UoG SfL Conversion to more efficient fuel sources CW to more efficient fuel sources - business...
Transcript of UoG SfL Conversion to more efficient fuel sources CW to more efficient fuel sources - business...
Conversion to more efficient fuel sources -business models, returns and costs
CenexCentre of excellence for low carbon and fuel cell technologies
Chris Walsh
Head of Technical Support and Consultancy
1
Contents
• Introduction to Cenex
• Why Bio-methane
• Example operations
• Camden
• Coca-Cola Enterprises• Coca-Cola Enterprises
• Leeds City Council
• Cenex resources
� Running projects and programmes focused on accelerating the deployment of low carbon
vehicles
� Delivery of low carbon vehicle and infrastructure funding initiatives and
programmes for UK government (PiP, LCVPP, AFIGP)
� Providing fleet carbon reduction consultancy
� Low carbon vehicle deployment support and evaluation
Introduction to Cenex
Page 3Cenex 2012
� Delivering the UKs national annual Low Carbon Vehicle event (LCV)
Why BioMethane?
Starting point best CO2 saving
on heavy vehicles
CNG Daily CBG Daily
Trial mileage 86 km / day
(9642 km
total)
53 km / day
(5590 km
total)
Performance and Reliability
total) total)
Fuel
consumption
26.3 kg
/ 100km
24.7 kg
/ 100km
Emissions kgCO2/MJ
Emissions Kg CO2 / kg
WTW
kg CO2 / 100
G25 CNG
HD g/kwhr
Euro VI %
reduction
Air quality emissionsCarbon dioxide emissions
Sustainability
kgCO2/MJ Kg CO2 / kg fuel used
kg CO2 / 100 km
CBG 0.031 1.40 34.5
CNG 0.062 2.80 73.6
HD g/kwhr reduction
CO 1.15 4 62%
NMHC 0.019 0.16 88%
CH4 0.193 0.5 61%
NOx 0.28 0.4 30%
HC 0.199
PM 0.0047 0.01 53%
• BM CO2 saving 53% WTW over CNG
• Reduction in PM and NOx of 30% and 53% against Euro
Conclusions
• Reduction in PM and NOx of 30% and 53% against Euro
VI legislation
• New Iveco Daily displayed 6% improvement in fuel
consumption
9
� Cenex developed test methodology and independently
assessed the performance of diesel and gas Iveco Stralis
HGVs
� CO2
� Air quality performance NOx and PM
� Noise levels
� Driver acceptance
� Fuel consumption
The Coca-Cola Enterprises vehicle trial
Page 10Cenex 2012
� Fuel consumption
� Economics
� Operational reliability
Iveco Stralis CNG Iveco Stralis Diesel
GVW 26 tonnes 26 tonnes
Maximum payload 18.2 tonnes 18.9 tonnes
Engine capacity 7.79 litres 7.79 litres
Engine power 272 PS 310 PS
Emissions after treatment 3 Way catalyst system SCR catalyst system
Emissions rating EEV EEV
Gearbox 6 speed automatic 12 speed automated manual
Fuel tank capacity 880 litres @ 200 bar 300 litres
Dedicated gas
Fast fill liquefied biomethane to compressed
biomethane station
The trial delivery routes and drive cycle creation
Three routes were identified by CCE that were broadly representative of all the delivery routes from Enfield
CCE
depot
Essex
Reading
Central
London
CCE depot
location
Drop off point
CCE drive cycle key stats
Page 11Cenex 2012 Page 11
A drive cycle allows
� different vehicles to be directly compared over identical driving
� repeatable test conditions allow new technologies to be
evaluated
� air quality performance as well as tailpipe CO2 and fuel
consumption to be measured
CCE drive cycle key stats
Duration 30.8 minutes
Distance 19.5 km
Avg speed 37.6 kph
Town driving 55 %
A/B road driving 24 %
Motorway driving 21 %
Drive cycle air quality emissions
� PM and NOx emissions were key performance
measurables for CCE.
� NOx : 85.8% reduction
� PM: 97.1% reduction
Emission Gas truck
(g/km)
Diesel truck
(g/km)
NOx 0.539 3.799
PM 0.002 0.069
CO 2.223 1.776
Page 12Cenex 2012
CO 2.223 1.776
HC 0.127 0.032
� Gas: 34.9 kg/100 km Diesel: 31.9 litres/100 km
� Gas: 357 km Diesel: 940 km
� Efficiency reduction: 31.8% (Due to engine and
gearbox changes)
Fuel consumption/Range/Efficiency
Tailpipe shots
Page 13Cenex 2012
Well-to-wheel CO2 emissions
� TTW (Scope 1) emission saving 99.6%
Trial emission savings
� WTW (Scope 1,2&3) emission saving 50.3%
Large CO2 emissions resulting from the combustion of a non renewable fuel
Page 14Cenex 2012 Page 14
Permanent station scenario emission savings
� WTW (Scope 1,2&3) emission saving 60.7%
Driver feedback
Not acceptable [1], Marginal [2], Acceptable [3], Good [4], and Excellent [5]
Page 15Cenex 2012
‘Excellent vehicle. Powerful, fast and always in gear’
‘It is ideal having refuelling station onsite’
‘ Both vehicles are quiet, both are safe to refuel’
‘Braking on the gas truck took some getting used to..’
‘There is a lack of space to put drinks on the dash’
‘Gas truck is excellent at pulling away because you are always in gear’
Page 15
Noise measurements
� The vehicle operational states most relevant in addressing CCE
noise concerns were,
� a) the noise emitted from fleet vehicles in densely
populated urban environments,
� b) noise levels related to out-of-hours deliveries to retail
premises, and
� c) internal cab noise at the drivers ear.
Noise measurement Diesel Stralis Gas Stralis Reduction
Page 16Cenex 2012
Noise measurement Diesel Stralis
dB(A)
Gas Stralis
dB(A)
Reduction
dB(A)
20 kph drive-by 73.3 69.2 4.1
Idle 77.7 67.2 10.5
Hot engine start-up 76.6 68.5 8.1
Page 16
� A 3 dB(A) change in sound level is
significant and represents a 41% increase
in sound pressure
� Noise levels at the drivers ear remained
similar between the gas and diesel trucks
varying from a 1.9 dB(A) reduction to a
1.2 dB(A) increase at 20 kph and 40 kph
respectively.
Economics
Gas vehicle vs Diesel vehicle total cost of ownership (TCO) cost
differential, six year contract hire period.
Page 17Cenex 2012
� Zero rate congestion charge removed in 2011, would have reduced TCO to 12% premium
� Jan 2012 UK diesel price of £1.14 excluding VAT
� Gas vehicle economics are site and duty cycle specific (station technology, vehicle technology,
annual mileage and gas consumption are key variables)
Page 17
Leeds Mercedes-Benz Econic vehicle trial
Routes and duties• 700 - 1,000 wheelie bins
G12
G9
• 6.88 litre spark ignition engine, 279 bhp
• EEV emissions standard
• 4x2 drive
• Gas stored in four 80 litre tanks
• On-board data-logging system
Seddon Atkinson
… replaced …
• 700 - 1,000 wheelie bins
• 30-50 miles per day
• 6 days per week
WTW CO2 comparison
5%
kgCO2e/km
49%
64%64%
78%
£12,000
£14,000
£16,000
£18,000
Cost savings
Current
cost saving
£2500 pa
Fuel
£-
£2,000
£4,000
£6,000
£8,000
£10,000
Diesel Biomethane
Fuel
Fuel
Duty
Duty
Delivery (permanent station)
AdBlue
Conclusions
• Cenex has proven experience in
fleet carbon reduction
• Bio-Methane successfully reduces
carbon emissions from a range of
operations
• Cenex has worked with a wide
range of fleets and can assist with range of fleets and can assist with
fleet carbon reduction
• Cenex resources – Freely
available materials
InformationChris Walsh
CENEX
Tel: 01509 635 750
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.cenex.co.uk
Cenex resources page www.cenex.co.uk/resources
Camden BioMethane van trial
Coca-Cola Biomethane logistics
Leeds CC BioMethane waste collection
Feasibility study for the installation of a regional AD
facility producing BioMethane as a road transport fuel
Waste fleet analysis
Cenex BioMethane toolkit and calculator
Carbon emissions
• TTW (Tank-to-wheel) considers tail pipe emissions from vehicles
• WTW (Well-to-wheel) considers emissions associated with fuel extraction, processing, delivery and dispensing
Emission data from CONCAWE, Gasrec analysis from CENEX Camden biomethane study
Introduction to gas vehicles
Light duty
applications
technology type relevance example vehicle pros and cons
- Extended range due to petrol operation
- AQ benefit
- Noise benefit
- CO2 benefit (when running on biomethane)
- Reduction in vehicle efficiency from diesel
- AQ benefit- Noise benefit
Page 26Cenex 2012
Heavy duty
applications
Heavy duty
applications
- Noise benefit- CO2 benefit (when running on biomethane)
- Reduction in vehicle efficiency from diesel- Range limited by gas storage (suits back to base operations)- Reduction in vehicle efficiency from diesel
- NOx benefit
- CO2 benefit (when running on biomethane) limited to substitution ratio
- Operates on 100% diesel
- Maintains diesel engine efficiency
- CO2 benefit limited to substitution ratio
Introduction to gas vehicle refueling stationstechnology type example station pros and cons
- Solution for low volume gas users
- Use low cost night rate electricity
- Station storage cylinders not required
- Biomethane provided through green gas
scheme
- Long fill times- Limited to carbon intensity of gas supply
- Fast fill- High volume fleets
Grid
connected
slow fill
Compression
directly into
vehicle tanks
relevance
Page 27Cenex 2012
- High volume fleets- Low cost- Biomethane provided through green gas scheme
- Limited to carbon intensity of gas supply- Requires a suitable grid connection point to be located near station
- Fast fill
- Can use biomethane directly
- Can be used for liquid or compressed gas supply to a vehicle
- Higher cost than grid connected station for compressed gas
Grid
connected
fast fill
Liquefied
gas station
High volume gas
use close to
suitable gas
network
High volume gas
use – no suitable
gas network
close by