Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

GHG/CAFE Standard Impacts on Vehicles and Technologies

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "GHG/CAFE Standard Impacts on Vehicles and Technologies"— Presentation transcript:

1 GHG/CAFE Standard Impacts on Vehicles and Technologies
John German, ICCT Univ. of Michigan Transportation Research Institute: Automotive Product Portfolios in the Age of CAFÉ February 13, 2013

2 The standard provisions Technology progress Customers Vehicle Impacts

3 The standard provisions Technology progress Customers Vehicle Impacts

4 Comparison of passenger vehicle GHG standards

5 Comparison of passenger vehicle GHG standards

6 Characteristics of Worldwide Standards
Country/ Region Regulated metric Attribute Form Categories, classes, other provisions Fuel Economy Fuel Consumption CO2/GHG Weight Footprint Class Continuous Bins European Union# X Eco-innovations, super-credits United States 2WD, AC credit, FFV/E85, alternative fuels Japan Averaging within bins China Transmission, per-vehicle limits  corporate average Canada AC credits, alternative fuels South Korea* Eco-innovations Mexico India #: CO2 standards complemented by Air-conditioning, tyre pressure monitoring, gear-shift indicators etc. * : FE/CO2 standards include consideration for tyre pressure monitoring, gear-shift indicators

7 2017 and 2025 US Car and Light-Truck Standards
1 Sq. meter = Sq. feet

8 A size-based standard fully captures benefits of lightweighting
Size-based design: Efficiency: g CO2/km benefit Lightweighting: 7-8 g CO2/km actual benefit Mass-based design: Efficiency: g CO2/km benefit Lightweighting: only 2-3 g CO2/km compliance benefit -TT is key category ICCT (2010) Size or Mass? - The Technical Rationale for Selecting Size as an Attribute for Vehicle Efficiency Standards

9 Air Conditioning Credits
CO2 credits given based upon the GWP of the air conditioning refrigerant Continuous incentive for better refrigerants without mandates or artificial deadlines Allows manufacturers to consider both GWP and A/C system efficiency when choosing refrigerant CAFE and CO2 credits for improved air conditioning efficiency

10 Off-Cycle Credits Starts 2014 for CO2, 2017 for FE
OEMs can apply for higher credits than listed and can apply for other off- cycle credits Total off- cycle credits capped at 10 g/mi Source: Greenpeace US rule summary, September 6, 2012

11 EV, FCV, CNG Credits (CO2 only)
0 g/miCO2 rating for EVs, PHEVs, FCVs Per-company sales cap of 200,000 to 600,000 applies to MYs Multiple vehicle credits: Credits will be given for vehicles mandated by ZEV ICCT supports EV credits, but they should not be used to weaken the benefits of the standards

12 Pickup Truck Technology Credits
Pickup trucks performing 15% better than their applicable CO2 target receive a 10 g/mi credit ( gal/mi) Expires after 2021 Those performing 20% better than their target receive a 20 g/mi credit ( gal/mi) Credits continue for 5 years even if FE does not improve after year qualified These are artificial credits that reduce the benefits of the standards Especially a concern due to the lower improvements required from light trucks

13 2025 Test Cycle Tailpipe Requirements
Does NOT include reclassifying cars as light trucks or making light trucks larger Credits (maximum): A/C refrigerant: 13.8 gCO2/mi for cars;16.4 for LDT (No use of AC credits = 54.5 mpg) A/C efficiency: 5 g/mi ( gal/mi) for cars; 8 g/mi ( gal/mi) for LDT Off-cycle: 10 g/mi ( ) for cars and LDT Pickup: 20 g/mi ( ) for pickup trucks only EV: Zero upstream + multiple credits (assumed 5% market share for cars and 1% for LDT)

14 The standard provisions Technology progress Customers Vehicle Impacts

15 Where Does the Energy Go?
vehicles are generally 15-20% efficient Percents are approximate, based on energy losses for vehicles on the combined U.S. city and highway drive cycles. Sources: Kromer and Heywood, 2007 and U.S. EPA, 2010

16 The Real Technology Breakthrough
Computers Computer design, computer simulations, and on-vehicle computer controls are revolutionizing vehicles and powertrains Especially important for lightweight materials Optimize hundreds of parts – size and material Capture secondary weight – and cost – reductions The high losses in the internal combustion engine are an opportunity for improvement Also reducing size and cost of hybrid system

17 Improved Cost Analyses - Teardown
FEV – Phase 2 Transmission Analysis

18 Technology Costs Dropping
Technology availability increases - and its costs decrease - over time Incremental vehicle costs and percent improvements versus MY2008 baseline Data from EPA/NHTSA rulemaking and EPA/NHTSA/CARB TAR for 2020

19 Pace of Technology Innovation is Accelerating
Cost is direct manufacturing cost NRC Report is Effectiveness and lmpact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards, 2002 Draft RIA is for NHTSA/EPA proposed standards for light-duty vehicles

20 Pace of Technology Introduction is Accelerating
GDI Turbo 6-speed Auto 2009 4.2% 3.6% 25% 2010 8.3% 3.5% 38% 2011 13.7% 7.4% 52% 2012 15% 2013 19% Source: : EPA Fuel Economy Trends Report Source: : Automotive News, January 14, 2013 2010 2012 Ford Focus Ford Focus EcoBoost C-class diesel avg. 1.6L, 4 cyl., 74 kW 1.0L, 3 cyl., 74 kW 1.7L --- SS+DI+turbo 1,175 kg 1,195 kg M5, 11.9 s M5, 12.5 s 14.6 km/l 21.4 km/l 17.4 km/l 2010 2012 Audi A3 1.6L, 4 cyl., 75 kW 1.2L, 4 cyl., 77 kW --- SS+DI+turbo+7DCT 1,185 kg 1,150 kg M5, 11.8 s 7DCT, 10.4 s 14.4 km/l 20.1 km/l +40% New powertrains introduced in Europe +47%

21 Next-generation Gasoline Engines
Fiat MultiAir Digital Valve Actuation HCCI Engine Improvement in fuel economy: 30% Honda Prototype Engine Base ( Electro-magnetic valve ) Nissan recently announced a variable compression ratio engine, which is said to achieve significant improvement in fuel economy by changing the compression ratio based on the operating load. Another fuel-efficient gasoline engine is the Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI) engine. This engine still must resolve ignition control issues. But it achieves low heat loss and pumping loss, so it might be possible to achieve fuel economy equivalent to a diesel engine. Further challenges include expanding the self ignition range. Such new and innovative technologies are now being developed. With all of those technologies together it might become possible for gasoline engines to achieve a 30 % reduction in CO2. 20 Heat release rate HCCI SI 10 dQ/dθ[J/deg] -40 -20 20 40 Crank angle [ATDC deg] Requires increasing the self-ignition region Dual-loop high/low pressure cooled exhaust gas recirculation

22 Turbo-Boosted EGR Engines
Highly dilute combustion – considerable efficiency improvement Advanced ignition systems required Terry Alger, Southwest Research Institute, “Clean and Cool”, Technology Today, Summer 2010

23 Turbo Dedicated EGR Engines
Highly dilute, low temperature combustion Advanced ignition systems required PSA introduction Terry Alger and Barrett Mangold, SwRI, Dedicated EGR, SAE

24 Input Powersplit: Planetary Gearing
Toyota and Ford: Optimizes city efficiency, inexpensive CVT Achilles' Heel: Fixed torque split between engine and generator Two large motors generator must handle part of engine output Motor must handle generator plus battery output Cruising efficiency loss Part of engine output always incurs losses in generator and motor Power recirculation possible Source: Hybrid Synergy Drive, Toyota Hybrid System II, Toyota Motor Corp., May 2003

25 Future Low-Cost Hybrid
Advanced P2 hybrid system – not yet in production Small, single motor integrated into automated manual transmission Major reductions in cost of hybrid system Must be high volume to cover high capitol costs of transmission redesign Reduction in transmission clutch cost, possible use of single-clutch manual transmission New, higher-power Li-ion batteries – smaller, lighter, and lower cost Getrag prototype Nissan Fuga/M35 parallel hybrid layout

26 Lightweight materials offer great potential
Material composition of lightweight vehicle body designs: Approximate fuel economy improvement 10% 25% 27% 37% Also incremental improvements in aerodynamics and tire rolling resistance

27 Vehicle Mass-Reduction Cost ($/lb)
US agencies collaborated to assess available studies and model costs associated with vehicle mass-reduction Agencies assessed and weighted the available mass-reduction studies for redesign of vehicle models in the timeframe Regulation analyses apply cost-per-pound-reduced vs percent vehicle mass reduction Ultimately, agencies projected average vehicle mass would decrease by 8-11% by 2025

28 Major New Mass-Reduction Work
Lotus Engineering (CARB) Continuation of 2010 study (-20%, -33% mass Toyota Venza) Includes crashworthiness safety (NHTSA FMVSS) validation Demonstrates cost-effective 30% mass reduction at < $0/vehicle EDAG / Electricore (NHTSA) Technical assessment of -22% mass Honda Accord at $319/vehicle EDAG WorldAutoSteel “Future Steel Vehicle” 12-18% mass reduction, no additional cost, with only using steels FEV (US EPA) Technical assessment of -18% mass Toyota Venza at no cost

29 Vehicle Mass-Reduction Cost
CONFIDENTIAL, PRELIMINARY FSV and FEV studies indicate 12-18% weight reductions at zero cost EDAG and Lotus studies indicate larger mass reductions at costs on the CARB cost trend line Lotus 2012 EDAG 2012 FEV 2012 FSV 2012

30 The standard provisions Technology progress Customers Vehicle Impacts

31 Turrentine & Kurani, 2004 In-depth interviews of 60 California households’ vehicle acquisition histories found no evidence of economically rational decision-making about fuel economy. Out of 60 households (125 vehicle transactions) 9 stated that they compared the fuel economy of vehicles in making their choice. 4 households knew their annual fuel costs. None had made any kind of quantitative assessment of the value of fuel savings.

32 Consumers are, in general, LOSS AVERSE
2002 Nobel Prize for Economics (Tversky & Kahnemann, J. Risk & Uncertainty 1992 Uncertainty about future fuel savings makes paying for more technology a risky bet What MPG will I get (your mileage may vary)? How long will my car last? How much driving will I do? What will gasoline cost? What will I give up or pay to get better MPG? “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” Causes the market to produce less fuel economy than is economically efficient

33 New Customer Profile Increasingly risk averse Early Majority Majority
Hanger- On Early Adopter Innovator This slide shows the buyer profiles and product lifecycle curve that market researchers look at when introducing new, innovative products and technology. We need to move beyond the “innovators” and influential “early adopters” to assure sustainable success for hybrids. To move beyond the status quo toward an early mass market, customers will need to feel a sense of value in the use of these products. Reducing the cost will be critical. Increasingly risk averse .

34 The standard provisions Technology progress Customers Vehicle Impacts

35 2017 and 2025 US Car and Light-Truck Standards
1 Sq. meter = Sq. feet

36 Footprint Standards do not Impact Size

37 2016 US Car and Light-Truck Standard Increase
1 Sq. meter = Sq. feet

38 2016 and 2021 US Car and Light-Truck Standards
1 Sq. meter = Sq. feet

39 Real Gasoline Price AEO2013 early release
Low fuel prices in the US are also a substantial barrier to alternative fuels. Here is the latest available fuel price data from DOE. Motor Gasoline Retail Prices, U.S. City Average, adjusted using CPI-U

40 New Vehicle Fuel Economy
2012 – 2025 NHTSA CAFE standards 2026 – % per year From 2011 EPA FE Trends Report

41 New Vehicle Gasoline Cost per Mile

42 Real Fuel Cost - % of Disposable Income
$14/gal $7.50/gal $3.94/gal BEA, Table 2.1, Personal Income and It's Disposition Forecasted Per Capita Disposable Income from AEO2013 Early Release

43 Summary Standards needed due to consumer “loss aversion”
Improvements in conventional powertrains and load reduction will be far greater than expected Only modest number of hybrids – and no xEVs – needed P2 hybrid cost will be accepted by the mass market ~2022 Standards will have no impact on vehicle sales Fuel savings will be larger than increased car payment Future vehicles may increase in size Footprint system provides no incentive to downsize Differential changes to the light truck footprint curve increase the incentive to reclassify cars as trucks and to make light trucks larger Fuel share of disposable income will decrease

44 Thank You Thank You

45 Gov’t regulators have huge untapped power which we empower with data.
The mission of ICCT is to dramatically improve the environmental performance and efficiency of cars, trucks, buses and transportation systems in order to protect and improve public health, the environment, and quality of life. Start: 85% Vehicle market in 10 countries and regions. Where are the cars, that’s where we work. Gov’t regulators have huge untapped power which we empower with data. Expertise in the US. First story in India - value added is absolute. When it comes to setting transportation policy, the fact is that there are only a handful of nations that matter: the top ten markets account for 85% of all new vehicles sold - and ICCT is active in all of them: Brazil, Canada, China, Europe (Germany in particular), India, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Thailand, United Kingdom, and the United States [Drew – this doesn’t add up to 10]. A relatively small group of bureaucrats -- and I use the term kindly -- controls the destiny of the world’s auto manufacturers and sets the policies that will spread throughout the world. This dynamic means that a relatively small NGO can play an outsized role in helping ensure that transportation policy – and vehicle fuel economy, in particular – adopts global best practices for fuel consumption, fuel quality and the technologies that enable pollution reductions. In fact, there are essentially just three regulatory programs for auto air pollution standards in the world. They exist in the United States, in Europe, and Japan, with California as a stand-alone case. It’s important to note that, of these, the best air pollution program -- not for climate change, but for what we call “criteria pollutants” like smog and the compounds that cause acid rain -- is here in the United States. Not in Europe, not in Japan, but here in the United States. Because of this dynamic, we also are home to the best technical experts on vehicle pollution control technology. This is not pride, this is fact. America’s Clean Air Act and related regulations gave rise to – and created markets for - key technologies like catalytic converters. These regulations are the source of huge R&D investments over several decades. Case in point: HDV rule. But that’s not true for GHG emissions - because US EPA - until recently -- has not had authority to regulate. Now it does, and this will be one of the most important battles over the next three years. For EPA to gain co-authority with DOT for GHG emission standards, and for California not to lose it. Another point: Europe is key to criteria pollutants because most countries in Asia and Latin America adopt European standards, not US. 45

46 Advantages (+) & disadvantages (–) of different standard forms
Attribute Flat Category/Class Footprint Weight The potential for compliance benefits from given strategies Powertrain efficiency + Engine downsizing Mass reduction (per-vehicle light-weighting) Downsizing sales-shift Potential disadvantages in loss of intended benefits Backsliding due to Category sales shift Backsliding due to vehicle sales shift Backsliding due to vehicle weight creep Potential for equitable technology-based obligated reductions across automakers with different vehicle types and classes Simplicity, transparency of standards; outcome certainty To ensure maximize feasible emission reductions Allow full array of automaker technology and sales strategies Protect against general sales and attribute trends that could erode from benefits

47 Off-Cycle Credits Off-cycle credits are a great concept
Can increase the total fuel and CO2 savings and reduce the cost to comply But to be effective, credits must: Properly reflect actual in-use reductions Be verifiable Avoid duplicating on-cycle benefits Credits that are artificial and do not produce comparable in-use reductions severely undermine the effectiveness and credibility of the standards.

48 Background: 2016 US Car and Truck Standards
Separate CO2-indexed car and truck standards (with separate slopes) By statute (EPCA 1975, EISA 2007), NHTSA must set separate attribute-based car, truck standards Assuming no shifts in fleet composition and no trading  -24% gCO2e/mile from Cars and trucks would reduce gCO2e/mile by 23% and 26%, respectively, from 2008 to 2016. Excluding 10.6 gCO2/mile from AC credits, CO2 reductions are 19% (cars) and 21% (truck) Average 2008 truck Average 2008 car The equivalent lines for CAFE standards are slightly sloped (i.e., not perfectly linear) in fuel economy (mpg) space; note that EPA assumes some sales shift toward smaller car/trucks in 2016 timeframe in their analysis; in MY2012, 2WD SUVs shift from light truck to car category; the right y-axis is rated fuel economy after 10.6 g/mile A/C credits are utilized

49 2017 and 2025 US Car and Light-Truck Standards
1 Sq. meter = Sq. feet

50 Hybrid Technology Advances
Synergies with other technologies and optimized control strategies Engine (Atkinson, Miller, lean-cruise, digital valve); optimization of engine and transmission operation; mass-reduction; automated manual transmission New P2 hybrid – single motor with two clutches Pre-transmission clutch: engine decoupling and larger motor Nissan, VW, Hyundai, BMW, and Mercedes Offer much larger potential for future integration and cost reduction High-power Li-ion batteries – smaller, lighter, and lower cost Nissan Fuga/M35 parallel hybrid layout VW Touareg hybrid module

51 New Consumer Discounting is Fixable
Increase fuel taxes Feebates: Pay manufacturers and consumers up front for value of the fuel savings Fuel Consumption Rebate Fee

Download ppt "GHG/CAFE Standard Impacts on Vehicles and Technologies"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google