Transcript Document 7582712

The Path To Cleaner Buses &
Trucks
• Cleaner Fuels
• Tighter New Vehicle
Standards
• Inspection and
Maintenance
• Other
– Scrappage
– Retrofit
– Alternative Fuels
EU Emissions Standards For
Heavy-duty Vehicles on ETC
% reduction
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Euro I
Euro II
Euro III
Euro IV
2010
2008
2006
2004
NOx
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
PM
1984
1982
1980
0
Euro V
International Emission Regulations:
- Heavy-duty vehicles (GVW>3.5t) ●Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
(g/kWh)
8
E.U.
7
U.S.
6
5 Japan
Limits
4
3
3.38
2
1
0
●Particulate matter (PM)
(g/kWh)
0.30
0.25
Japan
0.20
Limits
E.U.
0.15
2.0
0.18
U.S.
0.10
0.05
98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12
Year
0
98
0.027
00 02 04 06 08 10 12
Year
Impact of Clean Vehicles and Fuels On
Diesel Vehicle Emissions
Percent Reduction in Emissions
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
PM10 2020
PM10 2005
NOx 2020
NOx 2005
EURO II Vehicles
& Fuels with I/M
EURO III Vehicles &
Fuels with I/M
EURO IV Vehicles
& Fuels with I/M
Source: Camarsa, BAQ 2003
Diesel Oxidation
Catalyst
CO
Aldehydes
HC
PAH
SO2
NOx
C2H2n+2
CO2
H2O
SO2 /SO3
NOx
PAH
Soot
Metals
SO2+H2O
Flow through monolith
with catalytic coating
CO + 1/2 O2
HC + O2
PAH + O2
Aldehydes + O2
CO2
CO2 + H2O
CO2 + H2O
CO2 + H2O
SO2+H2O
Soot
Metals
Diesel Particulate Filter
Catalytic particulate trap cell
PM
catalysed filter
Filter is regenerated by hot exhaust at a rate
that varies with exhaust temperature
(may plug if exhaust temperature stays low)
Exhaust flow
Continuously regenerating particulate trap (CRT)
NO
NO2
NO2
NO2
NO
NO to NO2
Catalyst
NO2 (a good oxidant) causes combustion
of filtered PM (thus regenerating the filter)
Exhaust flow
T
C
NOx Reduction Options
Engine NOx Technology
Advanced
Diesel
Combustion
Particulate
Filter
NOx
AT
Aftertreatment NOx Technology Options
DeNOx
Catalyst
NOx
Adsorber
Urea
SCR
• 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
NOx Reduction
Engine
control
measures
Fuel
Variable
injection geometry
timing
turbocharger
Exhaust
treatment
measures
EGR
ureaSCR
catalyst
NOx
adsorber
Active &
Passsive
HCdeNOx
Urea-Selective Catalytic
Reduction
SCR Catalyst (S)
4NH3 + 4NO + O2  4N2 + 6H2O
urea
(NH2)2CO
2NH3 + NO + NO2  2N2 + 3H2O
8NH3 + 6NO2  7N2 + 12H2O
Exhaust
Gas
H
V
S
O
Oxidation Catalyst (V)
2NO + O2  2NO2
Oxidation Catalyst (O)
4HC + 3O2  2CO2 + 2H2O
4NH3 + 3O2  2N2 + 6H2O
2CO + O2  2CO2
Hydrolysis Catalyst (H)
(NH2)2CO + H2O  2NH3 + CO2
Source - AECC
Close Linkage Between Vehicle Emissions
Standards and Fuel Sulfur Levels
2000
2002
2004
15 months
EPA
Consent
Decree
10/02
g/bhp-hr
2005
2006
Caterpillar,
Cummins,
Detroit Diesel,
Volvo,
Mack Trucks/Renault
Navistar
2007
2008
2010
Diesel 15 ppm
EPA 98
EPA 04
EPA 07
NOx = 4.0 P = 0.10
NOx = 2.5 P = 0.10
NOx = 0.25 P = 0.01
EURO III
NOx = 5.0 P = 0.10
EURO
Combined
EURO III-IV
EURO IV
EURO V
NOx = 3.5 P = 0.02
NOx=2.0 P=0.02
Diesel 50/10 ppm
g/kW-hr
10/05
10/08
What To Do About Existing
Vehicles?
Swedish Retrofit Program
All Trucks Above 3.5 Tons
2020
10%
0%
0%
0%
2015
-10%
-20%
2010
-30%
-35%
-40%
2005
-50%
-60%
2000
-70%
No Retrofit
Levels B&C
Level B Only
-80% -80%
-80%
Level B
Level C
-90%
PM
HC
NOx
Noise
1995
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Very Low Sulfur Fuel Dominates The Market
Metropolitan in-Use Diesel Program
Measurement results indicate that
Diesel PM levels have been significantly reduced.
（By the Research Institute for Environmental Protection）
Without
Weather influence
Automobile tunnel
Iogi Tunnel （Loop 8）
（Emissions reduced per vehicle）
Carbon
(EC)
- 49%
Cancercausing
agents
Up to - 58%
Comparison of two two-day periods
Mar. 11-12, 2001 (Left bars, black and yellow)
Nov. 9-10, 2003 (Right bars, black and yellow)
（With cooperation from
the Bureau of Construction）
With
Roadside
Osakabashi
Air Monitoring Station
Carbon
(EC)
- 30%
Comparison of two twomonth periods
Sept.-Oct. 2001 (Left bar)
Sept.-Oct. 2003 (Right bar)
Meguro St. roadside
(By Prof. Uchiyama of
Kyoto University)
Cancerausing
agents
- 36%
Comparison of two six-day
periods
Sept.-Oct. 2000 (Left bar)
Oct.- Nov. 2003 (Right
bar)
New York City Retrofit
Experience
N YC Bus ID# 6065
N YC Bus ID# 6019
CO2
NOx
THC
CO
PM
CO2
N Ox
THC
Percentage Change in g/ m i
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
-60%
-80%
-100%
OEM Catal yst / ULSD (50 ppm S) fuel
CRT Catalyst / ULSD (50 ppm S) fuel
CO
PM
General Regulatory Approach
• Retrofit mid-aged engines
– Filters
– Catalysts
– Other
85% PM 
25% PM 
50% PM  typical
• Replace older engines
– Re-power
– New vehicle
Verified Devices and Applications
Type
Filter
Filter
Filter
Fuel
Ox catalyst
Ox catalyst
Filter
Fuel+ox cat.
Ox catalyst
7/05
1
#1 PM NOx 
Years1
5 85
1994-2004
3 85 25-40 1993-2003
1 50
1991-1993
2 50
15 1996-2002
2 25
1973-2003
2 25 25-80 1991-1998
1 85
1996-2004
1 50
20 1996-2002
1 25
1994-2002
On/off
On
On
On
On
On
On
Off
Off
Off
Individual devices may have a more limited model year application
Cost of Retrofits in California
• Passive filter
• Flow through filter
• Catalyst
$8500
$5000
$2000
• Cost benefit ratio1
> 4:1
1
Based on trash truck rule
Experience With Retrofits
# of Retrofits
Transit bus
~1000
Trash truck
>1000
School bus
>2000
EPA Funded
RetrofitProjects
Projects
EPA-Funded
Retrofit
Cost Estimates for Retrofit
Technologies
Technology
Diesel Oxidation Catalysts (DOC)
Cost per Device/System ($)
500 to 2,000
Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF)
Combined Lean NOx Catalyst/DPF
Systems
3,000 to 5,500
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
Program
• 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 by EPA & CARB:
– DPFs, DOCs, Crankcase Filtration, Emulsified Fuel,
Biodiesel, EGR and SCR systems.
• Information about EPA’s Verification program:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit/retroverifiedlist.htm
Conclusions Regarding
Retrofits
• 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
Retrofit
Durability & Reliability
Average Grocery Truck Emissions, CSHVR(1&2)
0.78
CO/10
NOx/100
HC
PM
0.011
0.001
0.003
0.197
0.010
Below Detection Limit
Below Detection Limit
0.272
0.34
0.35
2002
0.30
0.24
0.41
2001
0.15
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
ULSD with Johnson Matthey CRTTM
0.01
Emissions, g/mile
0.8
0.7
CARB Fuel
w/o DPF
2000
Retrofit
Durability & Reliability
0.78
2000
ULSD with Engelhard DPX TM
2001
CO/10
NOx/100
HC
PM
0.028
0.014
0.003
0.042
0.197
2002*
0.002
Below Detection Limit
0.272
0.18
0.29
0.32
0.41
0.37
0.51
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
CARB Fuel
w/o DPF
0.03
Emissions, g/mile
Average Grocery Truck Emissions, CSHVR(1&2)
Ford Crown Victoria
Natural Gas Vehicles
• Very Low Emissions
• Good Performance
• Lower Cost Fuel
Honda Civic
Ford F-150
• Limited Range, but
Adequate for Most
Applications
• Few Refueling Stations
• Higher Cost Vehicle
New Flyer D40 LF Bus
Emissions Test Results - CRT vs. CNG
CBD Cycle
0.05
PM
30
0.045
Mass Emissions (g/mile)
0.04
CO
30
28
28
26
26
24
24
22
22
20
20
18
18
0.035
0.03
0.025
THC
50
45
40
35
16.26
0.024
0.02
0.017
16
16
14
14
12
12
9.81
10
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
CRT
CNG
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0.12
CRT
0
CNG
30
25.1
25
23.68
20
10
8
NOx
15
10
5
0.015
CRT
0
CNG
CRT
CNG
Emissions Test Results - CRT vs. CNG
NY Bus Cycle
PM
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.12
Mass Emissions (g/mile)
0.11
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.037
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
CRT
CNG
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
100
100
95
95
90
90
85
85
80
80
75
75
66.6
70
32.9
65
60
60
55
55
50
50
45
45
40
40
35
35
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
CNG
CRT
2.7
73.3
2.4
2.1
51.86
1.8
1.5
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.00
0
0
CNG
2.937
3
5
0.06
0
CRT
Carbonyl
3.3
70
65
5
0.23
NOx
THC
CO
CRT
CNG
CRT
CNG
NYC Conclusions
Clean 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:
Distribution of Particulate Size
1200
TBTS
ULSDavec
with FAP
particulate filter
GPL
CNG
GNV
LPG
1000
TBTS
ULSD
600
400
200
7,75
5,75
2
1,2
0,75
0,45
TBTS
GNV
GPL
TBTS avec FAP
3,75
Diameter
Diamètreinenµm
µm
0,25
0,13
0,075
0,042
0,023
0,013
0
0,0075
Mass in µg
800
Fuel Diversity
• Increase alternative fuel use in urban fleets.
• Use gas-to-liquids.
• Develop hydrogen infrastructure to support
fuel cell commercialization.
SmartWay Transport
(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