Dr' Axel Friedrich Umweltbundesamt UBA Germany

1
Dr. Axel FriedrichUmweltbundesamt (UBA)Germany
Cost- Effectiveness of AQM in Germany
Better Air Quality 2004, Agra, India 6-8 December
2004
2
In Germany the cost- benefit approach is not
usedWhy?We dont know the cost and we dont
know the benefit.
3
Cost Effectiveness Approach in Europe

• Develop the environmental quality goal and derive
  from this goal the necessary reduction and
  evaluate the most cost effective measures to meet
  the goal.
• Of course the evaluation includes the
  availability of technology and related cost.
• But also the cost estimations of the UBA in past
  were proven to be to high. But the implementation
  of the measures is not only dependent on the cost.

4
Cost Estimations from Industry

• Three reasons why the cost estimations of the
  industry are always too high
• The internal cost estimations are to high due to
  additional safety margin on each level
• To avoid the adoption of the measure the industry
  increase their internal cost estimations for the
  public
• After the implementation the industry is
  reducing the cost by optimisation and new
  technology which would not used without the
  legislation

5
Cost Estimations by Government Agencies
Lead Time Control of Pollutant Emissions al
Costs and Year Technology Compared to Todays
EURO II per HDV of

Also government agencies tend to overestimate the
abatement cost. As example the CARB and the UBA
estimated in 1994 the additional cost for meeting
ULEV and Euro IV level to about of 200 US
based on at this time known technology. But the
legislation forced to develop technology with
lower cost

Converters 70 70 30 3) SCR-
70 - 6000 - 3 - 4 Technology
90 8000
years 1999
6
Bureau of Labor Statistics Year Price Increase
7
External Cost
8
Total Mortality (800.000)
14.400 death cases per/a
Cardio pulmonal
Mortality (460.000) 12.420 death cases per/a
Lung cancer
(40.000) 1.680 death
cases per/a
Avoidance Potential of premature Mortality by
Use of Particle Filter   Total Mortality
(30,6) 1,8 (0,6 to
3,3) Cardio pulmonal Mortality (30,9)
2,7 (0,9 to 4,8) Lung cancer Mortality
(31,4) 4,2 (1,2 to 6,9)
Source Wichmann, Institute of Epidemiology, GSF
9
Future Diesel

• Emission Limits for Passenger Cars,
• Light duty and Heavy Duty Vehicles-
• Future Standards for Diesel Vehicles

Report of the Umweltbundesamt ( UBA )
10
SourceInfras,IWW 2004
11
SourceInfras,IWW 2004
12
SourceInfras,IWW 2004
13
SourceInfras,IWW 2004
14
Technology
15
Mean Conversion Rate
Engine Out Emissions g
100
3,5
98
3
96
2,5
94
2
92
1,5
TLEV
LEV
ULEV
SULEV
90
1
Emission Legislation
Needed Mean Conversion Rate in theFTP-Cycle
andDevelopment of the Engine Out Emissions
16
Cost
500
450
Vol
400
min
3,24 l
350
300
Vol
2,54 l
250
200
Vol
PreCatalyst
2,08 l
Pre Catalyst
150
300 cpsi
(E-Cat)


UnderfloorCatalystCV
100
UnderfloorCatalyst
UnderfloorCatalyst
50
200 cpsi
200 cpsi
400 TS
400 cpsi
400 TS
400 cpsi
0
TLEV


LEV

ULEV
Catalyst System Cost Dependent on Emission
Legislation andConventional Technology (cost
estimation before implementation)
17
Diffusion Velocity
Diffusion Length
400 cpsi
HC NOx CO
Extra Catalyst Length
0.6 mm
HC
HC
Vres
V
V
CO2
1000 cpsi
0.3 mm
Vres
HC
HC
V
V
CO2
HC
HC
CO2
Diffusion Length as a Function of Cell Density
18
Mean Conversion Rate
100
!
Catalyst Volume Constant
SULEV-System
V1.96l
98
!
ULEV-System
!
V2.06l
96
LEV-System
V1,88l
High Cell Density
!
94
TLEV-System
High Thermal Mass
V2.08l
92
Underfloor Position
90
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Geometric Surface Area GSA m²
Needed Mean Conversion Rate in the FTP-Cycle
Influence of Catalyst Location and Geometric
Surface Area (Cell-Density)
19
Cost
500
450
400
350
300
250
Vol
Vol
200
2,06 l
2,08 l
Vol
1,88 l
150
Close-coupledCatalyst
Under-floorCatalyst
Close-coupledCatalyst
100
500 TS/
50
200 cpsi
600cpsi
300 TS
400 cpsi
0,030
400 TS
0
TLEV
LEV
ULEV
Catalyst System Cost Dependent on Emission
Legislation andCost Optimization Based on
Innovative Developments today
20
PGM Optimisation for Cost Reduction (1.8 litre
Family Car)
Ageing equivalent to approx. 80 000 km
0.10
PGM loading
0.09
Euro 5 Scenario 1
0.08
0.07
0.06
5.9 g
0.05
Mean bag emissions / g/km
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
Advanced Formulation
Original Equipment
21
Gasoline catalyst PGM loading trends

• PGM loading reductions through
• Improvement of catalyst activity and durability.
• Cell density changes and substrate improvements.
• Changes from underfloor to close coupled
  catalysts.
• Improvements of engine control with optimised
  catalyst heating.

100
80
60
40
20
0
Pre-
Euro 1
Euro 2
Euro 3
Euro 4
Euro1
Constant engine displacement and catalyst volume
Source AECC
German Tax Incentives
22
For example, the U.K. government reports that
compliance with Euro IV for gasoline vehicles in
2005, which yields an extra 4 percent reduction
in NOx and VOC, incurs an incremental cost of 200
Euros(200) per vehicle. This is nearly as much
as the cost of removing the first 75 percent of
NOx and VOC. The cost of the latter
correspondsto the introduction of a three-way
catalytic converter. Meeting Euro II standards in
1996 cost an additional 50 per vehicle
corresponding to a further 12 percent reduction
of NOx and VOC. Meeting EuroIII standards in
2000 incurred an additional 400 and reduced NOx
and VOC by another 6 percent. Thus the cost of
removing that extra 6 percent from the exhaust
was substantially more than the cost of removing
the previous 87 percent.Source Reducing Air
Pollution from Urban TransportKen Gwilliam,
Masami Kojima, and Todd Johnson World Bank
Data used by the World Bank for Cost- Benefit
Calculations
23
Sulphur Free Fuel
From 1st of January 2003 1.5 ct per litre tax
incentive for sulphur content less than 10 ppm
for both gasoline and diesel fuel ( Onroad and
offroad ! ).Market changed completely
24
axel.friedrich_at_uba.dewww.umweltbundesamt.de