Assessment with respect to long term CO emission …Assessment with respect to long term CO 2...

Assessment with respect to long term CO2 emission targets for passenger cars and vans Deliverable D2: Final Report

Report to European Commission

Restricted Commercial

ED45757

Issue Number 1

July 2009

Assessment of options for CO2 legislation for light commercial vehicles Restricted Commercial Framework contract No. ENV/C.5/FRA/2006/0071 AEA/ED45757/Issue 1

ii AEA

Restricted Commercial Assessment of options for CO2 legislation for light commercial vehicles AEA/ED45757/Issue 1 Ref: ENV/C.5/FRA/2006/0071

AEA iii

Title Assessment with respect to long term CO2 emission targets for passenger

cars and vans Customer European Commission Customer reference Framework contract no.: DG ENV/C.5/FRA/2006/0071

Specific Contract No: 070307/2008/517460/MAR/C3 Confidentiality, copyright and reproduction

File reference M:\Projects\Policy_Group\Live_Projects\EC_FRAMEWORK_ED05315\ED4

5757 Reference number ED45757 - Issue 1 Ian Skinner AEA

Central House 14 Upper Woburn Place

London WC1H 0JN UK t: 0870 190 2817 f: 0870 190 5545 AEA is a business name of AEA Technology plc AEA is certificated to ISO9001 and ISO14001 Authors Name Ruben Sharpe and Richard Smokers (TNO) Approved by Name M Woodfield (AEA) Signature

Date July 22, 2009


iv AEA


AEA v

Table of contents

1 Introduction 7

1.1 Context of the project 7

1.2 Scope of this report 8

1.3 Project history 8

1.4 Structure of this report 9

1.5 Notes on cost definitions and other general methodological aspects 9

2 Options for reduction of CO2 emissions from passenger cars in the

2012 – 2020 timeframe 11

2.1 Overview of CO2 reduction options for passenger cars 11

2.2 Construction of first order cost curves for passenger cars 12

3 Options for reduction of CO2 emissions from light commercial vehicles

in the 2012 – 2020 timeframe 15

3.1 Overview of CO2 reduction options 15

3.2 Construction of first order cost curves 15

4 Methodology for applying learning curve theory to cost curves

for 2020 17

4.1 Introduction 17

4.2 Learning curve theory 17

4.3 Considerations on the cost data as used in the previous assessments 18

4.4 Considerations on application of learning curve theory to cost for meeting the 2020

target 19

4.5 Methodology 20

5 Costs for reaching long term CO2 reduction targets in

passenger cars 23

5.1 Introduction 23

5.2 Cost curves for passenger cars in 2020 including learning effects 23

5.3 Assessment of costs for reaching various target levels in 2020 26

5.4 Comparison of average costs for reaching 2020 target levels and conclusions 29


vi AEA

6 Costs for reaching long term CO2 reduction targets in light

commercial vehicles 31

6.1 Cost curves for LCVs in 2020 including learning effects 31

6.2 Assessment of costs for reaching various target levels in 2020 34

6.3 Comparison of average costs for reaching 2020 target levels for LCVs and

conclusions 38

7 Conclusions 41

Annexes

Annex A: Potential and additional manufacturer costs of options for reducing CO2 emissions of passenger cars 47

Annex B: Potential and additional manufacturer costs of options for reducing CO2 emissions of light commercial vehicles 49

Annex C: Packages of technical options for passenger cars 51

Annex D Packages of technical options for light commercial vehicles 57

Annex E Results of LCV cost calculations with a 50% cap on petrol vehicles 63


AEA 7

1 Introduction

1.1 Context of the project

In COM(2007) 191 and SEC(2007) 602 the European Commission has outlined its plans for a new Community Strategy for reaching the EU objective of reducing CO2 emissions from new passenger cars to 120 g/km in 2012. The Commission proposes an Integrated Approach. The main element of this approach is a regulatory framework for reducing the CO2 emissions of the average new car fleet to 130 g/km by means of improvements in vehicle technology. To bridge the gap between this new car fleet average and the 120g/km goal the Integrated Approach includes setting minimum efficiency requirements for air-conditioning systems, compulsory fitting of accurate tyre pressure monitoring systems, setting maximum tyre rolling resistance limits in the EU for tyres fitted on passenger cars and light commercial vehicles, the use of gear shift indicators, development of legislation to improve the fuel efficiency of light commercial vehicles, and the increased use of biofuels while maximizing environmental performance. Together these elements are intended to achieve a net CO2 emission reduction that is equivalent to the impact of reducing the new vehicle fleet average from 130 to 120 g/km. In December of 2007 the Commission has presented a detailed proposal3 and accompanying Impact Assessment4 for the regulatory framework to achieve a new car fleet average of 130 g/km. In December 2008 the European Parliament and Council have reached agreement on the details of the CO2 legislation for passenger cars, laid down in Regulation No 443/20095 Some important elements of the agreement are: - Limit value curve: the fleet average to be achieved by all cars registered in the EU is 130

grams per kilometre (g/km). A so-called limit value curve implies that heavier cars are allowed higher emissions than lighter cars while preserving the overall fleet average. Manufacturers will be given a target based on the sales-weighted average mass of their vehicles.

- Phasing-in of requirements: in 2012 65% of each manufacturer's newly registered cars must comply on average with the limit value curve set by the legislation. This will rise to 75% in 2013, 80% in 2014, and 100% from 2015 onwards.

- Long-term target: a target of 95g/km is specified for the year 2020. The modalities for reaching this target and the aspects of its implementation will have to be defined in a review to be completed no later than the beginning of 2013.

The European commission intends to develop CO2 legislation for light commercial vehicles along similar lines as used for passenger cars. Detailed analyses in support of that have been published in [AEA 2009]. Similar to the case of passenger cars the legislation for light commercial vehicles is intended to include a long term CO2 emission target for 2020.

1 COM(2007) 19: Results of the review of the Community Strategy to reduce CO2 from passenger cars and light commercial vehicles,

7.2.2007 2 SEC(2007) 60, Impact Assessment, accompanying document to COM(2007) 19, 7.2.2007 3 COM(2007) 856, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting emission performance standards for

new passenger cars as part of the Community's integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles, 19.12.2007 4 SEC(2007) 1723, Proposal from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council for a Regulation to reduce CO2 emissions from

passenger cars, DRAFT Impact Assessment, 19.12.2007 5 REGULATION (EC) No 443/2009 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 April 2009 setting emission

performance standards for new passenger cars as part of the Community’s integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty

vehicles, see: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/transport/co2/co2_home.htm


8 AEA

1.2 Scope of this report

The work presented in this report is part of a Service Contract to “Support for the co-decision process and preparation of implementation of the draft Regulation on CO2 emissions from cars”, carried out by AEA, CE Delft, TNO and Öko-Institut under Framework Contract ENV.C.5/FRA/2006/0071. This report presents results of analyses carried out by TNO, in collaboration with CE Delft,

in support of the development by the European Commission of a proposal for long term

targets as part of the regulation of the CO2 emissions from new passenger cars and light

commercial vehicles (LCVs).

Analysing the potential for longer term CO2 emission reduction in cars and vans includes the following steps: - assessing technological options for CO2 emission reduction that can be applied in the 2012 –

2020 timeframe; - assessing cost developments for these options in the 2012 – 2020 timeframe; - constructing cost curves for CO2 emission reduction in various vehicle market segments for

2020; - analysis of the costs at which various levels of CO2 reduction can be achieved in 2020.

1.2.1 Modalities for implementing the long term targets

As mentioned above, the modalities for reaching the 2020 targets for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles, as well as other aspects of implementation, will have to be defined in a review by the Commission to be completed no later than the beginning of 2013. These modalities include the possible use of a utility-based limit function, the choice of utility parameter, the slope or shape of the limit function. Other implementation aspects include e.g. schemes for phasing in the targets, penalties for not meeting the targets, derogations for small volume and niche manufacturers, and possible credits for using specific technologies as are also defined in the passenger car legislation for 2015. These various implementation aspects impact upon the average costs per vehicle for meeting the target and largely determine the impacts on individual manufacturers. The calculations presented in this report make no assumptions on the way in which the targets will be implemented. Assessments of average costs for meeting a target involve estimating the division of reduction efforts and associated costs over various vehicle segments. In this report such assessments are all made at the level of the total new car sales in EU 27, instead of at the level of individual manufacturers. Impacts of various modalities and other implementation aspects will have to be assessed in future studies.

1.3 Project history

The assessments presented in this report build in part on previous work carried out by the present consortium members TNO and CE Delft in collaboration with IEEP, LAT, Öko-Institut and AEA. This work has been reported in the following documents: - [AEA 2009]: Assessment of options for the legislation of CO2 emissions from light commercial

vehicles, carried out by CE Delft,TNO, Öko-Institut and AEA on behalf of the European Commission (DG ENV, Framework Contract nr. ENV.C.5/FRA/2006/0071) in 2009

- [AEA 2008]: Impacts of regulatory options to reduce CO2 emissions from cars, in particular on

car manufacturers, carried out by CE Delft,TNO, Öko-Institut and AEA on behalf of the European Commission (DG ENV, Framework Contract nr. ENV.C.5/FRA/2006/0071) in 2008


AEA 9

- [IEEP 2007]: Service Contract on possible regulatory approaches to reducing CO2 emissions

from cars: Study on the detailed design of the regulation to reduce CO2 emissions from new

passenger cars to 130 g/km in 2012, carried out by IEEP, CE Delft and TNO on behalf of the European Commission (DG ENV, contract nr. 070402/2006/452236/MAR/C3) in 2007

- [TNO 2006]: Service Contract to review and analyse the reduction potential and costs of

technological and other measures to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars, carried out by TNO, IEEP and LAT on behalf of the European Commission (DG Enterprise, contract nr. SI2.408212) in 2006.

- [TNO 2004]: Service Contract on the policies for reducing CO2 emissions from light

commercial vehicles, carried out by TNO, IEEP and LAT on behalf of the European Commission (DG Environment) in 2003-4.

Reports can be downloaded from the websites of DG Environment resp. DG Enterprise.

1.4 Structure of this report

In chapter 2 CO2 reduction potentials and costs are reviewed for technological options that can be applied to passenger cars by 2020. By combining technologies into packages, first order cost curves are constructed for 2020. The same is done for light commercial vehicles in chapter 3. Costs of technology (per unit product) generally decrease with increasing scale of production estimating and increasing experience, as well as due to further technical innovations in product and production process. The development of costs over time can be estimated using so-called learning curve theory. The overall methodology, developed in this project for applying learning curve theory to cost curves for cars and vans in 2020, is explained in chapter 4. Chapters 5 and 6 report the results of the assessments for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles with respect to the costs for reaching various target levels for 2020. Conclusions are summarized in chapter 7.

1.5 Notes on cost definitions and other general methodological aspects

All results on costs for 2020 in this reports are expressed in real terms (corrected for inflation), and are relative retail price increases relative to 2006 (passenger cars) or 2007 (light commercial vehicles). Retail price for passenger cars is inclusive of VAT (consistent with previous studies such as [TNO 2006], [IEEP 2007] and [AEA 2008]. Retail price for light commercial vehicles is expressed exclusive of VAT (consistent with the assessment for the 2015 target made in [AEA 2009]. In the assessments of costs for reaching various target levels for 2020 no autonomous mass increase has been assumed between 2006/7 and 2020. Non-zero levels of autonomous mass increase would lead to higher costs for meeting the target. Cost optimisation routines used for determining the division of CO2 reduction efforts and associated costs over various vehicle segments, as developed in [TNO 2006] for passenger cars and [AEA 2009] for vans, require sales figures per segment as input. For both vehicle classes no market shifts between segments have been assumed other than a slight further shift from petrol to diesel in passenger cars up to 2012 relative to 2006.


10 AEA


AEA 11

2 Options for reduction of CO2 emissions from passenger cars in the 2012 – 2020 timeframe

2.1 Overview of CO2 reduction options for passenger cars

Starting point for the assessment of technical options for reduction of CO2 emissions from passenger cars in the 2012-2020 timeframe was the previous report [AEA 2008]. The options in this report were derived from: - Detailed review of ERTRAC’s objective for 95 gCO2/km in 2020. Attention has been given to

which technologies are considered and included to reach this objective; which assumptions have been made regarding penetration and combination of different technologies.

- Other sources have also stated possible targets for 2020, even down to 80 g/km. These statements have been reviewed, especially with regard to the underlying assumptions. Important issues are whether this target is assumed to be met by technical means alone, or partly by downsizing of vehicles and/or engines.

- Review of recent literature on new vehicle technologies. An important source has been a database developed by the Öko-Institut for projects on the subject of future sustainable transport in Germany6.

- Review of concept cars recently presented by the automotive industry (based on available literature and public announcements). The (power train) technology used in these concept cars is usually available but not yet ready for mass production (and therefore not commercially proven), but provides an outlook to mass production cars for the period 2012-2020.

- Information provided by experts from the Powertrains department of TNO. In addition to the previously reported options, several options were newly identified as adding to the reduction potential or providing alternative reduction routes. These options are briefly discussed below.

Advanced reduced engine friction losses

Almost every engine manufacturer is researching options to reduce engine friction losses. Currently, a lot has been done in this field, for example advanced outlining of the crank with the cylinder concepts has been proposed in which the friction of the piston can be lowered. For advanced techniques we can also think of coatings that will be used in the cylinder and on the piston. At this time a trend is seen of electrifying the auxiliaries which also reduces the engine friction losses. Other friction losses which can be lowered are rolling element bearings, rolling contacts, bore out-of-round/block deformation and ring tension. Extra strong downsizing with turbo charging

Downsizing is one of the main activities manufacturers are working on at the moment. In principle, the same power is generated with a smaller swept volume engine combined with turbo charging. A turbocharger increases the mass of the air entering the engine in order to create more power. The improvement of the part load efficiency is caused by applying downsizing, which results in less choke losses. Extra strong downsizing means maximizing the turbo charging technology. Another advantage of downsizing is the engine weight reduction, which also results in lower CO2 emissions at the vehicle level.

6 Project Renewbility: Material Flow Analysis for Sustainable Mobility in the Context of Renewable Energy until 2030

(http://www.renewbility.de/)


12 AEA

For the construction of cost curves as discussed below extra strong downsizing and full hybridisation are treated as alternative options for reaching similar levels of CO2 reduction by 2020. They are not combined in the packages used to define the cost curves. From a technical point of view the options can in principle be combined, but based on our expert judgement this is not considered a feasible and economically viable option for the 2020 time frame. It would entail a combination of two relatively new, complex and costly technologies. For further CO2 emission reductions that may be required for meeting post-2020 targets the combination of the two options may be considered. Heat Recovery

A lot of energy in a vehicle is turned into (waste) heat. Heat can be converted into mechanical work and / or electrical power. Fundamental research is done in the field of thermoelectric power generation and it still needs al lot of attention. The conversion of heat to mechanical work is already seen in different vehicles, for example using combined cycles with turbo-compound engines. The exhaust gas drives a turbine, which then delivers the power to the crankshaft. As a result, the engine output power is increased without increasing the fuel consumption. These mechanical concepts are already available and will improve in the future. However, compared to other technologies this is a complex technique which contains a lot of mechanical components. Heat recovery for diesel engines was already included in the list of options underlying development of cost curves for 2012-15 in a previous report [TNO 2006].

Advanced Lightweight Materials

The weight of a vehicle is directly correlated to fuel consumption and CO2 emission. Within the vehicles of today we already increased application of plastics, which are lighter than steel, especially for the non stressed parts. In the future we will see that more plastic will be used within the design of a vehicle and material as magnesium and aluminium will be more and more applied for seat frames, etc. The material that will replace the steel in a vehicle body needs to be strong. Advanced lightweight materials that will belong to the future vehicle could be HSLA (High Strength Low Alloy), aluminium, magnesium, fibre reinforced and other composites, or kevlar for example. The above technologies have been added to the list of options from [TNO 2006] for the construction of cost curves that are applicable to CO2 reduction in passenger cars and light commercial vehicles by 2020. The resulting tables with reduction potentials and manufacturer costs for all options used for the construction of cost curves are included in Annex A.

2.2 Construction of first order cost curves for passenger cars

Cost curves can be generated as previously described, starting from a list of technical options, for which costs and CO2 reduction potential are specified (see [TNO 2006],[AEA 2008]). A judicious selection of packages combining an increasing amount of increasingly advanced, effective and expensive technological options will serve as basis for estimating cost curves that describe the relationship between increasing CO2 emission reduction and the costs of this emission avoidance (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The cost curves can be determined by interpolating 3rd order polynomials between the points defined by the selected packages of options. For both passenger cars and light commercial vehicles three market segments per fuel type are discerned (small / medium / large, see also [TNO 2006] and [AEA 2009]). On the basis of a list of technical options, for which costs and CO2 reduction potential are specified per segment, a set of 5 different packages is constructed for each segment as guidance for determining the 3rd order polynomial cost curves per segment. A full list of options and the combinations thereof in the options packages is included in Annex C. The overall costs and CO2 reduction for each package have been determined using the methodology specified in [TNO 2006]. As some options,


AEA 13

combined in a package, act on the same energy loss mechanisms their effects cannot simply be added when those options are combined. For this reason a CO2 correction factor was introduced for estimating the total CO2 reduction of each package (also listed in the tables in Annex C). The packages in which more advanced options are combined, two alternative scenarios have been developed distinguished as “extra strong downsizing” and “hybridization”. As stated above, for the period until 2020 these two options are considered as alternatives rather than as options that will be combined in a single vehicle. Based on recent literature and insights from TNO-experts “extra strong downsizing” is appearing to develop into a cost attractive alternative option for hybridisation of passenger cars and LCVs. Both variants have similar reduction potential, but different costs (without learning effects). Therefore, to assess the impact of choosing one route or the other two sets of cost curves have been constructed: one with “extra strong downsizing” as the dominant powertrain innovation applied in the advanced package determining the highest point on the cost curve, and one with full hybridisation (combined with less advanced engine measures) in the package at the upper end of the curve. Costs for reaching 2020 targets have been assessed using both cost curves. The option “advanced light weight materials” assumes that a large part of the vehicle is fabricated using materials such as fibre reinforced composites and aluminium. This option is included in the most advanced packages, but may be considered somewhat too advanced for large scale application in 2020. Figure 1 and Figure 2 depict the cost curves for 2020 constructed for passenger cars in the two scenarios as explained above. These are considered 1st order cost curves as the possible impacts of learning effects (economies of scale, experience, innovation) have not yet been taken into account. The methodology for and results of applying learning curve theory to estimate the impact of cost reductions over time are reported in chapter 4. All costs figures presented are additional manufacturer costs per vehicle expressed in real terms (€ 2006, without inflation).

Figure 1 Relationship between CO2 reduction and the associated additional manufacturer costs per

vehicle for petrol and diesel passenger vehicles in the “extra strong downsizing” scenario


14 AEA

Figure 2 Relationship between CO2 reduction and the associated additional manufacturer costs per

vehicle for petrol and diesel passenger vehicles in the “hybridization” scenario

The functional relationships for the cost curves as determined by fitting a 3rd order polynomial through the points defined by the selected packages of options are given in Table 1 and Table 2. The parameters a, b and c denote the coefficients of the generic 3rd order polynomial y = ax3 + bx2+cx.

Table 1 Coefficients of the 3rd

order polynomial cost curves in the ‘extra strong downsizing’

scenario

Petrol Diesel

Coefficients: small medium large small medium Large

a 0.0055 0.004 0.0022 0.0000 0.0017 0.0010

b 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9000 0.5787 0.4502

c 15.000 10.000 9.000 10.104 6.366 3.297

max. reduction [g/km] 77 96 123 55 71 91


order polynomial cost curves in the ‘hybridization’ scenario

Petrol Diesel

Coefficients: small medium large small medium Large

a 0.0100 0.0070 0.0040 0.0090 0.0074 0.0047

b 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.6388 0.4483 0.3439

c 8.000 1.000 0.000 16.361 6.203 2.969



AEA 15

3 Options for reduction of CO2 emissions from light commercial vehicles in the 2012 – 2020 timeframe

The methodology for the construction of cost curves for light commercial vehicles is similar to that of passenger cars. For a description of this methodology the reader is therefore referred to chapter 2.

3.1 Overview of CO2 reduction options

Starting point for the assessment of potential and costs for reduction of CO2 emissions from light commercial vehicles in the 2020 was the assessment for the 2012-2015 timeframe as reported in [AEA 2009]. Similar to the case for passenger cars, for the longer term additional technical options were added (also see Section 2.1, and Annex B for data on CO2 reduction potential and costs of all options underlying the construction of cost curves): - Advanced reduced engine friction losses - Extra strong downsizing with turbo charging - Heat recovery - Advanced lightweight materials

3.2 Construction of first order cost curves

Also for light commercial vehicles cost curves for 2020 are constructed on the basis of a list of technical options, for which costs and CO2 reduction potentials are specified. A set of 5 different packages is constructed as guidance for determining 3rd order polynomial cost curves per segment. The full packages of options, including CO2 correction factors, are given in Annex D. As is the case for passenger cars, ‘extra strong downsizing’ and ‘hybridization’ are considered to be mutually exclusive when constructing the packages for the 2020 timeframe. Also, as is the case for passenger cars, ‘advanced lightweight materials’ are included but should be considered an ambitious option for the 2020 horizon. The resulting cost curves are depicted in Figure 3 and

Figure 4.

Figure 3 Relationship between CO2 reduction and the associated additional manufacturer costs for

light commercial vehicles on petrol and diesel in the “extra strong downsizing” scenario


16 AEA

Figure 4 Relationship between CO2 reduction and the associated additional manufacturer costs for

light commercial vehicles on petrol and diesel in the “hybridization” scenario

The cost curves as determined by fitting a 3rd order polynomial through the points defined by the selected packages of options are given in Table 1 and Table 2. The parameters a, b and c denote the coefficients of the generic 3rd order polynomial y = ax3 + bx2+cx.


order polynomial cost curves for vans in the ‘extra strong

downsizing’ scenario

Petrol Diesel

Coefficients: small medium large small medium large

a 0.0022 0.0016 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 b 0.1496 0.1602 0.1953 0.7500 0.6000 0.4200 c 15.251 11.326 3.958 5.265 4.490 4.000



order polynomial cost curves for vans in the ‘hybridization’

scenario

Petrol Diesel


a 0.0080 0.0062 0.0035 0.000 0.0004 0.0045 b 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1813 0.9692 0.4105 c 8.000 5.000 2.000 3.7636 -2.9257 0.8321



AEA 17

4 Methodology for applying learning curve theory to cost curves for 2020

4.1 Introduction

Costs of a product generally decrease over time as a function of economies of scale, learning effects and innovations in product and production methods. Learning curve theory summarizes the effects of these in a learning curve that specifies the development of costs as function of the cumulative production. In the previous report [AEA 2008], learning curve theory was applied for the first time in the context of automotive CO2 emission reductions and therefore a relatively simple approach was taken. This methodology has been further developed for the present report on the long-term target for light-commercial vehicles and an update of the analysis of the 2020 target for passenger cars. In particular, a more sophisticated approach has been taken regarding the modelling of penetration rates of individual technologies over time and the translation of these penetration rates to cumulative production levels.

4.2 Learning curve theory

Learning curve theory predicts that costs of a product fall by a factor S with every doubling of the cumulative production. The factor S generally varies between 1 and 0.85. If the costs of a product at a given level of cumulative production are known, the costs at other levels of cumulative production can be calculated. Learning effects describe the effect of an increase in cumulative production of an item on its costs. These effects include the effects of increased experience, e.g. resulting in ‘debottlenecking’ (which becomes possible because of increasing insights in the production processes), effects of economies of scale and impacts of innovation of the product and the production process. Learning theory describes these effects with the following empirical function7:

)2ln(/)ln(

1

S

nnCC ×= (1)

with: n the cumulative production, Cn the cost of nth product, C1 the cost of 1st product and S the learning rate (usually between 1 and 0.85). From equation (1) a cost reduction factor (CRF) can be derived, which relates the change in costs for a product with the change in its cumulative production:

{ }2ln/ln S

old

new

old

new

n

n

C

CCRF

== (2)

7 ‘Experience curve’ or ‘Henderson curve’.


18 AEA

Since the quotient of the cumulative production features in equation (2), this equation can be used when only relative production levels are known (such as can be derived using penetration curves). Generally a product’s level of production from market introduction to maximum penetration can be described with a sigmoid curve (Figure 5) or S-curve. As points on the curve are proportional to the annual production, the area under the curve is proportional to the cumulative production up to a certain point in time. Therefore, for a given curve shape (to be determined based upon expert judgment) the relative cumulative production levels at different times may be compared. Using a penetration curve, a known relative production level at some point in time can be correlated with the relative cumulative production for that time and the relative cumulative production at any other point in time. Using equation (2), this enables the calculation of the CRF.

Figure 5 Generic curve describing production from market introduction to maximum penetration

(no production volume decrease is assumed). The coloured area under the curve

indicates the cumulative production up to 90% market penetration. The curve is described

by: y = 1/(1+exp{(b−x)/a}), in which a (=1.5 for this example) determines the rate of

production change and b (=2010 in this case) determines the year of maximum change.

4.3 Considerations on the cost data as used in the previous assessments

A complicating issue with the cost information available from [TNO 2006] for 2012 is that the cumulative production level for which they are valid has not been (and could not have been) specified. This, by the way, is generally the case for cost information obtained from literature or from industry sources. Cost data as collected in the [TNO 2006] report are considered valid for large scale production in 2012/15. More specifically, in view of how the data have been collected and in view of the way they are used in the cost curve analysis, the cost data for each technology in [TNO 2006] should be considered as valid for a mature level of production and a cumulative production that can be reached in the first year(s) when such technology is applied at large scale in order to meet a specific CO2 emission target set for 2012/15. As long as a technology is not used the costs do not decrease beyond what is specified in [TNO 2006]. As soon as a product is mass-produced and used in order to reach a specific CO2 emission target, learning effects will lead to reduction of


AEA 19

costs as function of increasing cumulative production. The cost curves constructed on the basis of these costs should thus be interpreted as follows: A point of the cost curve for 2012/15 represents the costs associated with the corresponding level

of CO2 reduction at the point in time at which that level of CO2 reduction is necessary to meet the

target in 2012/15. This implies that the package of technologies represented by the highest point

reached on the cost curve when going from the 2006/7 level to a proposed target level for

2012/2015 is applied in the majority of all new vehicles produced in that target year (e.g. 80 –

100%). This also implies that the costs estimated for this package implicitly already include

possible learning effects resulting from increasing the production levels from the start of market

introduction to the level needed for reaching the 2012/15 target.

As a consequence reduction of costs due to learning effects relative to the cost level estimated for 2012/15 will only start to have an effect if production of these technologies is continued after they were first used to reach a certain target in 2012/15. Packages of technologies associated with lower levels of CO2 reduction than the 2012/12 target may experience learning effects relative to the initial cost estimate if these are applied to reach intermediate levels of CO2 emissions in the period before 2012/15. The extent to which learning effects affect the costs for meeting a 2012/15 target thus depends on the amount of technologies, used in new vehicles produced in the target year, that were already used in vehicles produced in previous years. New technologies that only come into play for realising the final steps in CO2 reduction towards the 2012/15 target will experience negligible or no learning effects compared to the estimated costs for 2012/15.

4.4 Considerations on application of learning curve theory to cost for meeting the 2020 target

The same reasoning applies to cost curves generated for 2020. For estimating the effects of learning on the cost curves for 2020 we have therefore assumed 2 extreme scenario variants: - Every step on the cost curve represents a technology package that replaces the technology

package for a previous step on the cost curve. In this case no learning effects need to be applied to the cost curve as for every point learning effects only kick-in after the year in which the package was first needed to meet a given target.

- Every step on the cost curve adds additional technology to the package needed to meet a lower level of CO2 reduction, so that a point on the curve, which is needed to reach a 2020 target, benefits from learning effects applied to previous points depending on the time interval between the year in which technologies were first applied and 2020. This time interval can be estimated if an overall trajectory is assumed along which the average CO2 emissions from vehicles move from the present day average to the 2015 target and further from there to the 2020 target.

The last scenario can also be described alternatively as follows: If a given target must be met in 2020, one may assume that average CO2 emissions decrease gradually towards that level in the preceding years. These intermediate levels can be seen as sub-targets. It is reasoned that the 2020 target is only reached in 2020 and therefore that the technologies that are specifically needed to obtain that target do not attain maturity until 2020. For those options, therefore, no cost reduction due to learning effects is expected before 2020. At some time earlier, however, the technologies that are needed to reach the intermediate sub-targets, en route to the 2020 target, have already reached maturity and cumulative production increases over time. From the moment they are first applied the costs of those options decrease due to learning effects. The costs for attaining the 2020 target, therefore, consist of the costs for the unique technologies that increase the reduction potential from the level of reduction in 2019 to what is required for 2020 and the reduced costs of those options that were implemented earlier to reach the average reduction achieved in 2019. The latter itself, in turn, is composed of the costs for those unique technologies


20 AEA

that were needed to increase the reduction potential from an even earlier level of reduction in previous years and the reduced costs for the options to reach this earlier level; and so on and so forth. As indicated by the two scenarios discussed above, with every increase in the reduction sub-target, the technologies that contribute to the lower target may remain in production or may be replaced by more advanced options. Clearly, only those technologies that remain in production and, therefore, contribute to the CO2-reduction target some time after they have attained maturity add to the learning effect. However, because the technology options in the cost curve in the end are not identified explicitly, it cannot be known a priori, which technologies remain in production and which become superseded by more efficient ones. Learning effects occurring in the time period after a technology was first applied at a large scale depend on the quotient of the total cumulative production as function of time and the cumulative production level at some initial point in time for which the costs are known. Learning effects thus depend on the steepness of the S-curve which describes the speed with which the market share for a given technology moves from early introduction to a certain saturation level. Learning effects furthermore depend on the S-value assumed, which may be different for different types of technologies. The above reasoning leads to the notion that learning effects have a relatively small impact on the evolution of the cost curves between 2012/15 and 2020: As long as technologies are not used they do not experience cost reduction due to learning. This means that areas of the cost curve that are not needed to meet 2012/15 targets, and technologies that only come to the market after that, experience limited cost reduction before 2020.

4.5 Methodology

The reasoning explained above has been elaborated into a quantitative method for assessing cumulative production as function of time and the resulting cost reduction factors for points on the cost curve.

Figure 6: Arbitrary penetration curves with the year of their 90% production mapped to a

corresponding CO2 level as determined by interpolation of reduction scenarios. The

interpolation as shown is for a 2020 target of 85 g/km (the reduction scenarios as depicted

are valid for passenger cars).


AEA 21

For sake of simplicity, the learning effect is estimated by assessing the learning effects of five sub-targets for five arbitrary equidistant points in time. The levels of these sub-targets have been determined by interpolating the emission values resp. targets for 2002, 2006, 2015 and 2020 (see Figure 6). For each of the overall sub-targets (overall sales averaged value), the associated additional costs (without learning) per segment (petrol and diesel, small/medium/large) are determined by dividing the CO2 reduction over all segments in such a way that average additional manufacturer costs are minimised (method as described and used for cost assessments in [TNO 2006]. [AEA 2007] and [AEA 2008]). For each segment this determines points on the cost curve reached in the various sub-target years. For each point on the curve, from the sub-target year in which it is reached until 2020 onwards, learning will take effect. The additional costs associated with the 2020 target, therefore, are estimated by the reduced additional costs of the first sub-target, determined from its penetration curve and Equation (2), plus the reduced difference in additional costs between the first and the second sub-target and so on until the cost difference between the fourth and fifth sub-targets has been accounted for. This can be expressed with the following equation:

( ) ( )

( ) ( ) ,ededcd

cbcbabaa

CRFCCCRFCC

CRFCCCRFCCCRFCC

⋅−+⋅−+

⋅−+⋅−+⋅= (3)

in which the subscripts ‘a’ to ‘e’ are referring to the costs and cost reduction factors that are associated with the first, second, third, fourth and fifth sub-targets respectively. The limits of the learning effects can be investigated by assessing the extreme scenarios. A first extreme scenario assumes that all the technologies, once having reached maturity, are superseded and their production is abruptly discontinued. As argued above, this means that there can be no learning effect (i.e. CRF = 1). The second extreme scenario assumes that all the technologies, once having reached maturity, remain in full production and therefore contribute maximally to the learning effect. The cost reduction factors are determined using Equation (2), the corresponding penetration curve and a judicious selection of learning rate S. The cost curve represents the costs in 2020 for reaching increasingly demanding CO2 reduction targets. The costs associated with a reduction target, as determined with equation (3), therefore, represent only a single point on the cost curve that takes learning effects into account. The overall curves per segment, with inclusion of learning effects, can be determined by assessing the effect of several (e.g. five) average 2020 target levels as set out above, and interpolating a third order polynomial (see Figure 7) through the results for each segment.


22 AEA

Figure 7 Cost curves for petrol passenger vehicles (additional manufacturer costs). The bottom

curve of each set represents the cost curve with learning effects as estimated from

interpolation between five 2020 reduction targets. The learning effect is valid for relatively

fast penetration (a=0.4, see Figure 5).

In the following chapters the method, as outlined above, is used to assess the costs for reaching various long term (2020) targets for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles including the possible impacts of learning effects.


AEA 23

5 Costs for reaching long term CO2 reduction targets in passenger cars

5.1 Introduction

For the assessment of a long term target for passenger cars two scenarios are distinguished. The difference between the two scenarios lies in the use of either full hybridisation or extra strong down-sizing as the most advanced (and expensive) technical option for improving the powertrain efficiency. As explained in section 2.2, these two options can in principle be combined, but are expected to act as alternative options in the 2015-2020 timeframe. Hybridization, without learning, is the most expensive variant. But since it is the most complex and advanced option (with most development potential in product design and manufacturing methods) it is assumed to have the fastest learning rate (assumed S = 0.85, compared to S = 0.9 for extra strong downsizing). For applying learning effects, several idealized scenarios are explored, as explained above: 1. The first scenario assumes the extreme situation, in which each grade in the reduction

potential is achieved using completely new and increasingly advanced options. In effect this entails that production of previous technologies is discontinued for each increase in the reduction target and therefore there can be no cost benefit from learning.

2. The second scenario explores the extreme situation in which each next step in CO2 reduction is reached by adding a new technology to the package used for reaching the previous level. Each technology option, once introduced and having attained its maximum penetration, remains in full production until 2020, and as such continues to make a contribution to reaching the target for 2020. Scenario two assumes a low rate of penetration (approximately 10 years from market introduction to 90% penetration)

3. Scenario three is a variant of scenario 2 in which a relatively high rate of penetration is assumed (approximately three years from market introduction to 90% penetration).

Summarizing, the following variants are evaluated for three 2020 CO2 emission targets being: 105 g/km, 95 g/km and 85 g/km8: Extra strong downsizing:

• No learning • Learning and slow penetration • Learning and fast penetration

Hybrid options:

• No learning • Learning and slow penetration • Learning and fast penetration

5.2 Cost curves for passenger cars in 2020 including learning effects

The constructed cost curves for passenger cars are depicted below in Figure 8 and Figure 9. The market penetration curve is described by: y = 1/(1+exp{(b−x)/a}), in which a determines the rate of production change and b sets the year of maximum change. Fast penetration was modelled using a = 0.4 (corresponding to approximately 3 years from market introduction to 90% of

8 85 g/km is the maximum attainable target under the assumptions in this study.


24 AEA

maximum production) and slow penetration using a = 1.5 (corresponding to approximately 10 years from market introduction to 90% of maximum production).

5.2.1 Extra strong downsizing

Figure 8 Cost curves for the ‘extra strong downsizing’ scenario and the slow and fast market

penetration variants (additional manufacturer costs). The thin curves without the markers

represent the cost curves without a learning effect.

The cost curves as determined by interpolating a 3rd order polynomial between the points for which the learning effect is explicitly evaluated are given in Table 5 and Table 6. The parameters a, b and c denote the coefficients of the generic 3rd order polynomial y = ax3 + bx2+cx.

Table 5: Coefficients of the 3rd

order polynomial cost curves in the ‘slow penetration’ scenario.

Petrol Diesel


a 0.0052 0.0038 0.0021 0.0000 0.0015 0.0008 b 0.0366 0.024 0.0255 0.9087 0.6098 0.4744 c 11.684 7.198 5.902 7.857 3.553 0.5766 max. reduction [g/km] 77 96 123 55 71 91


AEA 25


order polynomial cost curves in the ‘fast penetration’ scenario.

Petrol Diesel



5.2.2 Hybrid options

Figure 9 Cost curves for the ‘hybrid options’ scenario and the slow and fast market penetration

variants (additional manufacturer costs). The thin curves without the markers represent

the cost curves without a learning effect.

The cost curves as determined by interpolating a 3rd order polynomial between the points for which the learning effect is explicitly evaluated are given in Table 7 and Table 8.


26 AEA



Petrol Diesel





Petrol Diesel



5.3 Assessment of costs for reaching various target levels in 2020

The burden for realizing a certain cumulative decrease in CO2 emissions may be distributed amongst different vehicle types in such a way that the total costs are minimized. From Figure 8 and Figure 9, for example, it can be seen that initially the most cost effective way to reduce the CO2 emissions is by applying the reduction options only to large vehicles. Soon, after some abatement threshold, however, it becomes more cost effective to also include options on smaller vehicles. When the total costs are minimized, it follows that the marginal costs, i.e. the costs for reducing the CO2 emissions one unit further, are equal for all vehicle segments9. Using a goal seeker function, which varies the marginal costs and evaluates the associated CO2 reduction, the optimal distribution of CO2 reductions over the individual vehicle segments can be obtained. The above method for dividing reductions over vehicle segments by optimisation of the additional manufacturer costs has been used in previous assessments also (e.g. [TNO 2006][AEA 2007]). For the evaluation of the impact on individual manufacturers of various levels and implementation modalities (e.g. utility parameter and limit function slope) of the 2012/15 target the algorithm was applied per manufacturer. As the modality for applying a 2020 target has not been defined yet, the algorithm is applied here to the overall new vehicle sales in Europe, divided in the six segments as defined in [TNO 2006]. In the following sections the resulting cost impacts for the "extra strong downsizing" and "full hybridisation" scenarios are summarised. For each scenario again three sub-scenarios are defined, one without learning effects and two with learning effects but with different assumed rates of penetration of new technologies.

9 Were this not the case, then the same emission reduction can be obtained for a lower cost by increasing the reduction obtained from the

vehicle segment with the lowest marginal cost at the expense of the reduction from any vehicle segment with a higher marginal cost.


AEA 27

Results below are absolute and relative retail price increases compared to 2006. Retail price for passenger cars is inclusive of vehicle taxes inclusive of VAT (consistent with assessments in [AEA 2007]).

5.3.1 Scenario "Extra strong downsizing"

Table 9 Cost impacts (expressed as absolute and relative retail price increase) for three target

levels for passenger cars in 2020 for the scenario: "Extra strong downsizing / No

learning"

Target: 105 g/km P s P m P l D s D m D l

CO2-emission [g/km] 89 111 138 88 105 136

Retail price increase [€] 2296 2632 3541 1634 2186 2850

Relative price increase 18% 12% 10% 11% 9% 8%

Target: 95 g/km

P s P m P l D s D m D l

CO2-emission [g/km] 80 101 125 78 94 123



Target: 85 g/km


CO2-emission [g/km] 72 91 114 68 83 109




levels for passenger cars in 2020 for the scenario: "Extra strong downsizing / Learning:

Slow penetration"


CO2-emission [g/km] 88 110 139 88 105 136



Target: 95 g/km


CO2-emission [g/km] 80 101 126 78 95 122



Target: 85 g/km


CO2-emission [g/km] 72 91 114 68 84 109




28 AEA


levels for passenger cars in 2020 for the scenario: "Extra strong downsizing / Learning:

Fast penetration"


CO2-emission [g/km] 88 111 138 88 105 136



Target: 95 g/km


CO2-emission [g/km] 80 101 125 78 95 122



Target: 85 g/km


CO2-emission [g/km] 72 91 114 68 83 109



5.3.2 Scenario "Full hybridisation"


levels for passenger cars in 2020 for the scenario: "Full hybridisation / No learning"


CO2-emission [g/km] 90 112 142 84 102 135



Target: 95 g/km


CO2-emission [g/km] 82 102 129 75 92 123



Target: 85 g/km


CO2-emission [g/km] 75 91 119 66 80 108




AEA 29


levels for passenger cars in 2020 for the scenario: "Full hybridisation / Learning: Slow

penetration"


CO2-emission [g/km] 91 111 142 84 103 136



Target: 95 g/km


CO2-emission [g/km] 82 100 128 75 93 124



Target: 85 g/km


CO2-emission [g/km] 75 91 119 66 80 108




levels for passenger cars in 2020 for the scenario: "Full hybridisation / Learning: Fast

penetration"


CO2-emission [g/km] 91 111 140 84 102 135



Target: 95 g/km


CO2-emission [g/km] 82 101 126 75 93 124



Target: 85 g/km


CO2-emission [g/km] 75 91 119 66 80 108



5.4 Comparison of average costs for reaching 2020 target levels and conclusions

The tables below summarize the average costs for reaching the three different 2020 target levels in the 6 different scenario variants (all relative to 2006):


30 AEA

Table 15 Average cost impacts (expressed as absolute and relative retail price increase) for

three target levels for passenger cars in 2020 for the scenarios "Extra strong

downsizing" and "Full hybridisation" and different assumptions with respect to

learning effects

absolute retail price increase rel. to 2006 [€/veh.] Extra strong downsizing Hybrid options

Target [g/km]

No learning

Learning: slow penetration

Learning: fast penetration

No learning



105 2423 2272 2188 3008 2783 2690 95 3448 3272 3174 4557 4262 4139 85 4703 4499 4386 6551 6172 6022

relative retail price increase rel. to 2006 Extra strong downsizing Hybrid options

Target [g/km]

No learning



No learning



105 11.5% 10.8% 10.4% 14.3% 13.2% 12.8% 95 16.4% 15.6% 15.1% 21.7% 20.3% 19.7% 85 22.4% 21.4% 20.8% 31.1% 29.3% 28.6%

From this table the following conclusions can be drawn: - For 2020 a target of 85 g/km for new cars is technically feasible, assuming that advanced

light-weight construction can be widely applied. The costs for reaching this target are 20 to 30% of the 2006 retail price.

- A 2020 target of 95 g/km can be reached at retail price increases between 15 and 20% compared to 2006.

- All results presented above are for an assumed autonomous mass increase of AMI = 0.0% p.a.. With non-zero AMI the costs for meeting the stated 2020 targets will increase.

- With the new methodology developed for application of learning effects the cost reductions estimated for 2020 relative to the cost curve without learning effects are very limited.

o When a 105 g/km target is assumed between 2015 and 2020 learning effects lead to a cost reduction of around 11%.

o For the most stringent 2020 target of 85 g/km learning effects yield at maximum 9% cost reduction.

- For the long term extreme downsizing appears a very cost effective means to reach target levels that can be reached with full hybridisation also but at much higher costs.

- The average costs for attaining the 95 g/km target is, even in the most favourable scenario (i.e. extra strong downsizing with learning and fast penetration), significantly higher than previously reported (now € 3174 compared to € 1998 in the previous report [AEA 2008]). This is the result of applying the updated method for dealing with learning effects and updated scaling factors for estimating the overall CO2 reduction potential of packages of technical reduction measures that in part target the same energy loss factors.


AEA 31

6 Costs for reaching long term CO2 reduction targets in light commercial vehicles

6.1 Cost curves for LCVs in 2020 including learning effects

For light commercial vehicles cost curves have been determined for 2020 using the same approach as explained in previous chapters for passenger cars. Also here two scenarios have been defined, being one based on extra strong down-sizing as the most advanced option for improvement of the powertrain efficiency and one based on full hybridisation as most advanced option. As explained in section 3.2, these two options can in principle be combined, but are expected to act as alternative options in the 2015-2020 timeframe. Hybridization, without learning, is the most expensive variant. But since it is the most complex and advanced option (with most development potential in product design and manufacturing methods) it is assumed to have the fastest learning rate (assumed S = 0.85, compared to S = 0.9 for extra strong downsizing). For the sub-scenarios with learning affects also for LCVs two different levels of the rate of market penetration have been assumed. The constructed cost curves for light commercial vehicles are depicted below in Figure 10 and Figure 11.


32 AEA


Figure 10 Cost curves for the ‘extra strong downsizing’ scenario and the slow and fast market

penetration variants (additional manufacturer costs). The thin curves without the markers

represent the cost curves without a learning effect.




Petrol Diesel




AEA 33



Petrol Diesel




Figure 11 Cost curves for the ‘hybrid options’ scenario and the slow and fast market penetration

variants (additional manufacturer costs). The thin curves without the markers represent

the cost curves without a learning effect.



34 AEA



Petrol Diesel


a 0.0078 0.0064 0.0036 0.000 0.0000 0.0049 b 0.0215 -0.0342 -0.0291 1.1596 1.0027 0.3467 c 5.075 4.260 1.665 0.679 -6.551 0.398 max. reduction [g/km] 83 100 137 60 77 97



Petrol Diesel


a 0.0077 0.0066 0.0037 0.0000 0.0000 0.0052 b 0.0246 -0.0727 -0.0599 1.1395 0.9863 0.2876 c 3.707 4.565 2.216 -0.672 -7.749 0.779 max. reduction [g/km] 83 101 137 62 79 100

6.2 Assessment of costs for reaching various target levels in 2020

Results below are absolute and relative retail price increases compared to 2007. Retail price is inclusive of vehicle taxes but exclusive of VAT (consistent with assessments in [AEA 2009]). For assessing the costs per segment a least cost distribution of emission reduction efforts over all segments is calculated using a solver function. This calculation is done at the level of total sales, without assessment of efforts by individual manufacturers. As a result the costs per segment do not depend on the utility parameter and limit function slope that is assumed. Costs in the petrol segments are extremely high in these calculations. As explained in the recently published LCV report, this is to be considered an artefact of the modelling. Petrol vehicles only make up 2% of the LCV sales in Europe, so that manufacturers can be assumed not to make a large effort in reducing CO2 emissions from their petrol LCVs. For the TREMOVE calculations these high additional costs for petrol vehicles will probably lead to a shift from petrol to diesel, which is not at all unlikely to happen as a consequence of the CO2 legislation for LCVs. Alternatively the CO2 reductions and costs for LCVs could also be capped. The results of the calculations using the goal seeker routine (as explained in Section 5.3) with a cap on the maximum CO2 reduction of 50% of the theoretical value are summarized below and listed in Annex E.


AEA 35



levels for LCVs in 2020 for the scenario: "Extra strong downsizing / No learning"

Target: 175 g/kmP s P m P l D s D m D l

CO2-emission [g/km] 131 157 212 126 155 199Retail price increase [€] 1086 1200 1488 462 619 850Relative price increase 10% 9% 7% 3% 4% 3%






levels for LCVs in 2020 for the scenario: "Extra strong downsizing /Learning: Slow

penetration"








36 AEA


levels for LCVs in 2020 for the scenario: "Extra strong downsizing /Learning: Fast

penetration"









levels for LCVs in 2020 for the scenario: "Full hybridisation / No learning"








AEA 37


levels for LCVs in 2020 for the scenario: "Extra strong downsizing /Learning: Slow

penetration"








levels for LCVs in 2020 for the scenario: "Extra strong downsizing /Learning: Fast

penetration"








38 AEA

6.3 Comparison of average costs for reaching 2020 target levels for LCVs and conclusions

Table 26 below summarizes the average costs for reaching the three different 2020 target levels in the six different scenario variants (all relative to 2007).

Table 26 Average cost impacts (expressed as absolute and relative retail price increase, excl.

VAT) for three target levels for LCVs in 2020 for the scenarios "Extra strong

downsizing" and "Full hybridisation" and different assumptions with respect to

learning effects

Target [g/km]

No learning Learning: slow penetration


No learning Learning: slow penetration


175 736 675 619 842 750 695150 2175 2049 1954 3030 2840 2703125 4403 4193 4062 6914 6625 6393

Target No learning Learning: Learning: No learning Learning: Learning: 175 3,5% 3,2% 2,9% 4,0% 3,6% 3,3%150 10,3% 9,7% 9,3% 14,4% 13,5% 12,8%125 20,9% 19,9% 19,3% 32,9% 31,5% 30,4%

Extra strong downsizing Hybrid options

Extra strong downsizing Hybrid options

absolute retail price increase rel. to 2007 [€/veh.]

relative retail price increase rel. to 2007

The above results (see also Table 20 to Table 25) show relatively high reductions and associated costs in light commercial vehicles on petrol. As explained in [AEA 2009], this is to be considered an artefact of the modelling. Given that the share of petrol vehicles in the EU light commercial vehicle sales is only a few percent, it may be considered unlikely that manufacturers will apply such advanced and costly reduction options in vans on petrol. As an alternative scenario the calculations reported above have also been performed with using a cap on the maximum CO2 reduction for the three segments of petrol vehicles of 50% of the theoretical value. In the cost optimisation algorithm using the goal seeker routine (as explained in Section 5.3) the reductions in passenger cars will then remain constant beyond a certain point of overall CO2 reduction in new vans. The results of these calculations are listed in Table 27 below. Detailed results per segment for each scenario are presented in Annex E. From Table 26 and Table 27 the following conclusions can be drawn: - For 2020 a target of 125 g/km for new LCVs is technically feasible, assuming that advanced

light-weight construction can be widely applied. The costs for reaching this target are 20 to 30% of the 2007 retail price.

- A 2020 target of 150 g/km can be reached at retail price increases between 10 and 14% compared to 2007.

- All results presented above are for an assumed autonomous mass increase of AMI = 0.0% p.a. With non-zero AMI the costs for meeting the stated 2020 targets will increase.

- With the updated methodology developed for application of learning effects the cost reductions estimated for 2020 relative to the cost curve without learning effects are very limited:

o When 175 g/km is maintained between 2015 and 2020 learning effects lead to a cost reduction of around 20%.

o For a 2020 target of 125 g/km learning effects yield at maximum 8% cost reduction.


AEA 39

Table 27 Alternative results for the average cost impacts (expressed as absolute and relative

retail price increase, excl. VAT) for three target levels for LCVs in 2020 for the scenarios

"Extra strong downsizing" and "Full hybridisation" and different assumptions with

respect to learning effects, using a cap on the maximum reduction applied to petrol

vans of 50% of the theoretical limit defined by the original cost curves.

absolute retail price increase rel. to 2007 [€/veh.] Extra strong downsizing Hybrid options

Target [g/km]

No learning



No learning



175 736 674 619 842 750 694 150 2184 2056 1961 3045 2855 2716 125 4435 4225 4093 6988 6700 6468

relative retail price increase rel. to 2007 Extra strong downsizing Hybrid options

Target [g/km]

No learning



No learning



175 3.5% 3.2% 2.9% 4.0% 3.6% 3.3% 150 10.4% 9.8% 9.3% 14.5% 13.6% 12.9% 125 21.1% 20.1% 19.5% 33.2% 31.8% 30.7%

- For the long term extreme downsizing appears a very cost effective means to reach target

levels that can be reached with full hybridisation also but at much higher costs. - The packages achieving the highest level of CO2 reduction contain advanced weight

reduction as one of the technical options. This option assumes that a large part of the vehicle is fabricated using advanced light-weight materials such as fibre reinforced composites and aluminium. Especially for the LCV market this may be quite an advanced option for large scale application in 2020.

- Costs in the petrol segments are extremely high in the calculations underlying Table 26. As explained in [AEA 2009], this is to be considered an artefact of the modelling. Petrol vehicles only make up 2% of the LCV sales in Europe, so that manufacturers can be assumed not to make a large effort in reducing CO2 emissions from their petrol LCVs. When used in TREMOVE calculations these high additional costs for petrol vehicles will probably lead to a shift from petrol to diesel. Although this is not at all unlikely to happen as a consequence of the CO2 legislation for LCVs, also an alternative assessment has been made for the CO2 reductions and associated costs for LCVs in which the reduction potential for petrol vehicles is capped. This leads to only marginally higher CO2 reductions and associated costs in diesel LCVs,


40 AEA


AEA 41

7 Conclusions

This report assesses the feasibility of various CO2 target levels for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles in 2020 and the associated costs (expressed as retail price increase) for reaching these target levels. When assessing the costs for CO2 reduction targets that lie further in the future, account has to be taken of cost reductions that occur as a consequence of increased experience, economies of scale and innovation in product and production methods. A methodology must be developed for taking into account these ‘learning effects'. Because of the nature of cost curves, however, there are uncertainties that prevent the use of straightforward methods. Uncertainties include the point in time, for which the collected cost data is valid and the level of production throughout the production lifetime of each technological option. In this report a method for assessing impacts of learning effects, which was initially developed in [AEA 2008], is updated and further improved. The improvements concern a more consistent assessment of cumulative production levels which determine the cost reduction factor as well as the use of different scenarios to explore bandwidths. The method presented here explores three extreme scenarios to improve the understanding of the feasible magnitude of learning effects. One extreme option amounts to the absence of learning. The other options amount to the maximum impact learning effects for a scenario with assumed slow market penetration rates and one with fast market penetration. The maximum learning effect is found to occur for the fast market penetration scenario: the faster a manufacturer can bring an option to market the cheaper this option can become. Using the updated methodology the difference in costs between ‘no learning’ and the situation with maximum impact of learning, nevertheless, was found to be very limited in all cases and significantly smaller than assessed in previous work. The largest effect is observed for the least stringent target, which is not surprising considering that the least advanced options are on the market for the longest time. For passenger cars the following is observed: - When a 105 g/km target is assumed between 2015 and 2020 learning effects lead to a cost

reduction of around 11%. - For the most stringent 2020 target of 85 g/km learning effects yield at maximum 9% cost

reduction. For LCVs the equivalent observations are: - When 175 g/km is maintained between 2015 and 2020 learning effects lead to a cost

reduction of around 20%. - For a 2020 target of 125 g/km learning effect yield at maximum 8% cost reduction. For the long term extreme downsizing appears to become a very cost effective means to reach target levels that can be reached with full hybridisation also but at significantly higher costs. This holds for both passenger cars and LCVs. Advanced weight reduction, although very effective, may be a very advanced option for large scale application by 2020, specifically for LCVs. It is therefore advisable not to set the reduction target to the maximum reduction potential as derived from the cost curves presented in this report. Bearing the above caveat in mind, for passenger cars in 2020 a target of 85 g/km for new cars is technically feasible, based on the technologies and assumptions used for this analysis, assuming that advanced light-weight construction can be widely applied. The latter assumption is rather optimistic for 2020 but is expected to become valid beyond 2020. The costs for reaching this target are 20 to 30% of the 2006 retail price. A less stringent 2020 target for passenger cars of 95 g/km can be reached at retail price increases between 15 and 20% compared to 2006. The average costs for attaining the 95 g/km


42 AEA

target is, even in the most favourable scenario (i.e. extra strong downsizing with learning and fast penetration), higher than previously reported (now € 3174 compared to € 1998 in the [AEA 2008] report). This is partly because the previous analysis was based on an initial application of learning curve theory whereas in the present analysis the methodology has been further developed. The construction of cost curves without learning effects has also been updated. This, together with a revised set of scaling factors for correcting the overall CO2 reduction of packages of technical options that partly target the same energy losses, also leads to higher cost estimates than in the previous report. For 2020 a target of 125 g/km for new light commercial vehicles is technically feasible, based on the technologies and assumptions used for this analysis and assuming that advanced light-weight construction can be widely applied. Also for LCVs the latter assumption is rather optimistic for 2020 but is expected to become valid beyond 2020. The costs for reaching this target are 20 to 30% of the 2007 retail price. A 2020 target of 150 g/km for LCVs can be reached at retail price increases between 10 and 14% compared to 2007.


AEA 43

Literature

AEA 2008

Impacts of regulatory options to reduce CO2 emissions from cars, in particular on car

manufacturers, carried out by CE Delft, TNO, Öko-Institut and AEA on behalf of the European Commission (DG ENV, Framework Contract nr. ENV.C.5/FRA/2006/0071) in 2008 AEA 2009

Assessment of options for the legislation of CO2 emissions from light commercial vehicles, report from a project carried out by CE Delft,TNO, Öko-Institut and AEA on behalf of the European Commission (DG ENV, Framework Contract nr. ENV.C.5/FRA/2006/0071) in 2009 IEEP 2004

Service Contract on a business impact assessment of measures to reduce CO2 emissions from

passenger cars, carried out by IEEP, TNO and the Centre for Automotive Industry Research (CAIR) at the University of Cardiff (UK) on behalf of DG Environment (contract nr. B4-3040/2003/366487/MAR/C2) in 2003-4. IEEP 2007

Service Contract on possible regulatory approaches to reducing CO2 emissions from cars: Study

on the detailed design of the regulation to reduce CO2 emissions from new passenger cars to 130

g/km in 2012, carried out by IEEP, CE Delft and TNO on behalf of the European Commission (DG ENV, contract nr. 070402/2006/452236/MAR/C3) in 2007 TNO 2004

Service Contract on the policies for reducing CO2 emissions from light commercial vehicles, carried out by TNO, IEEP and LAT on behalf of the European Commission (DG Environment) in 2003-4. TNO 2006

Service Contract to review and analyse the reduction potential and costs of technological and

other measures to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars, carried out by TNO, IEEP and LAT on behalf of the European Commission (DG Enterprise, contract nr. SI2.408212) in 2006.


44 AEA


AEA 45

Annexes

Annex A: Potential and additional manufacturer costs of options for reducing CO2 emissions of passenger cars

Annex B: Potential and additional manufacturer costs of options for reducing CO2 emissions of light commercial vehicles

Annex C: Packages of technical options for passenger cars

Annex D Packages of technical options for light commercial vehicles

Annex E: Results of LCV cost calculations with a 50% cap on petrol vehicles


46 AEA

Restricted C

omm

ercial A

ssessment of optio

ns for CO

2 legislation for light co

mm

ercial vehicles

AE

A/E

D45

757/Issue 1

R

ef: EN

V/C

.5/FR

A/200

6/0071

AE

A

47

A

Potential and additional m

anufacturer costs of options for reducing C

O2 em

issions of passenger cars

DescriptionCO2

reduction

[%]

Costs

[Euro]

Attribu-

tion to

CO2 [%]

Attribut-

able Costs

[Euro]

CO2

reduction

[%]

Costs

[Euro]

Attribu-

tion to

CO2 [%]

Attribut-

able Costs

[Euro]

CO2

reduction

[%]

Costs

[Euro]

Attribu-

tion to

CO2 [%]

Attribut-

able Costs

[Euro]

Reduced engine friction losses 3.0 40 100% 40 4.0 50 100% 50 5.0 60 100% 60

Advanced reduced engine friction losses 4.0 80 100% 80 4.0 100 100% 100 4.0 120 100% 120

DI / homogeneous charge (stoichiometric) 3.0 125 100% 125 3.0 150 100% 150 3.0 175 100% 175

DI / Stratified charge (stoichiometric) 0 0 0

DI / Stratified charge (lean burn / complex strategies) 10.0 320 100% 320 10.0 400 100% 400 10.0 480 100% 480

Mild downsizing with turbocharging 0 0 0

Medium downsizing with turbocharging 8.5 225 100% 225 10.0 300 100% 300 10.0 375 100% 375

Strong downsizing with turbocharging 12.0 390 100% 390 12.0 450 100% 450 12.0 510 100% 510

Extra strong downsizing with turbocharging 20.0 500 100% 500 20.0 650 100% 650 20.0 750 100% 750

Variable Valve Timing 3.0 100 75% 75 3.0 150 75% 113 3.0 200 75% 150

Variable valve control 7.0 300 75% 225 7.0 350 75% 263 7.0 400 75% 300

Cylinder deactivation 0 0 0

Variable Compression Ratio 10.0 900 100% 900 10.0 1000 100% 1000 10.0 1200 100% 1200

Optimised cooling circuit 2.0 35 100% 35 2.0 35 100% 35 2.0 35 100% 35

Advanced cooling circuit+ electric water pump 3.0 120 100% 120 3.0 120 100% 120 3.0 120 100% 120

Heat recovery 5.0 250 100% 250 5.0 250 100% 250 5.0 250 100% 250

Optimised gearbox ratios 1.0 50 100% 50 2.0 60 100% 60 2.0 70 100% 70

Piloted gearbox 4.0 300 100% 300 4.0 350 100% 350 4.0 400 100% 400

Dual-Clutch 4.0 600 75% 450 5.0 700 75% 525 5.0 900 100% 900

0 0

Start-stop function 4.0 220 100% 220 4.0 250 100% 250 4.0 280 100% 280

Start-stop + regenerative braking 7.0 515 100% 515 7.0 600 100% 600 7.0 685 100% 685

Mild hybrid (motor assist) 11.0 1200 75% 900 11.0 1600 75% 1200 11.0 2000 75% 1500

Full hybrid (electric drive) 22.0 2800 75% 2100 22.0 3500 75% 2625 22.0 4200 75% 3150

Improved aerodynamic efficiency 2.0 75 100% 75 2.0 75 100% 75 2.0 75 100% 75

Mild weight reduction 0.9 22 100% 22 1.0 28 100% 28 0.9 34 100% 34

Medium weight reduction 2.0 57 100% 57 2.0 90 100% 90 2.0 115 100% 115

Strong weight reduction 5.0 212 100% 212 6.0 294 100% 294 5.0 418 100% 418

Advanced light weight materials 20.0 1103 100% 1103 20.0 1403 100% 1403 20.0 1709 100% 1709

Low rolling resistance tyres 2.0 25 100% 25 2.0 30 100% 30 2.0 35 100% 35

Electrically assisted steering (EPS, EPHS) 3.0 100 100% 100 3.0 100 100% 100 2.0 100 100% 100

petrol large

Oth

er

Tra

ns-

mis

sio

nE

ng

ine

Bo

dy

Hy

bri

d

petrol small petrol medium

Assessm

ent of options for C

O2 le

gislation for light com

mercial ve

hicles R

estricted Com

mercial

Fram

ework contract N

o. EN

V/C

.5/FR

A/20

06/0071

A

EA

/ED

45757

/Issue 1 48

AE

A

Description

CO2

reduction

[%]

Costs

[Euro]

Attribu-

tion to

CO2 [%]

Attribut-

able Costs

[Euro]

CO2

reduction

[%]

Costs

[Euro]

Attribu-

tion to

CO2 [%]

Attribut-

able Costs

[Euro]

CO2

reduction

[%]

Costs

[Euro]

Attribu-

tion to

CO2 [%]

Attribut-

able Costs

[Euro]



4 valves per cylinder 0 0 0

Piezo injectors 0 0 0

Mild downsizing 3.0 120 100% 120 3.0 150 100% 150 3.0 180 100% 180

Medium downsizing 5.0 160 100% 160 5.0 200 100% 200 3.0 180 100% 180

Strong downsizing 7.0 300 100% 300 7.0 300 100% 300 7.0 300 100% 300

Extra strong downsizing 10.0 400 100% 400 10.0 450 100% 450 10.0 500 100% 500




Exhaust heat recovery 5.0 250 100% 250 5.0 250 100% 250 5.0 250 100% 250

Variable valve timing 3.0 100 100% 100 3.0 100 100% 100 3.0 100 100% 100

Variable compression ratio 10.0 900 100% 900 10.0 1000 100% 1000 10.0 1200 100% 1200

6-speed manual/automatic gearbox 0 0 0

Piloted gearbox 4.0 300 100% 300 4.0 350 100% 350 4.0 400 100% 400

Continuous Variable Transmission 0 0 0

Dual-Clutch 5.0 600 75% 450 5.0 700 75% 525 5.0 900 75% 675




Full hybrid (electric drive capability) 18.0 2800 75% 2100 18.0 3500 75% 2625 18.0 4200 75% 3150







Electrically assisted steering (EPS, EPHS) 3.0 100 100% 100 3.0 100 100% 100 2.0 100 100% 100Oth

er

Bo

dy

Hy

bri

dT

ran

s-

mis

sio

nE

ng

ine

diesel small diesel medium diesel large

Restricted C

omm

ercial A

ssessment of optio

ns for CO

2 legislation for light co

mm

ercial vehicles

AE

A/E

D45

757/Issue 1

R

ef: EN

V/C

.5/FR

A/200

6/0071

AE

A

49

B

Potential and additional m

anufacturer costs of options for reducing C

O2 em

issions of light comm

ercial vehicles

Description

CO2

reduction

[%]

Costs

[Euro]

Attribu-

tion to

CO2 [%]

Attribut-

able Costs

[Euro]

CO2

reduction

[%]

Costs

[Euro]

Attribu-

tion to

CO2 [%]

Attribut-

able Costs

[Euro]

CO2

reduction

[%]

Costs

[Euro]

Attribu-

tion to

CO2 [%]

Attribut-

able Costs

[Euro]



DI / homogeneous charge (stoichiometric) 3.0 125 100% 125 3.0 150 100% 150 3.0 175 100% 175

DI / Stratified charge (stoichiometric) 0 0 0

DI / Stratified charge (lean burn / complex strategies) 10.0 320 100% 320 10.0 400 100% 400 10.0 480 100% 480

Mild downsizing with turbocharging 0 0 0

Medium downsizing with turbocharging 7.0 225 100% 225 8.5 300 100% 300 8.5 375 100% 375

Strong downsizing with turbocharging 9.5 390 100% 390 9.5 450 100% 450 9.5 510 100% 510

Extra strong downsizing with turbocharging 20.0 500 100% 500 20.0 650 100% 650 20.0 750 100% 750

Variable Valve Timing 3.0 100 75% 75 3.0 150 75% 113 3.0 200 75% 150

Variable valve control 7.0 300 75% 225 7.0 350 75% 263 7.0 400 75% 300


Variable Compression Ratio 0 0 0



Heat recovery 2.5 250 100% 250 2.5 250 100% 250 2.5 250 100% 250

Optimised gearbox ratios 1.0 50 100% 50 1.5 60 100% 60 1.5 70 100% 70

Piloted gearbox 4.0 300 100% 300 4.0 350 100% 350 4.0 400 100% 400

Dual-Clutch 4.0 600 100% 600 5.0 700 100% 700 5.0 900 100% 900

0 0




Full hybrid (electric drive) 22.0 2800 100% 2800 22.0 3500 100% 3500 22.0 5460 100% 5460







Electrically assisted steering (EPS, EPHS) 3.0 100 100% 100 2.5 100 100% 100 2.0 100 100% 100

petrol large

Oth

er

Tra

ns-

mis

sio

nE

ng

ine

Bo

dy

Hy

bri

d

petrol small petrol medium

Assessm

ent of options for C

O2 le

gislation for light com

mercial ve

hicles R

estricted Com

mercial

Fram

ework contract N

o. EN

V/C

.5/FR

A/20

06/0071

A

EA

/ED

45757

/Issue 1 50

AE

A

Description

CO2

reduction

[%]

Costs

[Euro]

Attribu-

tion to

CO2 [%]

Attribut-

able Costs

[Euro]

CO2

reduction

[%]

Costs

[Euro]

Attribu-

tion to

CO2 [%]

Attribut-

able Costs

[Euro]

CO2

reduction

[%]

Costs

[Euro]

Attribu-

tion to

CO2 [%]

Attribut-

able Costs

[Euro]



4 valves per cylinder 0 0 0

Piezo injectors 0 0 0

Mild downsizing 2.0 120 100% 120 2.0 150 100% 150 2.0 180 100% 180

Medium downsizing 4.0 160 100% 160 4.0 200 100% 200 4.0 240 100% 240

Strong downsizing 0 7.0 300 100% 300 10.0 375 100% 375

Extra strong downsizing 10.0 400 100% 400 10.0 450 100% 450 10.0 500 100% 500




Exhaust heat recovery 0 1.5 45 100% 45 1.5 45 100% 45

Variable compression ratio 0 0 0

6-speed manual/automatic gearbox 0 0 0

Piloted gearbox 4.0 300 100% 300 4.0 350 100% 350 4.0 400 100% 400

Continuous Variable Transmission 0 0 0

Dual-Clutch 5.0 600 100% 600 5.0 700 100% 700 5.0 900 100% 900




Full hybrid (electric drive capability) 18.0 2800 100% 2800 18.0 3500 100% 3500 18.0 5460 100% 5460







Electrically assisted steering (EPS, EPHS) 3.0 100 100% 100 2.5 100 100% 100 2.0 100 100% 100Oth

er

Bo

dy

Hy

bri

dT

ran

s-

mis

sio

nE

ng

ine

diesel small diesel medium diesel large


AEA 51

C Packages of technical options for passenger cars


52 AEA

C.1 Options on petrol passenger cars (extra strong downsizing scenario)

Options on petrol passenger cars petrol small petrol medium petrol large

Pk1 Pk2 Pk3 Pk4 Pk5 Pk1 Pk2 Pk3 Pk4 Pk5 Pk1 Pk2 Pk3 Pk4 Pk5

Reduced engine friction losses x x x x x x

Advanced reduced engine friction losses x x x x x x x x x

DI / homogeneous charge (stoichiometric) x x x

DI / Stratified charge (stoichiometric)

DI / Stratified charge (lean burn / complex strategies) x x x x x x x x x x x x

Mild downsizing with turbocharging

Medium downsizing with turbocharging x x x

Strong downsizing with turbocharging

Extra strong downsizing with turbocharging x x x x x x

Variable Valve Timing x x x x x x

Variable valve control x x x x x x

Cylinder deactivation

Variable Compression Ratio

Optimised cooling circuit x x x x x x

Advanced cooling circuit+ electric water pump x x x x x x x x x

En

gin

e

Heat recovery

Optimised gearbox ratios x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Piloted gearbox x x x x x x x x x

Tra

ns-

mis

sio

n

Dual-Clutch

Start-stop function x x x x x x

Start-stop + regenerative braking x x x x x x

Mild hybrid (motor assist) Hyb

rid

Full hybrid (electric drive)

Improved aerodynamic efficiency x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Mild weight reduction x x x

Medium weight reduction x x x

Strong weight reduction x x x x x x

Bo

dy

Advanced light weight materials x x x

Low rolling resistance tyres x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Electrically assisted steering (EPS, EPHS) x x x x x x x x x

Oth

er

Advanced aftertreatment

CO2 correction factor 3% 6% 9% 12% 15% 3% 6% 9% 12% 15% 3% 6% 9% 12% 15%


AEA 53

C.2 Options on diesel passenger cars (extra strong downsizing scenario)

Options on diesel passenger cars Diesel small Diesel medium Diesel large


Reduced engine friction losses x x x

Advanced reduced engine friction losses x x x x x x x x x x x x

4 valves per cylinder

Piezo injectors

Mild downsizing x x x

Medium downsizing x x x

Strong downsizing

Extra strong downsizing x x x x x x


Optimised cooling circuit x x x


Exhaust heat recovery x x x x x x

Variable valve timing x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

En

gin

e

Variable compression ratio

6-speed manual/automatic gearbox


Continuous Variable Transmission Tra

ns-

mis

sio

n

Dual-Clutch




rid

Full hybrid (electric drive capability)





Bo

dy




DeNOx catalyst Oth

er

Particulate trap / filter

CO2 correction factor 3% 5% 7% 9.5% 12% 3% 5% 7% 9.5% 12% 3% 5% 7% 9.5% 12%


54 AEA

C.3 Options on petrol passenger cars (hybridization scenario)

Options on petrol passenger cars petrol small petrol medium petrol large








Medium downsizing with turbocharging x x x x x x x x x

Strong downsizing with turbocharging x x x

Extra strong downsizing with turbocharging







En

gin

e

Heat recovery


Piloted gearbox x x x x x x

Tra

ns-

mis

sio

n

Dual-Clutch

Start-stop function x x x

Start-stop + regenerative braking x x x

Mild hybrid (motor assist) x x x Hyb

rid

Full hybrid (electric drive) x x x


Mild weight reduction x x

Medium weight reduction x x x x


Bo

dy




Oth

er




AEA 55

C.4 Options on diesel passenger cars (hybridization scenario)

Options on diesel passenger cars Diesel small Diesel medium Diesel large





Piezo injectors


Medium downsizing x x x x x x

Strong downsizing x x x

Extra strong downsizing





Variable valve timing x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

En

gin

e



Piloted gearbox x x x x x x x x x x


ns-

mis

sio

n

Dual-Clutch




rid

Full hybrid (electric drive capability) x x x





Bo

dy




DeNOx catalyst Oth

er




56 AEA


AEA 57

D Packages of technical options for light commercial vehicles


58 AEA

D.1 Options on petrol light commercial vehicles (extra strong downsizing scenario)

Description petrol small petrol medium petrol large








Medium downsizing with turbocharging x x x

Strong downsizing with turbocharging

Extra strong downsizing with turbocharging x x x x x x







En

gin

e

Heat recovery



Tra

ns-

mis

sio

n

Dual-Clutch




rid

Full hybrid (electric drive)





Bo

dy




Oth

er




AEA 59

D.2 Options on diesel light commercial vehicles (extra strong downsizing scenario)

Diesel small Diesel medium Diesel large





Piezo injectors


Medium downsizing x x x

Strong downsizing

Extra strong downsizing x x x x x x





En

gin

e





ns-

mis

sio

n

Dual-Clutch




rid

Full hybrid (electric drive capability)





Bo

dy



Electrically assisted steering (EPS, EPHS) x x x x x x

DeNOx catalyst Oth

er




60 AEA

D.3 Options on petrol light commercial vehicles (hybridization scenario)

Description petrol small petrol medium petrol large







Mild downsizing with turbocharging x x x

Medium downsizing with turbocharging x x x x x x

Strong downsizing with turbocharging x x x

Extra strong downsizing with turbocharging







En

gin

e

Heat recovery



Tra

ns-

mis

sio

n

Dual-Clutch




rid

Full hybrid (electric drive) x x x





Bo

dy




Oth

er




AEA 61

D.4 Options on diesel light commercial vehicles (hybridization scenario)

Diesel small Diesel medium Diesel large





Piezo injectors


Medium downsizing x x x x x x

Strong downsizing x x x

Extra strong downsizing





En

gin

e





ns-

mis

sio

n

Dual-Clutch




rid

Full hybrid (electric drive capability) x x x





Bo

dy



Electrically assisted steering (EPS, EPHS) x x x x x x

DeNOx catalyst Oth

er




62 AEA


AEA 63

E Results of LCV cost calculations with a 50% cap on petrol vehicles

E.1 Extra strong downsizing

Extra strong downsizing / No learning


CO2-emission [g/km] 131 157 212 126 155 199 Retail price increase [€] 1086 1201 1445 462 619 851 Relative price increase 10% 9% 7% 3% 4% 3%

Target: 150 g/km



Target: 125 g/km



Extra strong downsizing / Learning: Slow penetration


CO2-emission [g/km] 131 157 215 125 156 199 Retail price increase [€] 911 1045 1264 432 532 796

Relative price increase 8% 7% 6% 3% 3% 3% Target: 150 g/km



Target: 125 g/km




64 AEA

Extra strong downsizing / Learning: Fast penetration



Target: 150 g/km



Target: 125 g/km



E.2 Hybrid options

Hybrid options / No learning



Target: 150 g/km



Target: 125 g/km




AEA 65

Hybrid options / Learning: Slow penetration



Target: 150 g/km



Target: 125 g/km



Hybrid options / Learning: Fast penetration



Target: 150 g/km



Target: 125 g/km




66 AEA

The Gemini Building Fermi Avenue Harwell International Business Centre Didcot Oxfordshire OX11 0QR Tel: 0845 345 3302 Fax: 0870 190 6138 E-mail: [email protected],uk www.aea-energy-and-environment.co.uk

Assessment with respect to long term CO emission …Assessment with respect to long term CO 2...

Documents

Transcript of Assessment with respect to long term CO emission …Assessment with respect to long term CO 2...