Upload
others
View
8
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Joint Research Centre the European Commission's in-house science service
Serving society
Stimulating innovation
Supporting legislation
Bridging the CO2 Gap Options for policy action
and way forward
Georgios Fontaras
Lisbon – June 08th, 2016
Meeting with the SAM-HLG
Disclaimer: The views expressed are purely those of the presenter and may not in any circumstance be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission
• Key figures & Present situation
• Building a trustworthy framework
• Current Tools: WLTP, RDE, Labeling
• US a case study
• JRC’s work on “An integrated framework”
• Summary
Outline
Key figures & Current Situation
3
• Road Transport:17.5% of EU CO2
• 800 M tonnes
• 70% of which from pass cars
• On the road today about:
• 208 M pass. cars
• 1.3 M buses/coaches
• 28.6 M Trucks
Key figures – CO2 and road transport
Key figures – Market and Industry
• About 14M new passenger cars/year sold in Europe
• Slow growth rate but increasing mobility needs
Difficult to stabilize and curb CO2
• Biggest (75%) consumer of petroleum products
• Automotive sector:
• 4% of EU GDP (~sum of the lowest 12 GDPs of EU MSs)
• 5.6% of employment
• 107€ Billion worth of exports
• About 380 € Billion in tax revenue
• Target 60% GHG reduction by 2050 (Base 1990)
• 40% by 2030 (Base 1990)
• 30% reduction for non-ETS sector (Base 2005)
• Extensive Series of Regulations, Directives and Technical
documents regulating emissions and CO2 savings measures (A
Really Long List could appear here!)
• More info available:
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/cars/documentation_en.h
tm
Key figures – EU policy context
• Mass dependent emission limits for average sales weighted emissions for
each OEM
• Target in 2015, CO2 shall not average more than 130 gCO2/km (roughly
~5.2l/100km) – the target is set to 95 gCO2/km for year 2020
Target
achieved
Policy: Present situation
• Progresses appear to be in line with the requirements of 2020
targets
Source EEA
Present situation
“Emissions from official testing reported by national authorities show that new cars sold in the European Union (EU) are increasingly more fuel-efficient. Last year, new passenger cars emitted on average 119.6 grammes (g) of carbon dioxide (CO2) per kilometre, 8% below the official EU target set for 2015, according to provisional data published today (14/04/2016) by the European Environment Agency (EEA).”
Source: ICCT
...systematically different and (lately) increasingly higher But reality can be different…
But reality can tell a different story
Building a trustworthy framework
10
Vehicle type-approval system in Europe
System founded on mutual trust!
• Type approval is the European approach (other markets follow self
certification eg US)
• For entering the market an OEM has to “demonstrate” that a vehicle fulfils
the relevant EU standards (eg safety and emissions)
• Done by performing a number of tests on a vehicle (representative of a
certain family of vehicles from a vehicle manufacturer) under the
supervision of a third party (type-approval authority or technical service)
who certify the quality of the process (Directive EC 2007/46)
• Type I test concerns the following:
• Fuel/Energy consumption
• CO2 emissions
• Emissions of gaseous compunds (NOx, CO, PM/PN)
Source: ICCT 2014
Introduction of binding targets Each g of CO2 in excess can potentially cost up to 95E per vehicle sold
Binding targets & strict penalties alone, not an effective solution – need for multidimensional initiatives
Reducing the GAP: The Way forward Step 0
• The CO2 monitoring / certification / consumer information system has to be
trustworthy first and then accurate
• Most discussion revolves around accuracy or precision
• Trust is what should be built first
• Processes and results have to be:
• Comprehensible
• Traceable
• Reproducible
• Quality controlled
• The same across EU
• Validated
• Validation, feedback collection, regular methodology revision, quality control and
harmonization should be founding blocks of any framework to be proposed
The man who moves a mountain begins by carrying away small
stones. Confucius
Small steps can make a big difference
Example A: Different TA authorities and technical services may sometimes interpret existing legislation differently. Better harmonization across Europe could be a big step
Small steps can make a big difference
Example B: How an ex – post validation of the certification values could raise consumer awareness, ring bells (and trigger further actions if necessary) Wouldn’t you as consumer would like to know what are models A and B?
http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/2016-04-07_-_DP_Resultats_Commission_UTAC-2.pdf
Résultats des contrôles des émissions de polluants
atmosphériques et de CO2 menés sur les 52 premiers véhicules
B) Unfair competitive advantage A) Unfair competitive disadvantage
Available Policy Instruments
17
Available policy instruments
RDE WLTP Label
• Adding completely new tests procedures at certification level may not be the most
effective option
• Focus on available tools / instruments, improve, strengthen and enhance
• Technology offers multitude of additional tools for quality and reality check!
• Ex – Post verification scheme of great importance!
WLTP - strengths
• The most important initiative in improving vehicle CO2 certification and
monitoring to date!
• A very important step ahead addresses several of the know shortcomings
• New protocol taking into account the evolution in vehicle complexity
• More realistic driving cycle
• Stricter & more realistic definitions of boundary conditions
• Less margins for exploitation (at least based on current understanding)
• World standard
• High repeatability & reproducibility
WLTP challenges (1/2)
• Becoming an extremely complex procedure. Don’t want a scheme understandable and
controllable only by professional WLTP connoisseurs
Keep it as simple as possible, don’t introduce further complexity if not really necessary
• Transparency & reproducibility issues: selection of families and boundaries, limited public
information on vehicles (what road loads?, what are WLTP-H & L vehicles, how can a third
party reproduce/check results, software optimization for hybrids?)
Keep it open and transparent, make more info data public, give the opportunity of test
reproduction to independent parties. Provide real time updated & consolidated versions of
WLTP, explanatory material on the structure of the procedure descriptions etc
• No regular updates foreseen (any protocol should be revisited once every 10 years and not
once every 40 years as with NEDC)
Foresee regular assessment and revisiting of the WLTP, every 10 years it should be
“recalibrated”
WLTP challenges (2/2)
• A lab cycle can never cover all conditions, all drivers, circumstances. Specific
mix of traffic conditions with pronounced motorway driving maybe not so
relevant for specific car categories (eg. Very small city cars)
ok for certification but for closing the gap & targeted policy interventions additional
possibilities should be used (eg ex-post verifications, market surveillance, simulation tools
user feedback)
• Strict but still not fully realistic boundary conditions (eg. No slopes, limited
temperature range, no A/C use yet, relatively low RPM)
ok for certification purposes, but for closing the gap and making targeted policy
interventions additional supporting tools should be foreseen (ex-post verifications,
market surveillance, simulation tools, user feedback)
RDE for CO2 – strengths
• RDE on its own is an important step ahead
• The most important initiative together with Euro standards in tackling
regulated pollutant emissions
• Potentially valuable tool if appropriately expanded to CO2
• Basis for “Not-to-Exceed” factors or screening mechanism for
triggering additional lab validations
• RDE tests of up to 2h generate a large data pool
• CO2 data recorded from actual on-road driving can be used in various
ways (eg. Calibrate/validate vehicle & compare with WLTP)
• Potential coverage of a wide range of conditions
• Higher Robustness against defeat strategies
RDE CO2 data – are not The silver bullet
• Lower repeatability & reproducibility of CO2 measurements
Inherent limitation prevents CO2 certification to be based mainly on RDE
Possible use in combination with other instruments (WLTP, simulations, data mining, label ,
CO2 limits etc)
• Absence of data collection and assessment mechanism for RDE CO2 (yet) – where do the results go and
to whom?
Need to establish the necessary framework
• Potentially biased trip design deviating from average driving
Trip design and definition should probably be revisited for CO2 purposes
• Being a regulated procedure , used also for other purposes ,it will always have specific limits & margins.
Test optimizations may increase the gap and result in lab-test like situations.
Definitions should be strict.
Good for not to exceed type of limits but not so good for CO2 correction factors development.
• No regular quality check of method and feedback-based corrections foreseen (how do we know it actually
works as should?)
Feedback collection and analysis mechanism necessary
As for WLTP, periodic revisit of the method necessary
RDE CO2 data – are not The silver bullet
• Lower repeatability & reproducibility of CO2 measurements
Inherent limitation prevents CO2 certification to be based mainly on RDE
Possible use in combination with other instruments (WLTP, simulations, data mining, label ,
CO2 limits etc)
• Absence of data collection and assessment mechanism for RDE CO2 (yet) – where do the results go and
to whom?
Need to establish the necessary framework
• Potentially biased trip design deviating from average driving
Trip design and definition should probably be revisited for CO2 purposes
• Being a regulated procedure , used also for other purposes ,it will always have specific limits & margins.
Test optimizations may increase the gap and result in lab-test like situations.
Definitions should be strict.
Good for not to exceed type of limits but not so good for CO2 correction factors development.
• No regular quality check of method and feedback-based corrections foreseen (how do we know it actually
works as should?)
Feedback collection and analysis mechanism necessary
As for WLTP, periodic revisit of the method necessary
RDE cannot replace the
WLTP for CO2 certification but it can become an extremely valuable source of data
WLTP & RDE: Why on their own are not enough
• Assuming the bull’s eye equals to a non-existent “single” real CO2 value
• Being official tests both have strict, known, boundary conditions
• But in reality there is no single value:
WLTP RDE × ×
× ×
Label / Information communication - strengths
• Consumer information and public awareness a key instrument
• Probably not exploited to its full potential to date
• Main communication channel to the customer
• Benchmark for apparently similar car models
• The only official source of information to your car
• Important market driver
Label / information communication - issues
• Presently relies solely to the official test result
Possibility to enhance / make more realistic based on real use fuel
consumption data collection, ex-post verifications, RDE, market surveillance
• Founded on the certification value (and any shortcomings linked to it)
Link to additional safeguards outside CO2 certification (ex-post verifications,
market surveillance, real world CO2 monit., user data, statistical corrections)
• Damaged reputation due to the CO2 GAP and its increasing trend
Improve, promote, provide info of better quality (maybe also quantity)
• Single way communication (no possibility for users to send feedback)
Foresee feedback channels eg free fuel consumption reporting, consumption
data collection during technical inspection
• Too static for 2016 (piece of paper at a dealer or a number in a webpage, in a world of
apps, mobile devices and continuous communication)
It can be made a more user friendly, more fun to use instrument
And an approach not presently available (but
technically feasible)
• Real world fuel consumption data collection is technically possible
• Real time fuel consumption should be available to the driver eg via
OBD port
• Allow for the development of codes and applications that can spur
better fuel economy
• Average life time information can be recorded by vehicles and
communicated anonymized during the compulsory technical
inspections
• Data to be collected and statistically treated to
• Monitor the real gap
• Provide feedback to drivers
• Support other tools and processes (inventories, decision making, fleet
models etc)
European CO2
Emissions
WLTP Values & Vehicle
Characteristics
RDE & Ex Post tests
& Real World Tests
Market Surveillance, Real world
Activity Data, & User
Feedback
Integrated Framework
Data Source
Data Check
User information
US’ approach (case study)
30
400g/mi = 248.5g/km
• Laboratory tests for Automaker compliance with standards
• Adjusted values for consumer information and CO2 monitoring
• http://www3.epa.gov/fueleconomy/fetrends/1975-2015/420r15016.pdf
US approach
“individual mileage will always vary and no label value can accurately predict fuel economy for all drivers under all conditions, the EPA fuel economy values are the best estimates for typical U.S. drivers and average driving conditions”
US approach: Emphasis on Info and the User
US approach: Sales weighted unadjusted vs adjusted
Unadjusted ~31.3 mpg Adjusted ~25.1 mpg
Potential gap: 1.83l/100km or 20% (9.37l - 7.54) l/100 US: About 42g CO2 /km EU: About 37g CO2/km (assuming average of 125g CO2/km and 30% gap)
JRC’s approach: Bring together data of different tests and
conditions and provide customized, Vehicle – Region Specific fuel consumption estimates
34
Policy Reality
JRC’s approach to the problem
Policy Reality
Regulatory complexity
Costs
Diversity of conditions
Increasing Vehicle complexity
Flexible, effective procedures
Simple, meaningful & accurate metrics
Monitor & Achieve targets
Lab and real world tests & Simulation
JRC’s approach to the problem
CO2MPAS tool
• A vehicle micro – simulator for the introduction of WLTP
• Developed by the JRC
• Model calibration is based on WLTP provided enough vehicle data.
Potentially RDE data can be used for WLTP back calculation
• The tool is currently in test phase of beta release
• JRC combined CO2MPAS with fleet data for global CO2 calculation
(average CO2 over WLTP)
Green-driving tool
Green-driving tool
• On the basis of the main vehicle (shape, powertrain, fuel, etc.) and
usage characteristics (number of passengers, aerodynamic
features, electric devices, initial temperature etc.) a user can
calculate fuel consumption on a selected trip
• The fuel consumption calculation is based on CO2MPAS and the
WLTP. Potentially RDE data can be used.
• The tool is currently under development. First BETA version
presented during JRC’s Open Day (28/May ‘16)
• In the future, the tool could be used on any specific vehicle if
needed to address a big part of the “gap”
Project: REAL CO2
• Possibility to obtain fuel consumption directly from vehicle
• Investigating:
• Possibilities for storing data at vehicle level
• Possibilities for communicating real fuel consumption data during
vehicle technical inspection
• Similar data already available data
• Companies big databases of real-life fuel consumption
• Making use of such kind of data could be a first option to
supplement official values or perform market surveillance
• Confidentiality seems a possible barrier
• A preliminary investigation is being carried out at the JRC
Summary
Summary 1/2
• There is no silver bullet in CO2 . There is no test that can capture all
possible operating conditions. By definition CO2 is not one value but a
distribution of values: who drives what, where and under which conditions.
• Need to re-build and maintain confidence in the system – need for ex-post
verifications & some form of surveillance mechanism
• WLTP is a very important step forward and has to be supported. Challenges
should be carefully considered and the procedure should be strengthened.
• RDE test or its elements could be further studied as a possible
complementary procedure to WLTP. RDE based certification not suitable for
CO2 emissions. RDE can be a valuable source of data
• Labeling and consumer information channels still have great potential
• Technology should be harnessed to improve our understanding of the
problem and provide information. Real activity data can be recorded,
collected and analyzed. Drivers must be involved to the extent possible.
Summary 2/2
• Real savings are achieved in real-life. What can the EC do?
Exploit existing tools to the best extent
Help “upgrade” fuel consumption to one of the top purchase criteria market
driven reductions in CO2
Stress the environmental importance of low CO2 emitting vehicles
Open to the public: drivers are not dumb. They should have access to more info
regarding their cars (through official channels)
Provide on-line tools & apps that can educate drivers and promote behaviors
and CO2 saving technologies
Draft best practices guidelines and information packages for the drivers
Educate the public make data sources available!
JRC Science Hub: www.ec.europa.eu/jrc
Twitter: @EU_ScienceHub
LinkedIn: european-commission-joint-research-centre
YouTube: JRC Audiovisuals
Vimeo: Science@EC
Stay in touch