international automotive congress 2014 co technology ... · global co2 targets until 2025 210 200...

CO2 Technology Strategies for OEM in Europe until 2025

International Automotive Congress 2014

© fka 2014 · All rights reserved09.12.2014Slide No. 1#145830 · 14cha0046.pptx

Shanghai, December 9th 2014

Dipl.-Kfm. Ingo Olschewski, Dipl.-Ing. Dipl.-Wirt. Ing. Christian-Simon Ernstfka Forschungsgesellschaft Kraftfahrwesen mbH Aachen

Christian Harter M.Sc.Institut für Kraftfahrzeuge, Aachen

Agenda

� Challenges for the Automotive Industry

� Status quo of European CO2 legislation

� Strategies for CO2 Target Compliance

� Deduction of Fields of Action for OEM

� Summary


Global CO2 Targets until 2025

210

200

160

220

170

190

180

em

issi

on

ta

rge

t in

N

ED

C e

qu

iva

len

ts [g C

O2/k

m]

Empiric data Official targets

� The CO2 limit values are defined for different test cycles, but it is possible to normalize the target height on a NEDC-equivalent value, to assure the comparability of the target values.

Global CO2 targets


2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

140

110

160

120

150

130

100

90

CO

2e

mis

sio

n ta

rge

t in

N

ED

C e

qu

iva

len

ts [g C

O

1ICCT (2014), DOT (2011), METI (2011)

� The different base levels of the CO2 emission in the compared countries are attributed to the difference in fleet composition and used fuels.

� Up to 2021 the EU will have the strictest targets on CO2 emissions (95 g) followed by Japan. The US targets are less stringent .1

� Values for BRIC-states are not directly comparable due to their completely different composition of their national fleet.

CO2 Legislation in the EU

Target Curve and Additional Provisions

� Avg. CO2 emission in 2010: 141 g CO2/km

� Fleet specific CO2 targets until 2021 forpassenger cars defined according to EU regulation 443/2009.

� Target 2015 M1 = 130 + a (M – M0)

� a = 0,0457� M = Avg. Mass in running order [kg]� M0 = 1.372 kg� Reference mass M0 is adjusted to the

average fleet weight every three years� Target 2021 M1 = 95 + a (M - M )

Target Curve

0

50

100

150

200

250

2,0001,0000 3,000

CO

2em

issi

on

[g C

O2/k

m]

M0=1.372 kg

95 g

141 g

130 g


� Target 2021 M1 = 95 + a (M - M0)� Reduction of slope: a = 0,0333

2,0001,0000 3,000

0

50

100

150

15

141

212013 142010 12

75%

65% 100%

95%

95

130

CO

2em

issio

n [g C

O2/k

m]

80%

100%

� Vehicles with CO2 emissions of less than50 g have more weight when calculating theOEM fleet average CO2 emission by usingproduction multipliers.

Supercredits

1,0

2,0

1,0

0

1

2

3

4

15

1,5

Multi

plie

r [-

]

2322

1,3

21

1,7

201614

2,5

13

3,5

2012

3,5Σ max. 7,5 g CO2

� Technologies whichverifiably reduce CO2

emissions in real-worldusage of the car but arenot captured in thestandardized drivingcycle (the NEDC) can beaccounted for up to a total of 7 g per vehicle.

� The Eco Innovationshave to be officially certified by the EU

Eco Innovations� In the years preceeding the target

years 2015 resp. 2021, the CO2

emission is calculated on base ofthe most fuel efficient share of eachOEM‘s fleet.

Phase-in

Fines for non-compliance: 95 € for each gram CO2 above the target, multiplied by the fleet size.

Range of 65 – 68 g CO2/km under discussion for 2025.

Agenda


� Status quo of European Automotive Industry



� Summary


Status Quo of CO2 Emission by Group/Brand

130

150

120

140

110

100

90

em

issi

on [g

CO

2/k

m]

130 g

95 g

126 g

Status quo of the CO2 emission in 2013 for Volume OEM Groups


1,100 1,2000

80

70

60

0

1,7001,6001,5001,4001,300

Vehicle mass M [kg]

CO

2em

issi

on [g

CO

M0/EU = 1,372 kg M0/2013 = 1,391 kg

� Specification of OEM-specific CO2 targets, based on the average curb weight of their new registered passenger vehicles in each year.

� In average, the CO2 target of 2015 (130 g CO2/km) is already being met in 2013, whereas all OEM have to decrease their CO2 emission in order to meet the 95 g target curve in 2021.

� Target 2025 under discussion: Range between 65 g to 78 g CO2/km.

CO2 Reduction Requirements

Source: EEA (2014)

Indicative Target Range 2025: 65 g – 78 g

Agenda




� Framework and Assumptions

� Strategies for OEM




� Summary

Systematization of Strategies

Strategies for CO2

target compliance

Demand Pull Technology Push OEM Pooling

�Re-positioning by changing the portfolio, e.g. by entering the small car segment

�Technological reduction of CO2

emissions of vehicles by:� Conventional technologies

�Formation of CO2 emission pools within the framework of the European legislation

+ +


small car segment�Shift in fuel types, e.g. by

increasing share of vehicles powered by diesel fuel or natural gas

� Conventional technologies� Hybrid technologies

(Mild-, Full-Hybrid)� Plug-in-Hybrids� BEV

� Eco innovations

the European legislation

Companies internal success factors: Technology, competitors etc.

Success depends on customer acceptance, energy prices etc.

Focus of this research.1: Technology 2: Pooling

Specification of Abstract OEM

� For the further analysis, three abstract OEM are defined, each with a different focus in their product portfolio.

Specification of Abstract OEM

100

150

90

110

120

130

140

60

70

80

RENAULT

MAZDA

HYUNDAIHONDA

GMFORD

FIAT

TOYOTA

BMW

CO

2em

issi

on [g

CO

2/k

m]

VW

PSA

DAIMLER

1 Assuming constant avg. fleet weight

2 Assuming constant slope of target curve (0.0333) and constant avg. fleet weight and 78 g as the


8%

62%

14%

16%

32%

27%

32%

8%

19%44%

9%

27%

Small Car Diesel

Large Car Diesel

Medium Car Petrol

Medium Car Diesel

Small CarPetrol

Large Car Petrol

0

1,7001,6001,5001,4001,3001,2000 1,100

Vehicle mass M [kg]

�CO2 emission125 g

�Avg. Mass1,133 kg

�Target 20211

87 g (-30%)�Target 20252

70 g (-44%)

Small car OEM (Year 2010)



�Target 20211

95 g (-32%)�Target 20252

78 g (-44%)

Volume OEM (Year 2010)



�Target 20211

104 g (-39%)�Target 20252

87 g (-49%)

Premium OEM (Year 2010)

weight and 78 g as the overall EU target

Agenda




� Framework and Assumptions

� Strategies for OEM




� Summary

Technology Identification

Strategy 1: Technology Push

Methodological Approach

� Each of the identified technologies is evaluated in terms of…� CO2 reduction potential [%]� Production costs on vehicle level [€]� Weight effect on vehicle level [%]

� …and under consideration of technological progress.

1 Technology Evaluation2

Technology

Assessment

CO2 reduction

potential [%]

Production

Costs [€]

Weight

Effect [%]

Technology

2025

2020

Technological progress

Engine Technology, e.g. Downsizing

Transmission, e.g. Double clutch Trans.

e.g.4 Cyl., 1,4 l.� 3 Cyl., 1,0 l


2025

� Prioritization of the technological options

� Identification of interactions� Development of technology packages

Consolidation in Technology Packages3

Conventional

Mild and Full

Hybrid

Plug-in Hybrid

Source: ika (2012)

Drivetrain Electrifica-tion, e.g. Full Hybrid

Overall Improvement, e.g.

Auxilliaries

Driving Resistance Reduction, e.g.

Lightweight Design

TP1 TP2 TP3 TP4

TP1 TP2C TP3C TP4C

Homogenous direct injection TP1 TP2C TP3C

Downsizing & turbo (Step I) Downsizing & turbo (Step II) Downsizing & turbo (Step II)I High load exhaust gas recirculation

Variable valve timing (VVT) Variable valve timing + lift Aerodynamic design Variable compression ratio

Micro-Hybrid (Start-Stopp) Cylinder deactivation Lightweight design - strong (bodywork) Exhaust heat recovery (Rankine)

7/8/9 gear automatic transmission DownspeedingLightweight design components

(strong)

Drivetrain friction reduction Thermal management

Electrification of auxilliariesLightweight design - medium

(bodywork)

Low rolling resistance tires Lightweight design - components

Aerodynamic optimization

Lightweight design - light (bodywork) TP2H TP3H TP4H

TP2C TP3C TP4C

Mild hybrid Full hybrid Full hybrid

TP2PHEV TP3PHEV TP4PHEV

TP2C TP3C TP4C

Plug-in hybrid Plug-in hybrid Plug-in hybrid

Hybrid Technologies

+

Conventional Technologies

Plug-in Hybrid Technologies

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+


Roadmap of Innovative Technologies

� Even in the timeframe after 2020, innovative technologies in various vehicle domains are expected to enter the mass market:

� They allow for a further reduction of CO2 emissions, beyond the improvement potentials of existing technologies (e.g. supercharging or friction reduction).

� Driver assistance systems have the potential to reduce CO2 emission on the road, but are not captured by the concept of the NEDC.

Technologies for CO2 reduction after 2020

Additional technologies may enter the market until 2030 but will not be relevant for the mass market.

Combustion concepts:

Niche technologies

Combustion engine


11

Combustion concepts:

� 2-stroke/4-stroke process

� Lambda split process

Hybrid concepts:

� Hydraulic hybrid

� Flywheel hybrid

Range extender concepts:

� OPOC engine

� Wankel engine

� Stirling engine

� Gas turbine

� Fuel cell

2020 2025 2030

HCCI / CAI

EGR (High Load)

Variable compression

ratio

Driving resistancesStrong lightweight

design (components)

Comprehensive Measures

Exhaust heat recovery(thermoelectric generator)

Exhaust heat recovery (Rankine)

Combustion engine

„Closed Loop“ Control

Driver assistance systems

predictive cruise control

V2X communication

Intelligent navigation

Strong lightweight design (bodywork)

Developed Technology Packages Medium vehicles (petrol)


Composition of Technology Packages

TP1 TP2 TP3 TP4

TP1 TP2C TP3C TP4C


Downsizing & turbo (Step I) Downsizing & turbo (Step II) Downsizing & turbo (Step II)I High load exhaust gas recirculation


Micro-Hybrid (Start-Stopp) Cylinder deactivation Lightweight design - strong (bodywork) Exhaust heat recovery (Rankine)

7/8/9 gear automatic transmission DownspeedingLightweight design components

(strong)


+


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+


� The technology packages (TP) are being built upon the best cost-benefit ratio. The next TP always includes the prior TP. Further generations of technologies always replace the entry technology.

� In total, 4 TP generations and 10 total options are derived from the complete options list.


Electrification of auxilliariesLightweight design - medium

(bodywork)

Low rolling resistance tires Lightweight design - components


Lightweight design - light (bodywork) TP2H TP3H TP4H

TP2C TP3C TP4C



TP2C TP3C TP4C

Plug-in hybrid Plug-in hybrid Plug-in hybrid

Hybrid Technologies


+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+


Results for a Volume OEM

5,000

8,000

6,000

7,000

4,000

Ave

rag

e a

dditi

onal p

roduct

ion

cost

s per

vehic

le [

€]

95 g (Conv.)68 g (PHEV)

78 g (HEV)

PHEV

HEV

ConventionalPHEV

ConventionalHEVPHEVTechnological feasible

Economical efficient

Technology Assessment

CO2 reductionpotential [%]

2020

Technological

OEM definition

Technology evaluation

� The OEM optimizes its technology strategy by implementing technology packages in vehicles of the different segments and fuel types.

Technology strategy, Volume OEM, 2025

Target 78 g

Target 68 g

Target 95 g

8%

62%

14%

16%�CO2 emission

125 g�Avg. Mass

1,133 kg�Target 20211

87 g (-30%)�Target 20252

70 g (-44%)



20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

1,000

2,000

0

3,000

CO2 emission [g CO2/km]

Ave

rag

e a

dditi

onal p

roduct

ion

cost

s per

vehic

le [

78 g (PHEV)

95 g (Conv.)68 g (PHEV)

95 g (PHEV)

Conven-tional Status

quo 2010

� The defined volume OEM can theoretically reduce its CO2 emissions to ca. 84 g by using conventional technologies, to ca. 69 g by using HEV technologies (Mild-, Full-H.) and to ca. 35 g by using PHEV in the complete fleet.

� Even by optimizing the technology strategy, CO2 reduction costs rise exponentially at low CO2 targets.

� It is more cost efficient to partially introduce PHEV into the fleet instead of applying very progressive conventional

technologies.

Technology Strategy for Volume OEM, 2025

Technology

2025

Technological

progress

Technology packagesTP1 TP2 TP3 TP4

TP1 TP2C TP3C TP4C


Downsizing & turbo (Step I) Downsizing & turbo (Step II ) Downsizing & turbo (Step II )I Hi gh load exhaust gas recirc ulation


Micro-Hybrid (Start-Stopp) Cylinder deac tivation Li ghtweight design - strong (bodywork) Exhaust heat re covery (Rankine)

7 /8/9 gear automatic transmission DownspeedingLightweight design components

(st rong)

Drivetrainfric tion reduction Thermal management

El ectrification of auxilliarie sLi ghtweight design - medium

(bodywork)

Low rolling resistance tires Li ghtweight design - components


Li ghtweight design - light (bodywork) TP2H TP3H TP4H

TP2C TP3C TP4C



TP2C TP3C TP4C

Plug-in hybrid P lug-in hybrid Pl ug-in hybrid

Hybrid Technologies

+



+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+


Potential of Eco Innovations

Engine encapsulation High Efficiency Alternator

Less cold-start

� Technologies which reduce CO2 emission on roadbut are not captured by the NEDC can be accountedfor up to a total of 7 g per vehicle.

� The effectiveness of these technologies isevaluated in a standardized certification process.

95

37

0

50

100

150

CO

2e

mis

sio

n [g C

O2/k

m]

7

139

Status Cycle-based Target Eco

� Eco innovations reduce the CO2 reduction requirementson cycle-based technologies by 7 g CO2/km per vehicle.

Technological areas of Eco Innovation applications

Volume OEM

Implication on CO2 targetEco Innovations


LED exterior lights Navigation based battery

charging

Less cold-startsituations High efficiency factor

Reduced power consumption, compared to halogen and xenon lights

Navigation basedoptimization ofbattery chargingstrategy for hybrid vehicles.

Solar roof

Battery charging, using solar energy.

Coasting

Coasting with engineturned off.

CO Status

quoCycle-based technologies

Target 2021

Eco Innovations

� For low CO2 targets, costs for reducing an additional unit ofCO2 rise exponentially.

� In 2020, each gram CO2 reduction equals to ca. €50 ofadditional production costs.

� Some eco innovations show a superior cost efficiency.� Eco-innovation based on software (e.g. navigation

based) are avaible at minimum production costs.� Costs for LED lights may be beared by the customer

since they provide additional functionalities.

� Eco Innovations be part of the cost efficient technology

push strategy.

Implication on Technology Push strategy

Strategy 2: OEM Pooling

Framework

• Opportunity to form bilateral or multilateral OEM pools, stating to jointly fulfil CO2 targets.

• Comprehensive assessment of the CO2 emissions, but OEM can remain independent legal entities.

Legislative Provisions

� By integrating two or more OEM, the strategic scope for CO2 target

Economic Rationale

OEM Pool Type 1:„closed pool“ of OEM already connected in a group

� Have to grant „non-discriminatory“ access to other OEM on „economically reasonable terms“

OEM Pool Type 2:„open pool“ of completely independent OEM

� Access can be denied to other OEM

OEM Pool


the strategic scope for CO2 target compliance is widening.

� One OEM may miss the target when the other OEM over-fulfils its target proportionally.

� Cost savings for one OEM over-compensate additional costs for the other OEM

� Inequalities are adjusted by compen-sation payments, so that each OEM draws a benefit from the pooling agreement.

� Theoretically, the optimum result is achieved when each OEM has the same slope of its cost curve (equal marginal cost).

Small CarPetrol / Diesel

Medium CarPetrol / Diesel

Large CarPetrol / Diesel

Manufacturer A

Small CarPetrol / Diesel

Medium CarPetrol / Diesel

Large CarPetrol / Diesel

Manufacturer B

Agenda





� Summary


Deduction of Fields of Action for OEM

Cost efficient CO2 target compliance 2025

� The CO2 strategy has to be individually elaborated and evaluated for each OEM, since different market positions, technical properties and strategic opportunities do not allow a generalized strategy.

� Cost-efficient Technology paths for CO2 target compliance

� Make-or-buy strategy

Technology Strategy

Strategy deduction

Ind

ivid

ua

l C

om

pli

an

ce

Str

ate

gy

Legislation

Technology Identification

Analysis Evaluation

100

150

90

110

120

130

140

60

70

80

RENAULT

MAZDA

HYUNDAIHONDA

GMFORD

FIAT

TOYOTA

BMW

CO

2em

issi

on [g

CO

2/k

m]

VW

PSA

DAIMLER

Technology andCosts

� CO2 reductionpotential vs. production costs


� Vehicle segment strategy

� Fuel mix

� Strategic alliances (OEM pools) for CO2 target compliance

� Supplier cooperation in development or procurement

Market and Pooling Strategy

Methodological Competences by fka

Technology

Roadmaps

CO2 Emission

database

Tool for Scenario

Calculation

Tool for OEM Strategy

Optimization

Ind

ivid

ua

l C

om

pli

an

ce

Str

ate

gy

+

OEM Portfolio Analysis

Identification

Technology Databases for

EU / USA

0

1,7001,6001,5001,4001,3001,2000 1,100

Vehicle mass M [kg]

Transmission, e.g. Double clutch Trans.

8%

62%

14%

16%�CO2 emission125 g


�Target 20211

87 g (-30%)�Target 20252

70 g (-44%)


+

production costs

� Interdependecies

� Progress

Technology Assessment

CO2 reductionpotential [%]

ProductionCosts [€]

WeightEffect [%]

Technology

2025

2020

Technological progress

Agenda



� Strategies for CO2 target compliance


� Summary


CO2 Technology Strategies in Europe until 2025

Summary

� CO2 legislation until 2021 (95 g) and beyond (2025: 65 – 78 g) requires further CO2

reduction efforts in order to mitigate high non-compliance fees.

� An optimum CO2 strategy consists both of a technology and a market / pooling strategy.

� Electrification of the vehicle fleet by the introduction of PHEV is more cost efficient than introducing the most advanced technologies for conventional powertrains.


introducing the most advanced technologies for conventional powertrains.

� Eco innovations may be a part of a cost efficient technology push strategy, providing additional technology options. Cost efficiency is depending on the specific technology.

� Forming CO2 emission pools may be an beneficial option for OEM of all segments, in case corresponding compensation payments can be arranged.

� An optimum CO2 strategy has to be elaborated individually for every OEM since there is no general optimum strategy.

� Re-evaluation of results necessary when Worldwide harmonized driving cycle (WLTP) in introduced.

Forschungsgesellschaft Kraftfahrwesen mbH Aachen

Contact

Dipl.-Kfm. Ingo Olschewski


Phone

EmailInternet www.fka.de

Forschungsgesellschaft Kraftfahrwesen mbH AachenSteinbachstraße 752074 AachenGermany

+49 241 8861160

[email protected]

international automotive congress 2014 co technology ... · global co2 targets until 2025 210 200...

Documents