1 / 10

GRPE – informal meeting EFV WG (Bonn, 30 October 2008)

Working paper No.: EFV-02-05 (GRPE Informal Group on EFV, 2nd Meeting, 30/31 October 2008). Concept for an Environmentally Friendly Vehicle (EFV) (Examples). GRPE – informal meeting EFV WG (Bonn, 30 October 2008). Gerben Passier (TNO). Seperate fuel & vehicle characteristics. Fuel

matthew-randall
Download Presentation

GRPE – informal meeting EFV WG (Bonn, 30 October 2008)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Working paper No.:EFV-02-05 (GRPE Informal Group on EFV, 2nd Meeting, 30/31 October 2008) Concept for an Environmentally Friendly Vehicle (EFV) (Examples) GRPE – informal meeting EFV WG (Bonn, 30 October 2008) Gerben Passier (TNO) TNO Science & Industry

  2. Seperate fuel & vehicle characteristics Fuel (carbon content) • Further investigation of definitions is needed (this presentation) • Importance of default values better H2? Elec.? E85 E10 E0 Flexibility for choice of technology Vehicle (Energy efficiency) current worse EFV1 EFV2 treshhold worse better TNO Science & Industry

  3. Assumptions & choices /Scope and parameters • Focus on passenger cars first • Pollutant emissions not considered (but need minimum standard e.g. Euro 6 • Focus on WTW CO2 emissions & Energy efficiency • Technology neutral (!) Not included yet: • Consider real world • Utility based criteria (eg. weight parameter) • … Remark: WTT energy efficiency values not finalised TNO Science & Industry

  4. Objective • Give insight in relative position of vehicles and fuels regarding WTW CO2 emissions and energy efficiency(NOT to present solution for definition of EFV) Overview graphs: • WTW CO2 [g/MJ tank] vs TTW Energy use [MJ tank/km] (average car) • WTW CO2 [g/MJ tank] vs TTW Energy use [MJ tank/km] (average fuel) • WTW CO2 [g/MJ primary] vs. WTW Energy use [MJ primary/km] • WTW CO2 [g/km] vs WTW Energy use [MJ primary/km] TNO Science & Industry

  5. Score fuels (for average car) 100 g/km 160 g/km MSR EU Mix 2nd gen. • Possible to score fuels • Score on WTW CO2, both in [g/MJ tank] and [g/km] • BUT WTT energy efficiency not included TNO Science & Industry

  6. Score vehicles (for average fuels) 100 g/km Lexus RX Honda FCX Tesla SC Prius Average • Possible to score vehicles • Score on WTW CO2 in [g/km] and TTW Energy use in [MJ tank/km] • BUT WTT energy efficiency not included TNO Science & Industry

  7. Include WTT energy efficiency, both in:WTW CO2 [g/ MJ primary] and WTW Energy use [MJ primary/km] 100 g/km 160 g/km MSR EU Mix Preliminary • Possible to score both vehicles and fuels • BUT [g/MJ primary] not suitable for (bio-) fuels ? Remark: WTT energy efficiency are preliminary data TNO Science & Industry

  8. Score vehicles on: WTW CO2 [g/km] and WTW Energy use [MJ primary/km] Possible EFV criteria Preliminary • Seems best graph to score vehicles Remark: CNG scores relatively poor due to 10% lower engine efficiency TNO Science & Industry

  9. Conclusions • Type of criteria determine the most suitable graph; The best graph to score vehicles seems to be WTW CO2 in [g/km] vs WTW Energy use [MJ primary /km] • Also possible to score Energy use for vehicles TTW [MJ tank/km], but then need to include WTT energy efficiency in specific criteria per fuel Next actions: • Further investigate criteria for EFV vehicle • Compare more example vehicles such as hybrids TNO Science & Industry

  10. Thank you ! 10 TNO Science & Industry

More Related