Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Lee SchipperSenior Research Engineer
Precourt Energy Efficiency Center, Stanford Universityand
Project Scientist, Global Metropolitan Studies, UC Berkeley
EIA 2009 Energy ConferenceApril 7
Washington DC
Looking Before You Leap into A Model:A New Climate for Seeing Transport Energy Futures?
Precourt Energy Efficiency Center Stanford University
• A research and analysis institute at Stanford• Established in October 2006• Initial funding: $30 million pledge by Jay Precourt• Mission
– To improve opportunities for and implementation of energy efficient technologies, systems, and practices, with an emphasis on economically attractive deployment
– Focus on the demand side of energy markets– Energy efficiency: economically efficient reductions
in energy use (or energy intensity)
Transport Energy Futures
• The Traditional Approach – Less Helpful for Seeing• The ASIF Approach• Data Nightmares
– Our Own US Problems: We can’t count– What savings from dieselization in Europe
• The Blind Side – Transport Futures Trump Oil Futures– Mexico City CO2 Benefits – Oil and CO2 Savings No One Saw– Two Wheeler World in Hanoi – Sustainable Transport – Hyper-motorization in China (and India); Room on the Road?
• Conclusions– Tools and approaches for better views of the future
Congestion or Access?
Is Our View of the Future Stuck?
WORLD CARBON EMISSIONS: TRANSPORT Roughly 35% of Transport Emissions in/around Cities
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004
MTo
nnes
CO
2
China non-TransportOECD Non TransportNon-Oecd non TransportSea and Aviation BunkersChina TransportOECD Transport ex MexicoNon OECD Transport w/Mexico
“ASIF” Decomposition: Road Map For Saving
Fuel Use
G = A Si Ii Fi,j
Emissions from Transport
* * *
Occupancy/ Load Factor
Vehicle fuel intensity Vehicle characteristics
Technological energy efficiency
Real drive cycles and routing
Veh-km andpass-km by mode
Modal Energy Intensity
Emissions per unit of energy
or volume or km
Total Transport Activity
Lesson : Attack All Components of Fuel Use and CO2- How Much Do we Even Know about the DC Metro Area?
Air pollution, health impacts
Global CO2
Key Issues in US Road Transport ModelsActivity And Fuel Economy Data
•Cars and Household Light Trucks – How are Numbers Made Up?• Nat Household Travel Survey every (X) years – No fuel data• DOT Table VMT-1 (by state) – how accurate are fuel sales and VMT?• DOE Household Energy Consumption Survey- VMT but no fuel
• Trucking• Table VM 1 Data on VMT and fuel by truck type – How collected?• No medium or short haul ton mile data• VIUS/TIUS Died in 2002 – how will we understand light trucks
•Why Is This a Problem? • No on-road fuel economy data when they are subject of public policy• Difficulties measuring short and long term changes in VMT• Rising interest in VMT Tax as part of way to pay for roads
It Could Be Worse: No VMT, Fuel Economy, or Consistent “Active Vehicle” Fleet Data for LDCs!
Where Did the Fuel Go? Our Own VMT and Fuel Accounts Don’t Match
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Billion
VMT/year
Light Trucks Autos SingleUnit Trucks Combo Trucks
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
1991 1996 2001 2006
Autos
Light Trucks
SingleUnit and Combo Trucks
Where Is the US in On-Road Fuel Economy? Hard To Tell What the Trend Is!
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
L/10
0 km
, on
road
, gas
olin
e eq
.
US Cars and Houseld light trucks/SUV Japan incl mini cars
France All Germany
w. Germany Italy
UK Spain
Canada Calif Standard ON ROAD
10
Saving Emissions From Transport – It Rarely Comes Down to Just Technology
• Traditional Technology – 40-60 MPG or 2.5-4 l/100km?– Less power, lighter materials, lower drag, CVT, cold cylinders– Gasoline or clean diesel hybrids– End to the power and weight chase?
• Other Approaches - Cost, Time to Deploy– City cars vs. long distance cars?– Plug in hybrids – most driving is for local, short trips– Fuel cells? Many cost, feedstock, materials challenges
• Alternative or Bio-Fuels – What are They Worth?– US Corn ethanol a dead end, other biofuels increasingly uncertain– True low carbon fuels not here, won’t arrive under present policies– Non-oil always possible, but always expensive and higher CO2
Do We Know How these Technologies will Perform? Do We Know How To Put These Technologies into Models?
Dieselization in Europe: Where are the Savings? Relative to Gasoline, Diesel Shows Little Energy or CO2 Savings
Moreover, Driving Distances Larger
(Schipper and Fulton TRB 2009)
Source:` official national data
12
Opportunities in Other Modes Overlooking the System Effects?
• BRT – High Speed, Low Emissions– Articulated buses running in dedicated BRT lines– Parallel hybrid drive trains using diesel propulsion – Fill them up!
• Trucking – Important Globally– Improve freight logistics, reduce empty running – Promote inter-modalism– Improving efficiency of trucks
• Rail?– Building or strengthening freight networks - uncertain– Consider low-cost, medium speed intercity rail (tilt trains)– Improve intermodal access around rail facilities to boost usage
Opportunities Are Great, but mostly fromTransport System Improvements, not Technology
All Modes of Transport Will Evolve: How Many Of These Components are in Models?
Changes in Transport Fuel and Emissions: Improving Fuel Economy Not Enough
What Shapes Each Component?
= A Si Ii Fi,j
Fuel Use and Emissions from
Transport * * *
Load Factors – service levels, security, speed
etc
From surveys, not from new-vehicle
tests
Vehicle characteristics- incomes, new vehicle taxation, fuel taxation,
culture
Technological energy efficiency
Traffic controls, enforcement of speeding laws, CP and other means to reduce congestion
Income, relative transport costs,
speeds and service levels, etc
Energy Use per passenger km
For Carbon – relaive fuel prices, carbon
taxes, low carbon fuel standards
Income, urban form, overall speed
Most Components Related to Transport Policy, NOT Oil or CO2
Best Practices for Sustainable Transport: Little Money, but Pricing and Political Will
–Congestion Pricing Singapore Honda Accord Hybrid
Two-Wheelers in Hanoi??
Mexico City Metrobus
–Bikes in Copenhagen
Real Biofuels in Sweden
Mexico City Clean Bus Bus Platform Curitiba
–Bikes at Bangalore Bus Sta.
Urban Mobility PatternsThe Mobility Ladder
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
LOW MIDDLE HIGHER MIDDLE IEA EUROPE USCANANZ
CarTwo WheelerMetro, Urban RailCity BusMini Bus, TaxiWalking, Bike
Passenger-Km/year
China
17Key Question: Is this path of motorization good? Inevitable or
avoidable?
Source: EMBARQ
Motorization and Economic Growth: The China Syndrome?
18
Creating Comfort from Chaos in Mexico CityFrom South to North?
Bus Rapid Transit – Mexico’s 1st Metrobus Line 260,000 people/day over 19km for US $80mn
Lower emissions and CO2, reduced car traffic
Metrobus CO2 Changes by ComponentSource Rogers 2006, 2009
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Before After
Thousand
Tonnes CO
2
Emissions from 20 ExtraMetrobusEmissons from first 70 Metrobuson RouteColectivos and RTP BusesRemovedCar Users Shifting to Metrobus
Delays to Cross Traffic
Additional Distance for Left turns
Savings from improved paralleltrafficRemaining parallel traffic
21
Mal-Asia? Jakarta and Dozens of other Asian Citi
Scenarios for Hanoi- JICA and EMBARQ
Year 1995 2005 2020
Transport policy (JICA) History Present Let trends continue High Mass Transit
Transport system (JICA) History Present Trends BRT, Tram, etc.
Public transport share 1% 6% 14.5% 30%
Environment Emissions policy (EMBARQ)
History Present Do nothing Medium Do nothing Medium Ambitious
Emissions CoefficientCases
EMBARQ1995 2005
2020-I1.35 x today
2020-I11.35 x Euro2
2020-IVEuro 2
2020-VEuro 3
2020-VIEuro 4
Resulting CO2 Emissions
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
1995 2005 2020-II 2020-III 2020-IV Euro2 2020-V Euro 3 2020-VI Euro 4
History Present High Mass Transit
Mill
ion
Tons
CO
2
Buses
Cars
Motorcycles
Fuel Economy CO2 Differences
Transport Policy Differences
Fuel Economy CO2 Differences
Introduction: Basic Thesis About (Hyper)-Motorization in China
• Speed of Motorization leaving officials, walkers behind– Incomprehensible growth rate in car ownership– Very poor data on use, fuel consumption, etc– Even word “car” in Chinese poorly understood
• Little Policy Competency to Slow or Control– Glory of modern motorization trumping other concerns– Whole city sections rapidly transformed into asphalt – Over-reliance on “technology” – human beings not in picture
• “Unintended” (or unknown?) Consequences– Burgeoning road fatalities (over half walkers, cyclists)– Air Pollution from vehicles rapidly replacing that from coal– Congestion now major threat to productivity, well being
25
EMBARQ’s Scenarios for China• Base Case – China has Korean car/GDP
ratio in 2020– 120-160 million cars, 12,000 km/car– 8-8.5 L/100 km if no new measures – Closer to 2 mn bbl/day oil in 2020
• Oil Saving Scenario – 40% as much oil, some CNG– Japanese/Euro level of fuel prices– 110-130 million cars, but less driving/car– Fuel economy standards, some hybrids and CNG
• Integrated Transport - Livable cities with good transport
– Much lower car ownership and use– avoiding the plague– Very small cars (incl. slow electrics, hybrids)
to avoid space and congestion problems in cities– Serious BRT, car-use restraint, land-use planning
Sustainable Transport for China: Cars and CO2 Emissions in 2020
Sustainable Urban Mobility Saves Cities, Fuel, andGreenhouse Gas Emissions
CO2 Emissions
0
20
40
60
80
100
2003
: Road
Ahead
2010
2020
Oil Sav
ed 2010
2020
Integrat
ed Trans
port 2010
2020
Ener
gy U
se fo
r Car
s, b
y so
urce
, MTO
E
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Tota
l Car
bon
Emis
sion
s (M
n To
nnes
)Electricity, as Primary Energy
CNG
Oil in Hybrids
Oil in Conventional Gasoline Cars
Cheap Two Wheelers, but No Sidewalks
And Now The Peoples’ Car
28
Scenarios and Assumptions for India (Transport Research, forthcoming)
• Business as Usual (BAU)– Unconstrained development of road traffic and vehicle demand– Infrastructure is assumed to not be a constraint
• Energy Efficiency– Higher fuel efficiency
• Clean Two and Three wheelers– Cleaner fuels and two and three-wheelers– Increases in two and three wheeler modal shares– Reduction in all other types of private transport modes
• Sustainable Cities/Urban Transport (SUT)– Demand management and modern mass transit– Regulation of private car use reflected by
reduction in modal share– Widespread implementation of BRT systems
• Extra Effort -- All of the above
India: CO2 Emissions by Transport Mode
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1980 2000 2030 BAU Efficiency TWW SUT Extra Effort
Mill
ion
Tonn
es C
O2
Rail
Bus
Three Wheeler
Two Wheeler
Cars, Taxis, MUVs
Lesson: Transport a Powerful Force Focusing on Fuel Misses Real Changes
• Cities, Transport and Land Use Changing• 500 million more people expected in Asian cities by 2030• American model of sprawl being tried, but not working well• Real space constraints more important than fuel prices?
• Private Motorization- Trends Continued?• Hanoi model (two wheelers), Nano, Hummer or? Depends on Policy• Future of freight levels, systems also very uncertain• Present models too influenced by American experience
• Where Energy/Fuel Enters the Picture• Fuel prices important to fuel efficiency, vehicle use
• Fuel economy standards an unknown but rising influence• Fuel choices can be important if true, large scale bio-fuel emerges
Conclusions: Reframing the Transport-Energy Future Challenge is About Sustainable Transport
• A New Framing of the Issue– Oil and carbon externalities less than clean air, congestion, safety– Developing countries now in serious mobility trouble – oil 2nd problem– CO2 is not a transport problem, but transport causes CO2 problems
• How to View CO2 and Energy Saving– Avoiding carbon intensive transport – a development issue– Developing good transport w CO2 co-benefits – not today’s mess – Then and only then estimate of reduced fuel or CO2/veh kilometer
• Tools and Data– Reasonable vehicle stock, use, pass- and tonne-km data (not easy)– Models of urban/rural, demographic, and income evolution– New approach to estimating “CO2 and Energy Saving”
32
Thank You Lee Schipper – [email protected]
Car that absorbs its own carbon and needs no oil?
http://piee.stanford.eduIn Future:
http://peec.stanford.edu