms of global warming, they have been shown to exert a
global cooling effect.
Particulate Matter: Inhaleable particles like small particles of oil, fuel, carbon and soot. They affect the respiratory system, causing asthma and other respiratory
ailments. (Respiratory ailments are the fourth leading cause of death in the industrialized world and a growing health concern; asthma alone costs some $11 billion
in health dollars annually in the U.S. and is a continuing health concern in Edmonton.) Diesel engines are responsible for a large percentage of particulate matter
produced by transportation sources.
Volatile Organic Compounds: Form noxious aerosols which are inhaled and can contribute to lung problems and asthma.
Carbon Dioxide: A greenhouse gas, considered the primary contributor to global warming and climate change. Assigned a GWP value of 1.
*GWP = Global Warming Potential, the potential of a substance to cause global warming relative to Carbon Dioxide.
(Sources: NAAVC, TransLink, ETS, US Environmental Protection Association, Diesel Fuel News)
Toxins identified in Diesel Exhaust by the EPA
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Aniline
Antimony compounds
Arsenic
Benzene
Beryllium compounds
Biphenyl
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
1,3-Butadiene
Cadmium
Chlorine
Chlorobenzene
Chromium compounds
Cobalt compounds
Creosol isomers
Cyanide compounds
Dibutylphthalate
Dioxins and dibenzofurans
Ethyl benzene
Formalehyde
Inorganic lead
Manganese compounds
Mercury compounds
Methanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Naphthalene
Nickel
4-Nitrobiphenyl
Phenol
Phosphorus
Polycyclic organic matter including polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons and their derivatives
Propionaldehyde
Selenium compounds
Styrene
Toluene
Xylene isomers and mixtures
o-xylenes
m-xylenes
p-xylenes
Sources: Natural Resources Defense Council (1998), US
Environmental Protection Association.
Diesel Exhaust is a complex mixture of
hazardous particles and vapors, some of which
are known carcinogens and other probable
carcinogens.
The US Environmental Protection Association
(California) has identified 41 substances in
diesel exhaust listed by the State of California
as” toxic air contaminants”.
A “toxic air contaminant”is defined as an “air
pollutant which may cause or contribute to an
increase in mortality or in serious illness, or
which may pose a present or potential hazard to
human health”.
In addition to, or as part of the commonly
referred to emissions of NOx, CO and
particulate matter produced by diesel engines,
the substances listed at the left have been
identified.
The immediate health threat posed by the use of
diesel engines in transit buses arises from the
fact that the toxic emissions are released
directly into the streets--right into the airways
of pedestrians and transit patrons waiting at bus
stops.
Studies of emissions from co-called ‘clean’
diesel engines reveal that, while NOx and CO
levels may be lower, the levels of toxins such as
dioxins, benzene, toluene, 1,3-butadiene and
PAH’s is essentially unchanged. While the
weight of the particulate matter is reduced
substantially, the total number of particles
emitted by ‘clean’ diesel engines is 15 to 35
times greater than by conventional diesels. The
particles are simply finer, not fewer. Finer
particles are more likely to penetrate deeper into
the lungs, where they would be trapped and
retained.
Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions by Mode/Power Source
(in g/km)
25
20
15
10
5
Hydrocarbons
Carbon Monoxide
Oxides of Nitrogen
Sulphur Oxides
Particulate Matter
C
on
"C v. D
le
an iese
l
"
D
Tr
ol iese
le
l
y
Tr
(c
T
oa
ro
ol
le
l)
lle
y
(H y (
yd gas
)
ro
el
ec
t. )
0
Data Sources: ETS (1993), TransLink (1999),
Edmonton Power (1993)
Total Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions per Million Kilometres
in Vancouver (in tonnes)
20
18.82
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
Clean Diesel
Toxic Air Contaminants include Hydrocarbons, Carbon Monoxide,
Oxides of Nitrogen, Sulphur Oxides, Particulate Matter.
Trolleybus
Data Sources: TransLink (1999)
Comparative Maximum Levels of Toxic Air Contaminants by Mode (in g/km)
80
70
60
50
Carbon Monoxide
40
Oxides of Nitrogen
30
Particulates
20
10
el
u
Tr
el
ra
ol
/E
lG
le
l
e
y
as
ct
(E
ric
dm
H
Tr
yb
.
ol
P
rid
le
ow
y
er
(g
Tr
Av
as
ol
- fi
g.
le
re
)
y
d
(c
pl
oa
an
l
- fi
Tr
t)
re
ol
d
le
pl
y
an
(h
yd
t)
ro
el
ec
t.)
N
at
D
ie
s
C
le
a
n
D
ie
s
D
ie
s
el
0
Sources: NAAVC (1999), Edmonton Power (1993), TransLink (1999).
NAAVC figures based on tests using CBD cycle
Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends
(in g/km of CO2e*)
2500
2000
1500
Diesel
Trolley
1000
500
0
1990
1994
1997
Larger, more powerful diesel engines tend to result in a
slight increase in the average CO2 emission levels from
diesel powered transit buses. On the other hand, the
trolleybus, powered by hydroelectric power, does not
contribute any greenhouse emissions to the environment.
2001
2005
2008
*CO2 Equivalent – includes greenhouse gas values for emissions of CO, NOx,
N2O, CH4.
Data Sources: ETS (1993),, NAAVC
Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions per Kilometre in
2005 by Mode
(in grams/km of CO2e)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Clean Diesel Bus
Trolleybus (hydroelect.)
Sources: TransLink.
Comparative Noise Levels by Mode
(in decibels)
• Hearing loss occurs
at levels of 90 db or
higher
• The electric trolley
measures around
175 times quieter
than the diesel bus
• A Philadelphia
study showed that
the passing of a
trolleybus could
not be heard above
the ambient street
noise
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Diesel
CNG
Fuel Cell
Trolleybus
City Street
Adapted from Coast Mountain Bus Company
(Vancouver); KC Metro (Seattle).
Trolley Bus Benefits . . .
Trolley Coaches attract Riders
OTHER CITIES OPERATING TROLLEY COACHES REPORT RIDERSHIP INCREASES IN THE 10% TO
15% RANGE
 SF MUNI
- Conversion of No. 1 line to trolley completed in 1981: 18% increase in ridership between 1979 and 1982.
- No. 3, 4 and 55 lines also converted to trolley in 1982 with increases in patronage of approximately 10% to
15%.
- California and Jackson lines temporarily converted from trolley to diesel in 1970’s with a 10% to 15%
decrease in ridership.
 SEATTLE METRO
- Approximate 10% increase in ridership when a line is converted from diesel to trolley coach operation.
 CLEVELAND
- Expects to realize at least a 10% increase in ridership with the installation of a trolley bus line along Euclid
Avenue early in the present decade.
Sources: Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Trolley Bus Study for the RTD and LACTC
(1991); San Francisco MUNI, Seattle METRO and Greater Cleveland Regional
Transit Authority.
Statements of the Washington Society of Professional Engineers
with regard to trolleybus operations and the replacement of trolleybuses
by diesel-powered vehicles
- The . . . general belief that the diesel engine is the most efficient and adaptable of all motive units for urban transit vehicles is a modernday phenomenon that finds a parallel only in such well-known misconceptions of the past as the world is flat!
- [A] major function of an urban transit system is to transport patrons to and from the central business district--without strangling it! This
cannot be done with the motorbus, particularly the diesel because of the offensive odor and high toxicity of its exhaust.
- Subsidizing an all-diesel system is tantamount to subsidizing the motor coach industry and air pollution.
- No urban community can afford to use the diesel bus for transit purposes . . . from the standpoint of . . . air pollution and public health.
- The complete failure of any type of IC engine in urban transit duty is no fault of the technology, but rather a result of the narrow limits
imposed by the laws of physics on the extent to which this type of machine can be improved. Its greatest single reason for failure as a
transit unit is the fact that its engine speed must be maintained if its tractive effort and horsepower is, also, to be maintained. By contrast,
maximum tractive effort, in the case of the electric vehicle, can be realized without any ‘engine’ speed whatsoever. [In other words, the
IC engine is incapable of achieving the energy efficiencies possible with the electric motor.]
- The ultimate in poor transit management is the practice of scheduling motorbuses under the wires, when trolleys are left standing idle in
the barn.
- Those who contend that the cost per mile is meaningful as a method of evaluating equipment either do not have adequate knowledge to
express an opinion on the matter, or their motives must be suspect.
- Cost of power and maintenance of trolley overhead track and feeder are negligible in the overall costs of operating. The three largest
costs, by far, are platform hours, equipment maintenance and garaging and administrative and general expense. Whatever management’s
reason for conversion [to diesel], economy of operation and service to the patron have nothing whatsoever to do with it!
- Any proposal contemplating the retirement of an efficient trolley coach operation of assured longevity and utility value and the
abandonment of its newly constructed substation system not only indicates a lack of moral responsibility to the public and a sister city
utility, but also a complete disregard for the realities of economics. (S. M. Shockey)
Source: WSPE and Seattle Civic Affairs Committee
Recent Developments on the Trolleybus Scene I
Some Highlights from other Canadian and U.S. Cities
City
Boston
Approx. Active Fleet
40 Flyer (1976)
Recent Developments
Current fleet to be replaced w. new trolleys; new route planned east of Downtown
Boston to use Neoplan articulated low floor trolleys.
Cleveland
30 Neoplan artic
Dayton
Philadelphia
San Francisco
57 ETI/Skoda (1998-99)
66 AM General (1979)
276 Flyer (1976-77)
60 Flyer artic (1993)
102 AM General (1979)
46 MAN artic (1986 )
236 Breda artic dual mode
(1990)
244 Flyer (1982-83)
Seattle
Vancouver
NEW TROLLEY SYSTEM! 5 mile long route in planning for Euclid Avenue
to use articulated low floor trolleys. Trolley usage expected to boost ridership
by at least 10% and help revitalize Euclid corridor.
Fleet renewed in 1998-99; last of four new extensions opened August 20, 2000.
$44 M in budget for new trolleys, 2004-2011.
Fleet currently undergoing renewal with new 40 and 60 foot trolleys from ETI/Skoda.
AM General fleet to be ‘rebodied’ using 100 40 ft. Gillig bodies on order and
updated/refurbished electrics and controls; construction on an extension to Rte. 36 to
start within a year.
Over 200 new low floor trolleys to come in next five years; new 1 km extension into
Stanley Park to be completed next year.
(Sept. 2000)
Data sources: International Trolleybus News List, Trolleybus Magazine
Recent Developments on the Trolleybus Scene II
-
There are approximately 350 electric trolleybus systems worldwide
37 new trolleybus systems were opened in the last decade
Some Highlights from around the World
Linz, Austria – New Volvo low floor articulated trolleys arriving; system expansion.
Sao Paulo, Brazil – Eleven route extensions under consideration; work progressing on Fura Fila articulated
guided trolleybus line.
Beijing, China – New route recently opened, another existing line recently extended.
Guangzhou, China – $70 million trolley system expansion planned to include 49 km of new overhead. Fleet
will be expanded to 350 trolleybuses to operate on 11 routes.
Hong Kong, China – NEW TROLLEY SYSTEM? Proposing to introduce trolleybuses to replace diesel
buses on heavily used routes to reduce pollution. Demonstration line to be ready in near future.
Shanghai, China – New air conditioned low floor trolleybuses entering service.
Brno, Czechoslovakia – New route to open in September, 2000; new Škoda trolleys arriving.
Quito, Ecuador – 59 new trolleybuses entered service this year. Quito’s large, ultra-modern trolleybus line
that uses articulated vehicles, platform loading and operates on a right-of-way is being extended.
London, England – NEW TROLLEY SYSTEM? London Transport is considering implementing
trolleybuses on four routes for environmental reasons and to boost patronage.
Nancy, France – New trolleys bearing the mark of the designer ‘Pinifarina’ to appear sometime in Fall 2000.
Paris, France – NEW TROLLEY SYSTEM! A 6.5 km route is to be constructed for guided trolleybuses.
Athens, Greece – Taking delivery of 200 brand new low floor trolleybuses in preparation for the Olympic
Games.
Arnhem, Holland – Launched “Trolley 2000” last year, a public transportation plan that will place renewed
emphasis on the city’s trolleybus system in the 21 st century as a practical and environmentally-friendly
way of travel. Trolleybuses carry signs: “Arnhem – Trolley Stad” (“Arnhem – Trolley City”).
Naples, Italy – New fleet of low floor trolleybuses began arriving in February, 2000.
Mexico City, Mexico – New Mitsubishi trolleybuses recently added to fleet.
Moscow, Russia – 271 new trolleybuses were purchased in 1999, adding to a trolley fleet of over 1,000
vehicles.
Bern, Switzerland – New batch of low floor Swisstrolleys now in operation.
Lausanne, Switzerland – Extensions in progress; Neoplan to test a 25 m, three-section mega-trolleybus in
Lausanne in the near future.
Merida, Venezuela – NEW TROLLEY SYSTEM! Construction of a new 18 km segregated, high platform
trolleybus route is underway.
(Sept. 2000)
Data Sources: International Trolleybus News List, Trolleybus Magazine
Energy Efficiency of Fuel Cell
Vehicles
Ten units of power produced at a power plant
will power:
- ten direct electric vehicles ( e.g. trolleybuses)
- five lead-acid battery vehicles
- one fuel cell vehicle
Source:
Eur Ing Irvine Bell BSc CEng MIMechE CDipAF PGCE
Energy Requirements and Carbon Dioxide Emissions for a Subcompact Car
140
125
120
110
100
85
80
Energy Requirements in kWh per 100 km
Carbon Dioxide Emissions in grams per km
60
52
45
44
40
20
0
Gasoline Engine
Diesel Engine
Fuel Cell
Fuel cell emissions based on hydrogen generated from
natural gas or methanol. Note that fuel cell technology
still results in 77% of the CO2 emissions produced by a
diesel engine.
Sources: Daimler-Benz (1994); Ian Fisher, Electric Trolleybuses in Vancouver, 1997
Fuel Cells and GHG’s
Hydrogen needed to power fuel-celled vehicles is most readily obtained by stripping it from hydrocarbon
molecules found in fossil fuels. The process results in the release of Carbon Dioxide, the most common
greenhouse gas and the key target of the Kyoto Accord. Presently, fuel cells would result in little reduction in
greenhouse gases over internal combustion engines.
The chart below quantifies the greenhouse gas emissions produced in operating a Mercedes A-class
automobile with different power sources:
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions per 1,000 km (in kg of CO2e)
Current Gasoline Engine
Fuel Cell (H from fossil fuels)
Advanced "Clean" Gasoline
Methanol
Natural Gas
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Source: The Economist (April 2000); Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development