The Path To Cleaner Buses & The Path To Cleaner Buses & TrucksTrucks

• Cleaner Fuels• Tighter New Vehicle

Standards• Inspection and

Maintenance• Other

– Scrappage– Retrofit– Alternative Fuels

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

NOx

PM0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% reduction

Euro I Euro II Euro III Euro IV Euro V

EU Emissions Standards For EU Emissions Standards For Heavy-duty Vehicles on ETCHeavy-duty Vehicles on ETC

●Nitrogen oxides (NOx) ●Particulate matter (PM)

Japan

00 02 04 06 08 1098

12

45

78

(g/kWh)

0

6

3

E.U.

U.S.

Japan

12

3.38

Limits

YearYear00 02 04 06 08 1098

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.250.30(g/kWh)

0

E.U.U.S.

12

0.18Limits

YearYear

0.027

2.0

International Emission Regulations: International Emission Regulations: - Heavy-duty vehicles (GVW>3.5t) -- Heavy-duty vehicles (GVW>3.5t) -

EURO II Vehicles & Fuels with I/M

EURO III Vehicles & Fuels with I/M

EURO IV Vehicles & Fuels with I/M

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percent Reduction in Emissions

NOx 2005

NOx 2020

PM10 2005

PM10 2020

Source: Camarsa, BAQ 2003

Impact of Clean Vehicles and Fuels On Diesel Vehicle Emissions

Diesel Oxidation Diesel Oxidation CatalystCatalyst

PAHC2H2n+2

SO2+H2OMetals

SootCO + 1/2 O2

HC + O2

PAH + O2

Aldehydes + O2

CO2

CO2 + H2OCO2 + H2OCO2 + H2O

Flow through monolithwith catalytic coating

SO2+H2O

Metals

Soot

COAldehydes

HCPAHSO2

NOx

CO2

H2OSO2 /SO3

NOx

Diesel Particulate FilterDiesel Particulate Filter

Exhaust flow

catalysed filter

Catalytic particulate trap cell

Filter is regenerated by hot exhaust at a rate that varies with exhaust temperature(may plug if exhaust temperature stays low)

PM

Exhaust flow

NO

NO

NO2NO2

NO2

NO to NO2

Catalyst

NO2 (a good oxidant) causes combustion of filtered PM (thus regenerating the filter)

Continuously regenerating particulate trap (CRT)

NOx Reduction OptionsNOx Reduction Options

Aftertreatment NOx Technology OptionsEngine NOx Technology

NOxAdsorber

UreaSCR

DeNOxCatalyst

AdvancedDiesel

Combustion

• Engine-Out NOx Measures Reduce Size / Cost of Aftertreatment

• Aftertreatment Options Need to be Evaluated for Maturity and Cost

• Combination of Engine Out and Aftertreatment may Provide Best NOx Reduction Value Path

TC

TC

ParticulateFilter

NOxAT

NOx ReductionNOx Reduction

Engine control

measures

EGRVariable geometry turbo-charger

Fuel injecti

on timing

Exhaust treatmen

t measures

urea-SCR

catalyst

NOx adsorbe

r

Active &

Passsive HC-deNOx

H S OV

urea

(NH2)2CO

Exhaust Gas

Hydrolysis Catalyst (H)

(NH2)2CO + H2O 2NH3 + CO2

SCR Catalyst (S)

4NH3 + 4NO + O2 4N2 + 6H2O

2NH3 + NO + NO2 2N2 + 3H2O

8NH3 + 6NO2 7N2 + 12H2O

Oxidation Catalyst (O)

4NH3 + 3O2 2N2 + 6H2O

Oxidation Catalyst (V)

2NO + O2 2NO2

4HC + 3O2 2CO2 + 2H2O

2CO + O2 2CO2

Urea-Selective Catalytic Urea-Selective Catalytic ReductionReduction

Source - AECC

2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010

EPA 98NOx = 4.0 P = 0.10

EPA 04NOx = 2.5 P = 0.10

EPA 07NOx = 0.25 P = 0.01

EURO IIINOx = 5.0 P = 0.10

Combined

EURO III-IV

EURO IVNOx = 3.5 P = 0.02

EURO VNOx=2.0 P=0.02

Diesel 15 ppm

Diesel 50/10 ppm

g/bhp-hr

g/kW-hr

Consent Decree

10/02

10/05 10/08

Close Linkage Between Vehicle Emissions Close Linkage Between Vehicle Emissions Standards and Fuel Sulfur LevelsStandards and Fuel Sulfur Levels

EPAEPA

EUROEURO

15 months Caterpillar,Cummins,Detroit Diesel,Volvo,Mack Trucks/RenaultNavistar

What To Do About Existing What To Do About Existing Vehicles?Vehicles?

-80% -80%

0%

-35%

0%

PM HC NOx Noise-90%

-80%

-70%

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

Level B Level C

19931994

19951996

19971998

19992000

20012002

20032004

20051995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

No Retrofit

Level B Only

Levels B&C

Swedish Retrofit ProgramAll Trucks Above 3.5 Tons

Very Low Sulfur Fuel Dominates The Market

Measurement results indicate that Diesel PM levels have been significantly reduced.

（ With cooperation from the Bureau of Construction ）

Cancer-causing agents

Up to - 58%

Carbon (EC)- 49%

Comparison of two two-day periods Mar. 11-12, 2001 (Left bars, black and yellow)

Nov. 9-10, 2003 (Right bars, black and yellow)

Comparison of two two-month periods　 Sept.-Oct. 2001 (Left bar)　 Sept.-Oct. 2003 (Right bar)

Carbon (EC)

- 30%

Cancer-ausing agents- 36%

Comparison of two six-day periods Sept.-Oct. 2000 (Left bar) Oct.- Nov. 2003 (Right bar)

Meguro St. roadside(By Prof. Uchiyama of

Kyoto University)

Osakabashi Air Monitoring Station

Iogi Tunnel （ Loop 8 ） （ Emissions reduced per vehicle ）

RoadsideAutomobile tunnel

Without WithWeather influence

（ By the Research Institute for Environmental Protection ）

Metropolitan in-Use Diesel Program

New York City Retrofit New York City Retrofit ExperienceExperience

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

CO2 NOx THC CO PM CO2 N Ox THC CO PM

Perc

enta

ge

Ch

ang

e in

g/m

i

OEM Catalyst / ULSD (50 ppm S) fuel

CRT Catalyst / ULSD (50 ppm S) fuel

NYC Bus ID# 6019 NYC Bus ID# 6065

General Regulatory ApproachGeneral Regulatory Approach

• Retrofit mid-aged engines– Filters 85% PM – Catalysts 25% PM – Other 50% PM typical

• Replace older engines– Re-power– New vehicle

Verified Devices and ApplicationsVerified Devices and Applications

Type #1 PM NOx Years1 On/off

Filter 5 85 1994-2004 On

Filter 3 85 25-40 1993-2003 On

Filter 1 50 1991-1993 On

Fuel 2 50 15 1996-2002 On

Ox catalyst 2 25 1973-2003 On

Ox catalyst 2 25 25-80 1991-1998 On

Filter 1 85 1996-2004 Off

Fuel+ox cat. 1 50 20 1996-2002 Off

Ox catalyst 1 25 1994-2002 Off7/05 1 Individual devices may have a more limited model year application

Cost of Retrofits in CaliforniaCost of Retrofits in California

• Passive filter $8500

• Flow through filter $5000

• Catalyst $2000

• Cost benefit ratio1 > 4:1

1 Based on trash truck rule

Experience With RetrofitsExperience With Retrofits

# of Retrofits

Transit bus ~1000

Trash truck >1000

School bus >2000

EPA-Funded Retrofit ProjectsEPA Funded Retrofit Projects

Cost Estimates for Retrofit Cost Estimates for Retrofit TechnologiesTechnologies

Technology Cost per Device/System ($)

Diesel Oxidation Catalysts (DOC) 500 to 2,000

Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) 3,000 to 5,500Combined Lean NOx Catalyst/DPF Systems 5,000 to 10,000

EGR Systems 13,000 to 15,000

SCR Systems 10,500 to 50,000

Note: DPF costs are higher for active systems and systems that include backpressure monitoring.

Retrofit Technology Verification Retrofit Technology Verification ProgramProgram

• Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and CARB– EPA recognizes and accepts those retrofit hardware strategies or device-

based systems that have been verified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

• Retrofit technologies to reduce PM and NOx emissions currently verified Retrofit technologies to reduce PM and NOx emissions currently verified by EPA & CARB:by EPA & CARB: – DPFs, DOCs, Crankcase Filtration, Emulsified Fuel, Biodiesel, EGR and DPFs, DOCs, Crankcase Filtration, Emulsified Fuel, Biodiesel, EGR and

SCR systems.SCR systems.

• Information about EPA’s Verification program: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit/retroverifiedlist.htm

Conclusions Regarding Conclusions Regarding RetrofitsRetrofits

• A wide variety of retrofit options are available for all types of diesel engines to reduce HC, CO, PM and toxic emissions

• NOx retrofit controls are emerging- Technology development continues to expand the range of applications available for retrofit

• A successful retrofit program must be properly designed and implemented

• States as well as the Federal government are responsible for making diesel emission reductions possible

Average Grocery Truck Emissions, CSHVR(1&2)

0.78

0.41

0.27

2

0.19

7

0.01

0.35

0.00

3

0.15

0.34

0.00

1

0.24

0.30

0.01

0

0.01

1

Bel

ow

Det

ecti

on

Lim

it

Bel

ow

Det

ecti

on

Lim

it0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

CO/10 NOx/100 HC PM

Em

iss

ion

s,

g/m

ile

CARB Fuelw/o DPF2000

2001

2002

ULSD with Johnson Matthey CRTTM

Retrofit Retrofit Durability & ReliabilityDurability & Reliability

Average Grocery Truck Emissions, CSHVR(1&2)

0.78

0.41

0.27

2

0.19

7

0.03

0.32

0.00

3

0.51

0.29

0.00

2

0.01

4

0.37

0.18

0.04

2

0.02

8

Bel

ow

Det

ecti

on

Lim

it0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

CO/10 NOx/100 HC PM

Em

issi

ons,

g/m

ile

CARB Fuelw/o DPF

2000

2001

2002*

ULSD with Engelhard DPXTM

Retrofit Retrofit Durability & ReliabilityDurability & Reliability

Natural Gas VehiclesNatural Gas Vehicles• Very Low Emissions• Good Performance• Lower Cost Fuel

• Limited Range, but Adequate for Most Applications

• Few Refueling Stations• Higher Cost Vehicle

Ford Crown Victoria Ford F-150

Honda Civic New Flyer D40 LF Bus

Emissions Test Results - CRT vs. CNG Emissions Test Results - CRT vs. CNG CBD CycleCBD Cycle

CRT CNG0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

CRT CNG0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

CRT CNG0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

CRT CNG0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

0.045

0.05

Mas

s E

mis

sio

ns

(g/m

ile)

PM CO NOxTHC

0.024

0.017 9.81

0.12 0.015

16.26 25.1

23.68

Emissions Test Results - CRT vs. CNG Emissions Test Results - CRT vs. CNG NY Bus CycleNY Bus Cycle

CRT CNG02468

1012141618202224262830323436384042444648505254565860

CRT CNG0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

CRT CNG0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

CRT CNG0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

0.11

0.12

0.13

0.14

0.15

Mas

s E

mis

sio

ns

(g/m

ile)

PM CO NOxTHC

0.037

0.07

32.9

0.23 0.06

66.6

73.3

51.86

CRT CNG0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

2.1

2.4

2.7

3

3.3

Carbonyl

2.937

0.00

NYC ConclusionsNYC ConclusionsClean Diesel vs. CNGClean Diesel vs. CNG

• PM emissions from CRT-equipped buses appear to be about equivalent to those from CNG buses– Average PM emissions with CNG is lower on CBD cycle,

but higher on NY Bus cycle

– Much wider range of values with CNG, especially on NY Bus cycle

• CO and HC emissions from CRT-equipped buses are much lower than those from CNG buses

• NOx emissions are generally lower from CNG buses than from CRT-equipped buses, but show a wider range of variability

• Carbonyl emissions from CNG buses are much higher than from CRT-equipped buses.

RATP Emissions Tests: RATP Emissions Tests: Distribution of Particulate Size Distribution of Particulate Size

Diamètre en µm

Mas

s in

µg

Diameter in µm

ULSD with particulate filter

CNG

LPG

ULSD

Fuel DiversityFuel Diversity• Increase alternative fuel use in urban fleets.• Use gas-to-liquids.• Develop hydrogen infrastructure to support

fuel cell commercialization.

SmartWay TransportSmartWay Transport(Freight Sector)(Freight Sector)

• Objective: – Eliminate unnecessary idling from trucks and locomotives– Target federal and state fleets for major PM reductions– Create diesel emission reduction projects at borders– Create demand for lower emission freight services

• Freight traffic exists on highways, at ports and on construction sites

• SmartWay Transport challenges trucking companies to improve the environmental performance of their fleets– Emphasis on saving fuel and greenhouse gas emission reductions as well

as PM, NOx, and toxics– New SmartWay Ad Campaign launched– FY05 $5 million anti-idling grant competition