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 don’t know the cost and we don’t 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. Lead Time Control of Pollutant Emissions al Costs and Year Technology Compared to Today´s EURO II per HDV of Cost Estimations by Government Agencies 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. Avoidance Potential of premature Mortality by Use of Particle Filter: Total Mortality: (3*0,6%) 1,8% (0,6 to 3,3%) Cardio pulmonal Mortality (3*0,9%) 2,7% (0,9 to 4,8%) Lung cancer – Mortality (3*1,4%) 4,2% (1,2 to 6,9%) 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 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. Source:Infras,IWW 2004

11. Source:Infras,IWW 2004

12. Source:Infras,IWW 2004

13. Source:Infras,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 400 TS 200 cpsi 400 cpsi 400 TS 400 cpsi 0 TLEV LEV ULEV Catalyst System Cost Dependent on Emission Legislation andConventional Technology (cost estimation before implementation)

17. O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 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 HC Vres 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 V=1.96l 98 ! ULEV-System ! V=2.06l 96 LEV-System V=1,88l High Cell Density ! 94 TLEV-System High Thermal Mass V=2.08l 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) 10 THC CO/10 NOx 9 8 7 6 5 PGM per brick 4 3 2 1.2g 1 0 Ageing equivalent to approx. 80 000 km 0.10 PGM loading 0.09 Euro 5 Scenario 1 0.08 0.07 0.06 5.9g 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. Data used by the World Bank for Cost- Benefit Calculations 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

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@uba.dewww.umweltbundesamt.de