Draft workprogramme proposal for Regulation No 168/2013 Article 23 Environmental Effect Study. Giorgos Mellios & Leonidas Ntziachristos Emisia

Transcription

1 Draft workprogramme proposal for Regulation No 168/2013 Article 23 Environmental Effect Study Giorgos Mellios & Leonidas Ntziachristos Emisia MCWG, Brussels, 19 Apr

2 Revised estimates of L-category vehicles to total road transport emissions Key items that need to be covered by the environmental study Work-programme Expenditure estimates and options for burdensharing Next steps 2

3 Mopeds Motorcycles 2.0E E E E E E E EU15 projection 2013 EU27 projection 2.0E E E E E E E E E E E E E EU15 Projection 2013 EU27 projection 0.0E E Significant drop in mopeds due to crisis an competition from motorcycles Pre-crisis growth rates for motorcycles after

4 Mopeds Motorcycles 3.0E E EU15 estimate 2013 EU27 Projection 3.0E E E E E E E E E E EU15 estimate 2013 EU27 projection 0.0E E Total stock is projected on the basis of new registration rate and historic data on lifetime functions 4

5 New Registrations Total Stock 4.0E E E EU15 projection 2013 EU27 projection 3.5E E E EU15 projection 2013 EU27 projection 2.5E E E E E E E E E E E Mini-car data not thoroughly reviewed yet. Adjustments are expected in the final version of the report High growth rates seen are on the basis of relevant market analyses 5

6 Minicars by fuel New Registrations 2009 Gasoline Diesel Electric New Gasoline Diesel Electric New Registrations 2009 Gasoline Diesel Electric New Registrations 2025 Gasoline Diesel Electric This is a preliminary projection with regard to the split of mini-cars to different fuel use. More refined data is being collected and will be introduced in the final version of this report, together with a refined projection 6

7 Still preliminary projection of stock and activity data; input is being refined for the final report Does not include emissions due to fuel evaporation Does not include impact of OBD Euro 5 is introduced in the dates specified in Regulation 168/2013 Emission reductions considered over the existing driving cycle not over a revised WMTC 7

8 350 CO Mopeds 3.5 NOx Mopeds Euro3 Euro4 50 Euro Euro3 Euro4 0.5 Euro HC Mopeds Euro3 Euro4 Euro PM Mopeds Euro3 Euro4 Euro Emissions are in [kt] 8

9 1 200 CO Motorcycles Euro3 Euro4 Euro NOx Motorcycles Euro3 Euro4 Euro HC Motorcycles 4.0 PM Motorcycles Euro3 50 Euro4 Euro Euro3 Euro4 0.5 Euro Emissions are in [kt] 9

10 Emissions are in [kt] 10

11 Emissions are in [kt] 11

12 Emission standard level CO HC NO x PM No additional measures (only stock effects) 61% 55% 2% 52% Euro 3 Mopeds 7% 9% -3% 15% Euro 4 11% 12% 32% 10% Euro 5 2% 10% 15% 11% Total emission reduction over % 86% 45% 88% Table shows reductions in 2030 over the 2010 levels 12

13 35% 30% 25% 20% No additional measures CO2 HC NOx PM CO 35% 30% 25% 20% Euro 3 Mopeds 15% 15% 10% 10% 5% 5% 0% Euro 4 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% % Euro 5 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

14 1. To describe which are the main issues with regard to the Euro 5 regulation. 2. To propose a technical programme to address these issues. 3. To assess the testing and analysis costs. 4. To assess the duration of the tasks. 5. To provide the necessary input to the Commission in designing the environmental study execution. 14

15 Type I Emission Limits Type IV Evaporation Type V Durability Type VII CO 2 and fuel consumption Type VIII Environmental OBD IUC OC RW In-Use Conformity Off-cycle emissions Roadworthiness (included for completeness of study) 15

16 Vehicle categorisation L1e- A L1e -B L2e L3e L4e L5e-A L5e-B L6e-A L6e-B L7e-Ae L7e-Be L7e-Ce L2e-P L3e-A1 L4e L6e-BP L7e-A1 L7e-B1 L7e-CU Typical Photos of Models L2e-U L3e-A2 L6e-BU L7e-A2 L7e-B2 L7e-CP Key specifications 50cc, 45 km/h, <4 kw, C-O 25kmh 50cc, 45 km/h, <4 kw 50cc, 45 km/h, <4 kw, 270 kg (P: V 0.6m 3 ) L3e-A3 3W, <1000 kg, max 5 seats 3W, <1000 kg, max 2 seats, V 0.6m 3 <4kW, 425 kg, 45 km/h (D, G) <6kW, <425 kg, 45 km/h (D, G) <15kW, 450 kg W/G<6, 450 kg P: 450 kg, U: 600 kg, (D, G) Distinction based on technology and operation Specification of number of sample vehicles and tests per category 16

17 1. Engineering pre-assessment of technical feasibility 2. Experimental (test) studies to generate new emission information and data analysis 3. Cost-benefit studies: How does the monetary value of the environmental benefit compare to the investment cost? 4. Cost-effectiveness studies: Which approach maximizes the environmental benefit for a given expenditure? 17

18 I.1 'Develop the 'Revised WMTC' driving cycle Collate real-world operation data, statistically analyse them, and develop representative cycle Validate in the laboratory. Duration: months Expenditure: 130 k I.2 Demonstrate feasibility of emission limit values and introduction dates Test vehicles with alternative emission control configurations. Judge by using C/E and C/B studies Duration: 16 months Expenditure: 275 k I.3 Derive equivalency of 'Revised WMTC' with existing driving cycle Perform tests over the new cycle and derive equivalencies with the existing one Duration: I.2 schedule + 2 months Expenditure: 23 k I.4 Examine approach with regard to a separate NMHC limit Examine the variability of NMHC/THC ratio in tests and recommend approach Duration: I.2 schedule + 1 month Expenditure: 12.5 k I.5 Emission limits for PM and PN Perform tests over the new cycle and derive equivalencies with the existing one Duration: I.2 schedule + 3 months Expenditure: 64 k I.6 Composite THC+NOx limit Assess possibility to introduce a composite THC+NOx limit that offers technical flexibility with same environmental benefit Duration: I.2 schedule + 3 months Expenditure: 23 k 18

19 IV.1 Physical barrier on evaporation limit Simulate total evaporative emissions of vehicles with small tanks and validate with SHED experiments to assess maximum emission potential. Duration: 10 months in parallel to IV.2 Expenditure: 89 k IV.2 Equivalency between SHED and permeation limits Test vehicles in the categories affected with SHED and permeation test and decide approach based on C/E and C/B results. Duration: 10 months in parallel to IV.1 Expenditure: 45 k IV.3 Decreased evaporation limit to 1.5 g/test Simulate benefits and costs of increased canister size, including canister durability, and validate with dedicated experiments Duration: 4 months Expenditure: 40 k 19

20 V.1 Validation of mileage accumulation cycle and useful life Develop mileage accumulation cycle to approach real-world operation pattern. Validate drivability and testability of alternative approaches by means of actual tests. Duration: 12 months Expenditure: 420 k * * interim estimate V.2 Technical feasibility of DFs Examine technical feasibility of reaching increasing DFs during the tests executed in I.2. Compare performance with actual durability tests and suggest potential improvements. Duration: 8 months in parallel to I.2 Expenditure: 15 k 20

21 VII.1 Improve and validate measurement procedure Include CO2 and energy measurement within the test matrix of task I.2 and validate approach Duration: I.2 schedule + 3 months Expenditure: 15 k 21

22 VIII.1 OBD2 technical feasibility assessment Engineering pre-assessment and tests of alternative approaches for OBD2 monitoring, in particular with regard to catalyst monitoring, misfiring, O 2 sensor deterioration and evaporation leakage monitoring Duration: 12 months Expenditure: 143 k VIII.2 Level of the On-board Threshold Values (OTLs) Introduce malfunctions to vehicles, perform tests to identify emission level increase and determine cost-effectiveness of introducing different threshold values 12 months, running together Duration: Expenditure: 115 k with VIII.1 VIII.3 Approach for the In-Use Performance Ratios (IUPRs) Simulate the impact of different IUPRs, and identify conditions that OBD monitoring needs to be performed Duration: Expenditure: 38 k * *Includes only initial assessment. Additional resources to be required when approach for L- category vehicles is specified. 22

23 IUC.1 Feasibility of introducing IUC in L-category vehicles Conduct actual IUC procedure to a number of vehicles and monitor feasibility and costs, in particular for small-series vehicles. Duration: 6 months Expenditure: 126 k IUC.2 Cost-benefit of alternative approaches Depending on results of IUC.1, make recommendations on IUC procedure on the basis of costeffectiveness analysis. Duration: 6 months Expenditure: 19 k 23

24 OC.1 Necessity and feasibility of introducing off-cycle emission control Preliminary assessment on what an off-cycle emissions control may offer and outline of technical specifications how this can be performed. Execute limited number of testing examples. Duration: 8 months Expenditure: 51 k * *Depending on outcome of this study, additional study will be needed to develop exact technical specifications. 24

25 RW.1 Assessment of cost-benefit in introducing a RW procedure Include older vehicle technologies in the test matrix of OBD testing and extent testing with simplified test. Assess feasibility and cost/benefit of RW procedure. Duration: VIII.2 schedule + 8 months Expenditure: 38 k 25

26 Item Testing (k ) Labour (k ) Total (k ) Type I Emission Limits Type IV - Evaporation Type V - Durability Type VII CO 2 and energy cons Type VIII Environmental OBD In-Use Conformity Off-Cycle OBD Total 825 (49%) 856 (51%)

27 Execution of most of the testing at JRC Co-financing by other DGs for use of new information in emission modelling and projections Co-financing by member states, e.g. Sweden: Evaporation Netherlands: IUC UK: PM/PN Limited number of highly specialized tests within OEM facilities Seek contributions from stakeholders 27

28 Apr-May 13: Collect feedback from stakeholders in terms of key assumptions June 13: Deliver final report 28