Clean Fuels for Road Public Transport

Ulrich Weber, UITP-EuroTeam

DG Environment Workshop on Clean Buses and other Captive Fleets14 January 2005

UITP Report on Clean Fuels for Road Public Transport (2004)

Clean fuels for road public transport

A study report from the UITP Bus Committee

– Expertise from 35 bus operating companies from 20 countries (Berlin, Paris, New York, Milan, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Vienna,..)

– Rich experience in operating city buses ( … purchasing, servicing, maintaining and repairing the vehicles … )

Objective of the report– Give a review of all current available fuels– Present available experiences from operators using clean fuelsin terms of reliability, maintainability, costs (purchase and operating), safety and service improvement

Content:Recommendations for measurement tests not on engine but on vehicle basis: SORT (Standardised On Road Test Cycles) methodReview of the propellants/technologies available for PT:(a) carbon-based fuels/fossils (diesel, CNG, LPG, etc.)

(b) renewable options (biofuels like vegetable oil, biomass and hydrogen)

(c) applications of electrical energy (trolley buses, batteries, hybrids, fuel cells)

Clean fuels for road public transport

Current Changes and Developments

Clean diesel technologies (e.g. particle filter…) have been developed along with the entry into strict standards Synthetic fuels such as water-diesel emulsions are availableBiofuels such as biodiesel and diester are availableAlternative fossil fuels (e.g. CNG) have managed a significant market breakthrough Electric driven vehicles have been put into commercial serviceFuel cell technology has been/is tested intensively

Compliance with EEV Standard

Project “challenging environmental standards in PT competition”(German Ministry of Environment, 2004):

EEV can be reached with CNG and Diesel technologies!

22 CNG buses in Frankfurt/Oder

25 Diesel buses in Berlin

The Way to reach Euro V/EEV with Diesel Buses- 2 Strategies -

NOx emissions

PM em

issio

ns

NOx/PM

SCRMotor (PM-opt)

EGR

DPF(CRT)

EURO V

DPF (z.B. CRT) + AGR (oder SCR)

Motor (PM-opt.) + SCR

SCR

Influence of CRT Systems on Particle Size

0

20

40

60

80

100

10-30 nm 30-100 nm 100-300 nm

Part

icle

em

issi

on %

without CRT with CRT

Particle size

Initial extra capital costs (compared to a 12m diesel bus at 200.000 €)

CNG LPG Diesel + CRT

Diesel + SCRT

Vehicle 40.000 € 30.000 € 5.000 – 6.000 €

10.000 €

Filling station

0,3 to 0,6 Mio €

0,22 Mio €

- -

Safety devices

0,03 to 1 Mio €

1 Mio € - -

Cleaning installations

- - 25.000 € 25.000 € Source: UITP Bus Committee

The Price of Change

Conclusion 1: Clean Vehicles and Alternative Fuels have extra Costs

Diesel technology is still the most economic solution and offers with EGR/SCR and particle filters compliance with highest emission standards (EEV)Technology/fuel independent incentives for clean vehicles Local authorities and transport undertakings should be free to choose their best strategy on how resources are allocated to obtain a clean fleetExtra costs for changing to clean vehicles and alternative fuels have to be taken into account and should not lead to a counterproductive cut in the PT service offer

Experiences from New Member States

Relatively old bus fleetsExample Bratislava: 504 buses – 42 % after lifetime,

131 trolley buses – 80 % after lifetimeExample Lithuania: 80 % of all buses are more than 10 years old

Serious problem: only very limited financial resources for purchase of new vehicles/modernising old vehicles and maintenance of PT infrastructure

More European structural funds dedicated to local PT would be a solution

86

97,7

5 0

20

40

60

80

100CO

HC

NOxPM

CO2TotalTransportPublic Transport

Relative Responsibilities for Emissions in Urban Areas

(Source: UITP Focus Paper 2000)

Fuel Consumption of selected Transport Modes (per Person)

7,4

1,71,2

5,2

1 0,7

0

2

4

6

8

10Liters/100 km

Car * PT ** PT *** Metro **

PT Public Transport* 1,2 Persons per Car** Average Consumption per Day*** Consumption in Rush Hours

Metro ***

1998 2020

today today

(Source: Shell Study)

PorscheCayenne Turbo:

23 liters/100 kilometers

Articulated MB Citaro:60 liters/100 kilometers

CO2 Emissions of selected Transport Modes in Relation to Cars

10070,4

74,1

25,914,8

18,59,9

38,37,4

Pkw 1998Pkw 2020Flugzeug

ÖPNV im DurchschnittÖPNV in Verkehrsspitze

Stadtbahn im DurchschnittStadtbahn in Verkehrsspitze

Lininebus im DurchschnittLinienbus in Verkehrsspitze

in Prozent

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per CentCars 1998Cars 2020Airplanes

PT in AveragePT during Rush Hours

Metro in AverageMetro during Rush Hours

PT Bus in AveragePT Bus dg. Rush Hours

(Source: Shell Study)

Conclusion 2: Comprehensive Strategy to solve transport related problems in urban areas is necessary!

3 km/h increase in average commercial speed of London bus lines resulted in reduction of ~ 50 % of all major pollutants + GHG emissions!

Modal shift from individual motorized transport to more environmentally friendly modes of transport such as public transport, cycling and walking will be the key solution in urban areas for:Reducing pollutantsReducing GHG emissionsReducing accidents and improving road safetyReducing space consumptionReducing congestion