Decreasing Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions in Urban Vehicles

Hybridation and engine downsizing integrated with mission oriented design Nuno Manuel Ferreira Teixeira Fernandes

Resumo da Dissertao para a obteno do Grau de Mestre em Engenharia Mecnica

Jri
Presidente: Prof. Ramiro Neves Orientador: Prof. Antnio Luis Moreira Vogal: Prof. Tiago Farias

Outubro, 2007

Introduction
Todays cities face many problems, transportation being one of the most relevant. Mobility in cities creates problemsofcongestion,energyconsumption,pollutantemissions,andlastbutnotleastofhealthandsafety. Attempts made so far to have a cleaner mobility, based on low polluting vehicles, have been successful in demonstrating the concept but have failed to start a real market for nonpolluting vehicles. To give a fighting chance to Low Polluting Vehicles their versatility must be enhanced and their costs lowered. They also have to stand up to customer expectations, competing against conventional vehicles on the supply side (who is granting the service) and the demand side (customers acknowledgement of the vehicless advantages). To this aimtheECfundedaninitiativeonsustainablemobility,calledHOSTHumanOrientedSustainableTransport. HOST is a vehicle equipped with a modular chassis able to extend or retract in a range that allows it to operate as a medium city car or a small truck (from 3.5 to 6 m length). Some flexibility is also allowed to its gross weight which spans from 2 to 4,5 tons. The HOST
On-site rotation Horizontal translation

Powertrain is modular because it houses different propulsion modules, all of which must

be designed as black boxes in order to be taken away or added to the vehicle according to its towing requirements. The vehicle body can also be modified to suit different services, which include: Collective taxi, Carsharing services, Freight collection and distribution and Garbage collection. Propulsion employs a four wheel steering configuration which enables the vehicle to turn around its vertical axis as well as horizontal shifting. In HOST drivebywire technology is not a choice but a must, since powertrain modularity so demands. The elimination of the mechanical steering connections eases the cabin changing operations. The complete steering capabilities of the 4 wheels render driving them with a conventional mechanical system almost impossible. Also the layout of 1 electric motor per wheel renders unfruitful all efforts to mechanically interconnect the wheels during either traction or braking. The drive by wire system allows the movement of the command console, allowing good visibility characteristics during turning in tight environments (e.g. warehousesorfreightcentres).

Missions
Mission 1 Algs quase de ls a ls is a free of charge transport of passengers, operating in Algs, oriented for the special needs of the elder public. The service laps a round trip around the council in a route with over 4Km, in a minibus with dimensions tailored for narrow streets. The conceivable alternative being a taxi, this missionisaCollectiveTaxiservice. Mission 2 A garbage collection service it collects yard waste and large/bulky rubbish. Pickup occurs upon request and hence the driving route varies. The garbage is disposed outside the urban area and so the road includes nonurban parts. The average speed while moving is 20km/h, but stops are so frequent that overall speedislessthan10km/h.ThiswastheonlymissionmeasuredforthegarbagerecoveryserviceofHOST. Mission 3 The third service is a transport of young handicapped people with low economic resources. Despite the bus always returning to the point of departure, the driver is free to alter the route according to the

traffic, unlike mission 1. It is the mission with the highest average speed and yielding the least time spent at idle.Itisalsopartofthecollectivetaxiservice. DataCollection Because weight and aerodynamic characteristics are independent from the road being travelled (the tyre friction is dependent on the tarmac surface) the instantaneous power and energy requirements of a vehicle require only the instantaneous slope and speed measurement. Both speed and slope can be collected with a GPS, but the presence of an urban environment creates many difficulties to the GPS systems, most of them connected to errors due to signal interference but also due to the passage under bridges and the fact that slope depends upon altitude, a measurement whose associated error is usually about twice as large as location. Hence, although 2 GPS systems were acquired, a cheap GPS systemfromHaicomandamoreexpensiveDGPSsystemfromGeneq(SXBlue),onlyoneprovedgoodenough for dataregistration,ascanbeseenby thegraph.AnaccuracyassessmentwasperformedcomparingbothGPS systems against topographic military charts. As the graph shows the performance of the DGPS system, in altitude measurement, proved vastly superior to the Haicom system. The main components of power required tomovethevehiclearepresentedbelow.Fromtheseequationsincyclepowerrequirementswherecalculated:

PSlope = W ( N ) Grade(%) V (m / s ) PTyre = W ( N ) Rrolling V (m / s)

(1)allowingforasimplificationconsideringsmallslopes,tan()=()

(2)

PAero = V (m / s ) 3 0,5 air A frontal C x PAccel = M ( Kg ) along . (m / s 2 ) V (m / s )

(3)

(4)

Measurementresults Average Required Power Performed in

%Cases
70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% x<3 3<x<4 4<x<5 5<x<6 6<x<7 7<x<8 8<x Av.Power(KW)

Mission2 Mission3 Mission1

a round circuit, in mission 1 only speed and the number of passengers vary. The average speed is very small explaining a small average power and the fact that in this mission the number of passengers (and hence weight) is negatively correlated with the instantaneous speed means that both factors cancel out reducing results variance. The larger average power required by mission 2 is

due to the fact that the route is not constant and includes nonurban roads where average speeds go up to 30 40Km/h, or even short highway commuting. Mission 3 requires the largest average power due to its almost entirely nonurban cycle that even includes a highway part, which more than compensates the smaller weight ofthisvehicleconfigurationandthecalmdrivingbehaviourofitsdriver.
Max.ThermalPower Cycle Auxiliaries Total CarSharing 9.0kW 2.0kW 11.0kW Freight 9.0 kW 4.7kW 13.7kW Garbage 9.0 kW 0.7kW 9.7kW CollectiveTaxi 9.0 kW 4.0kW 13kW

The maximum average power measured in Oeiras is under 8kW but after the addition of the cycles measured

elsewhere (carsharinginRomeand freight in Stockholm)avalue of9kW for propulsion was agreed;still, after addingthepowerrequiredforsimultaneousoperationofvehicleauxiliariesthisvaluegrowsto14kW.

HybridPowertrain
HybridPowertrainarchitectures HEVP,oraparallelhybridvehicles; HEVS,orserieshybridvehicles; ParallelandSerieshybridvehicles. Most (if not all) hybrid powertrains able to operate in parallel and series simultaneous configuration are property of major automobile manufacturers, and hence this configuration is almost impossible to obtain as an already developed system; hence oursimulationsfocused on the less complex (and possible to adapt toHOST) HEVP and HEVS configurations. HEVP refers to a powertrain architecture in which both the electric motor and the engine drive the wheels, without possibility of the combustion engine being linked directly to electric devices or the electrical motor supplying propulsive power on its own. The 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid is an example of such a configuration. On the other hand in an HEVS the ICE neverpowersthewheels.Eitherfittedwithinwheelmotorsorwithjust one centralelectricmotoritisalwaysthelatterwhomakesthevehiclemove.The ICEisconnecteddirectlytothegenerator,workingatconstantandoptimum conditions to supply energy to the wheels and/or to the batteries. Vehicle Range, the main concern of all electrical vehicles, is not problematic due to thepresenceofanICEtorechargethebatteries. HybridationStrategies In the followup strategy energy is produced at the ICEgenerator assembly according to the energy spent at the wheels some moments earlier. In fact, the electronic power controller registers the energy drain from the batteries for a period of n seconds and then regulates the ICE to produce, for a period of y seconds, the same amount of energy that was during the above mentioned period. Its biggest advantage is that almost all energy produced bypasses the batteries as we accept to lose efficiency in the ICE in order to gain efficiency in the hybrid system. It also avoids constant ICE startstop hence avoiding also cold start periods in which pollutant emission is significant. The reservoir strategy is less complex. The batteries are seen as a reservoir with a minimum threshold and a maximum threshold usually set to the values that maximize battery life and its charginganddischargingefficiencies. Theelectronicpowercontroller againrecords theenergyrequirementsat thewheelsandasksforthisenergytobesuppliedbythebatteries.Wheneverthebatterycharginglevelreaches the minimum threshold the ICE is put to work at optimum efficiency. In our ADVISOR simulations this was preciselythestrategyemployedwiththeICEproducingenergyalwaysatmaximumefficiencyconditions.

HybridationResults
Mission1(simulatedat3500kg) CycleCharacteristics FuelConsumption (L/100km) SpeedVar. %time(idle) Energy1 (kWh) 14,5 1,40 0,64 0,69 20,1 1,45 0,73 19,6 1,60 0,68 17,2 1,45 1,03 1,01 1,41 1,17 1,09 0,80 0,59 0,58 ICE 26,5 32,9 31,8 30,2 HEV S HEV P2 14,2 19,2 13,8 19,9 14,7 20,0 14,9 20,6 16,1 13,2 18,0 14,4 16,5 14,1 12,8 12,8 20,3 19,0 26,5 22,5 22,9 16,9 14,8 14,2

In the table shown, results the HEVS configuration always yields the lowest fuel regardless consumption of mission

Cycles 01Ago 03Ago 04Ago 05Ago Leceia PortoSalvo Dafundo LindaVelha Algs 26Jul 27Jul 28Jul

Mission2(simulatedat3500kg) 32,5 1,32 36,3 36,7 1,11 39,3 55,2 1,14 67,3 42,2 1,22 55,4 35,1 1,64 41,8 Mission3(simulatedat3500kg) 19,7 2,31 30,9 9,9 2,25 19,0 8,6 2,74 17,2

and/or measurement. As was expected cycles with slightly higher average speeds and less time spent at idle yielded the lowest difference between the HEVS and HEVP, the case of mission 3. Even the conventional powertrain

yielded what can be considered a good result taking into consideration the frontal area of the vehicle and the 3,5 ton weight. On average the highest differences were recorded on the garbage recovery cycles, in which idle time sometimes reached more than half of the cycles duration. Another interesting feature from the comparisonisthelittlevarianceofthefuelconsumptionvaluesfortheHEVSPowertrain.Althoughexpectable because the internal combustion engine operates almost always at its peak efficiency, the difference in fuel consumption,between theextremes, wasjustunder50%while theenergy spent per cycle varied slightly more. It is nevertheless necessary to remember that the energy produced at the generator can go to the wheels or be forced to pass through the batteries with different efficiencies involved. The HEVP configuration exhibits higher consumption as it doesnt adapt so well to slow incity cycles. Concluding, to say that regardless of the mission, hybridation decreases fuel consumption significantly seems fair and the HEVS configuration seems especiallywelladaptedtointowndriving.HenceitwaschosentoequipHOSTsprototype.

EngineChoice
TochoosetheinternalcombustionengineforHOST,abenchmarkanalysiswasconductedtoevaluateavailable ICEsfromtheautomotiveindustry(needforEU4compliance). Benchmark:Efficiency&Emissions
Engine (Diesel) 1.3CDTI 1.4TDI 1.5CDI 0.8CDI Engine (Petrol) 1.0L 1.0L 0.6L CombinedFuelConsumption, (weightadj.)[l/(100km*ton)] 4.3 4.1 4.2 4.4 CombinedFuelConsumption, (weightadj.)[l/(100km*ton)] 5.8 5.5 6.4 CombinedCO2 emissions, (weightadj.)[g/(km*ton)] 116 112 112 117 CombinedCO2 emissions, (weightadj.)[g/(km*ton)] 138 132 155

The main criterion for the evaluation on this specific parameter was the adjusted fuel consumption and its correspondent adjusted CO2 emission. The adjusted fuel consumption was calculated defining how much fuel a 1000kg equivalent vehicle would need to perform the NEDC cycle. As an example,

thisexplainswhybothSmartenginespresentthehighestadjustedfuelconsumption,eventhoughbothuseless
1 2

Netenergyspentpereach30minutesofcycleforpropulsionrequirementsonly,forcomparabilityreasons.

HEVPPowertraincontrolstrategyemployedwasthatoftheHondaInsightavailableinADVISOR.

fuelonabsoluteterms.OnanadjustedapproachwecanseethattheSmartengine,whichatfirstsightlookedto bethebestperformer,isslightlyoutperformedbyitscompetitors.Whilethedifferenceistrulynegligibleforthe Dieselenginecase,itissignificantforthegasolineengine. Benchmark:PerformanceinPowerInterval

Diesel 1.3CDTI 1.4TDI 1.5CDI 0.8CDI Gasoline 1.0LToyota 1.0LOpel 0.7LSmart Sel.RPM %load@4kW %load@15kW 1750 1600 1600 1800 12.8 15.4 14.9 21.2 48.1 57.7 55.9 79.6 EstimatedSFC(g/kWh) 230/240(@15kW) 330/350(@4kW) 220/230(@15kW) 315/330(@4kW) 220/230(@15kW)315/330(@4kW) 220/235(@15kW) 300/310(@4kW) EstimatedSFC(g/kWh) 260/270(@15kW)450/550(@4kW) 260/270(@15kW) 450/550(@4kW) 250/260(@15kW) 400/450(@4kW)

All diesel engines are direct injection, turbo charged engines, fitted with intercoolers. The compression and ratios unitary range from 19.5 to 18 displacement from the 266cm3 per cylinder of

Sel.RPM %load@4kW %load@15kW 3600 3800 2900 11.4 11.4 17.5 42.7 42.8 61.0

theSmartFor2engineto533cm3fortheSmartFor4.Henceboththe0.8CDiengine(3cylinders)andthe1.3CDTi (4 cylinders) will suffer increased thermal losses and reduced fuel efficiency. Amongst the gasoline engines all are IDI. The maximum torque figures are higher in the diesel engines, and this is an advantage since it can providesimilaramountsofpoweratlowerenginespeeds.ForthepowerintervalrequiredinHOST,ifgasoline enginesaretoworkatmaximumtorqueenginespeedstheloadtheyrequireistoolowandthisgreatlyimpacts the specific fuel consumption (SFC). In fact only the Smart 0.7L gasoline engine escapes this logic due to the presence of a turbocharger. Nevertheless its overall efficiency is below that of a diesel and also that of its gasoline competitors, when comparing best overall SFCs. As expected the diesel engine outperfm their gasoline competitors clearly. In particular the Smart diesel engine shines, not due to its performance in the upperpowerextremeoftheintervalbutmainlyonthelowpowerinterval. Benchmark:Packaging
Diesel 1.3CDTI 1.4TDI 1.5CDI 0.8CDI Gasoline 1.0LToyota 1.0LOpel 0.7LSmart #Cyl. 4 3 3 3 #Cyl. 3 3 3 BorexStroke 69.6x82 79.5x95.5 83x92 65.5x79 BorexStroke 71x84 73.4x78.6 66.5x67 Weight 121Kg 127Kg 132.5Kg 70Kg Weight 6065Kg 6065Kg 60Kg Length(inmm) ~560570 ~450460 ~520530 460 Length(inmm) ~400410 ~400410 ~410420

The Packaging evaluation focused on engine weight and engine bulk dimensions. dimensions Roaduse are engines not usually

published, leading us to need to estimate length and weight, deemed the most pertinent constraints in HOSTs weight packaging. were Results for from obtained

correlations in which weight varies with displacement, while lengthwasestimated from theknowledge(orthe estimation itself) of parameters such as the number of cylinders, the bore and stroke dimensions, the cylinder wall thickness, the spacing between cylinders the length required for the chains/belts and the overall length of the clutch bell house. Results show the clear advantage of gasoline engines in both weight and length, with the nonturbo gasoline engines presenting even smaller weights and dimensions. Both smart engines present good packaging characteristics but the diesel one displays one of the lightest weights combines with a length that is almostonpairwiththatofthegasolineengines. ChoiceofBestinClass OveralltheenginechoosentoequipHOSTwastheSmart0.8CDiengine.Providingtheoneofthebestmixesof efficiency, cleanliness and performance it loses only (and slightly) in the packaging area versus gasoline engines,butnotenoughtooutshineitsmainadvantages.Tousitrepresentedthebestcompromise.

HOSTsICEOperatingStrategy
T orque (Nm)
120

It is evident from the graph shown left that the

12kW 245g/kWh 230g/kWh 220g/kWh 10kW 210g/kWh Opt.Curve 220g/kWh 230g/kWh 245g/kWh 260g/kWh

110 100 90 80 70 60 50

lowest SFC is achieved at lower engine speeds and higher loads (when comparing similar power requirements). This comes as no surprise since it is known that the most economical way
Torque

7,5kW

of driving is (almost always) to use lower engine speeds and higher torque loads (for similaramountsofpower). Being a series hybrid vehicle HOST is fitted with an electrical generator, and in order to minimize the work to be imposed at the control
RPM

Torque
40 30 20

12kW 10kW Opt.Curve 7,5kW

2400 2800 3200 3600 4000 4400

10 800 1200 1600 2000

unit the best operating strategy for HOST would be to operate varying only load or, alternatively engine speed. Still it was deemed easier to impose the load on the generator and change only load. This strategy also delivered the best results for efficiency especially taking into account the need to operate at reservoir strategy (15kW) or at follow up strategy (410kW needed). Here the engines own natural characteristics came to our help since the engines best SFC can be produced at nearly constant rpm, from 1800 to 2000rpm, as can be seen form the graph above. The simulated engine operating map can be seen in the graph presented on the right. It yields results between 217.5 and 280g per kWh for all of HOSTs operating requirements.

BiofuelsOverview
BioEthanolisasimplemolecule(C2H5OH)which,duetothepresenceoftheOHradical,isanoxygenatedfuel, and if generated from biomass is called bioethanol. Although specific mass, at 790g/dm3, is on pair with fossil fuels,ithas40%lessenergyperunitofweightthangasoline.Thisintroducesmajorconcernsofrangeandeven dedicated E100 ethanol engines, which provide considerable performance gains, due to the high RON of the fuel(108)andthemuchhigherheatofvaporization,cannotcompletelysolve.Neverthelessthesecharacteristics renderitperfectforturbochargerapplicationsalsobecauseofthereducedcostdifferencecomparedtogasoline engines.Whentheyoperateinplaceswithanexistingethanolinfrastructure,theyloweroperatingcosts. Biodiesel refers to oil (RME for example is C19H36O2), derived from biomass sources, with suitable characteristics for burning in compression ignition engines. Modern compression ignition engines require low kinematicviscosityoilsandacetanenumberover49toguaranteesmoothcombustionandgoodlubricity.Ithas a reduced energetic content per unit of weight, circa 38000kJ/kg, but makes up for it being heavier than common diesel. Hence range is almost not affected. In terms of emissions performance, it is an improvement versus diesel except for NOx which usually increases slightly. Nevertheless its greatest downfall is cold weatherstartperformancewhichisusuallysolvedonlybyaddingasmallamountoffossildiesel. Biogas is the biofuel equivalent of Compressed Natural Gas usually derived from undecomposed biomass, one of the best uses for biowaste as it generates energy while reducing GHG emissions due to the use of the CH4 that would otherwise be released. Methane, its main compound, has a very high energetic density, per mass,at49.900kJ/kg, butisverylightatambientpressureandtemperature,requiring compressiontopressures

around350bar toyieldsufficientrangefor roadvehicles.Dedicatedbiogasengineshavea hugepotentialsince thefuelsoctaneratingisover120.Itsgaseousnaturegivesitgoodcoldstartingabilitiesandlowemissions.

BiofuelsasSustainableAlternatives
EnergyRatio
Energy Ratio for various Biodiesel Crops

Biofuels will only be worth considering if they can yield more energy from the burning that they required to be grown (excluding the suns input). This measured by the amount of energy extractable from the biofuel, divided by mans input energy to grow it which is called the energy ratio and has to be greater than 1. Numbers on energy ratio differ from biofuel to biofuel and even from crop to crop. Also of utmost relevance is the consideration given to byproducts usage. Biodiesel seems to be at an

Palm Oil Dende Oil Jatropha Sunflower Rape Seeds Crambe Soy Peanut 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

advantageasalmostallcropsyieldatleastanenergyratioof2.PalmandDendeoilpresentgoodperformances but generate much concern about soil erosion. Jatropha is likely to be a major contender since it can be grown almost anywhere and has a very positive energy ratio. Sunflower and Rape have lower performances but only Soy crops have reduced energy ratios and peanut crops are only shown for comparison reasons since its economical value is too high to render it profitable as an energy culture. The outlook seems grimmer from the point of view of bioethanol since both sugarbeets and corn require byproducts usage to present greater than 1 energy ratios and wheat, without by product credits is energy destructive (takes more energy to grow than it releases through burning). Miscanthus and Sorghum perform well, while Brazilian sugarcane has been provingagreatsourceofenergysincelong. GHGEmissions
WTW GHG Analysis
Bio-methane
USW Liquid Manure Dry Manure Rape Ethil Rape Methil Sunflower Sugar Cane

Energy Ratio for various Ethanol Crops

Sugarcane Sorghum Miscanthus Switchgrass Sugar beet Corn Wheat 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The figure shown is evidence that the selected biofuels

Bio-diesel Bio-ethanol

in

our

comparison can reduce GHG emissions. Because the TTW analysis varies little, shown the is comparison largely a

Sugarbeet Wheat, with straw Wheat, no straw Farmed Wood Gasoline PISI Diesel DICI + DPF

product of the WTT phase variation. The case

Fossil Fuels

for bioethanol is largely favorable, except for wheat. Sugar beet seems

-150

-100

-50

50

100

150

200

gCO2/Km

to deliver good results and sugar cane performs even better. Farmed wood for bioethanol shows encouraging results, but its use for biogas production might be just as efficient or even more. The case for biogas is even stronger. First, it provides a clear advantage in the TTW part of the cycle, being capable of substantial reductions on CO2 emission at the tail pipe. But, furthermore, it also performs well in the WTT phase and it is the alternative with the highest reduction in the combined WTW emissions. Both USW and dry manure are easily capable of outperforming both the bioethanol and biodiesel. The case for biodiesel is not as bright, especially if the traditional food competitive crops are used. This is the case for Rape Seeds and, although not represented, it is even more the case for Soybeans. The only culture capable of reductions around 6075% is sunflower.InEurope,theproductionofbiodieselfromcropsasJatrophaoffersamuchbetterpotential.

BiofuelsasPrimeMovers
To be a prime mover a biofuel must have an energetic yield per unit of area which could render possible the fueling of the transportation system from these proceedings. The numbers presented in the graphs should be seen as theoretical limits, but they demonstrate that, at least in regions of the world with high population densities and low arable percentages of
Equivalent Km travelled / (ha x year)

land, biofuels cannot provide a real alternative to fossil fuels as, even using all arable land available to produce them we could not fuel our transportation system. Only countries such as Brazil and or China might have enough land to accomplish this.

Sorghum (Africa)

39.8%

Wheat (Europe)

34.6%

Corn (USA)

26.9%

Switchgrass (USA)

24.5%

Sugar Beet (Europe)

17.2%

The percentage shown in the bars refers to

Sugar Cane (Brazil)

15.9%

the percentage of Germanys arable land

8.4%

Miscanthus (USA)

required
0 15,000 30,000 45,000 60,000 75,000 90,000 105,000 120,000

to

substitute

20%

of

its

transportationrequirements. Looking at the graph we see that most biofuels fail to reach 40,000km/year per each hectare of land. Only a couple manages to reach 45% and only Miscanthus has a strong yield. It is important to notice that implicit in the mathematics is a 10,5L/100km fuel consumption of bioethanol which is not a high value. The case for Bio
Equivalent Km travelled / (ha x year)

diesel is slightly more complicated as, of all the crops presented above, only Rape, Jatropha and Sunflower can be produced inEurope.PalmandDendeOilaretypical of rainforest areas and hence cannot be grown in Europe. Rape, despite having the 2nd lowest yield, is by far the most common crop for biodiesel production in Europe, while Soy, with a yield of less

Peanut

41.3%

Rape Seed (Europe)

36.9%

Sunflower (Europe)

34.4%

Jatropha (Asia)

30.4%

Crambe (Africa)

27.6%

Castor Oil

21.8%

Dende Oil (Malasia)

14.7%

Palm Oil (Malasia)

11.2%

than 7.500km of annual driving per ha, is

45.000 60.000 75.000 90.000

15.000

30.000

not even represented. The most common crop in Europe, Rape seed, needs almost

37% of all arable land to achieve such a substitution rate and sunflower seems to perform only slightly better. The results are inferior to those of Bioethanol, mainly due to the fact that the crops with high yields can not be planted in Europe andmuch doubt remains over their long termsustainability. Jatropha appears once again as apromisingalternative. The difference in the case of biogas is the absence of a crop as only biomass wastes, such as wood wastes or Urban SolidWaste isused. Estimatesindicate that,in Europe, biomasscould provideupto 11% of total energy

consumption. Currently, less than of that total potential is being explored. In California, if all the biomass potential could be explored 2.4 million tons of methane per year would be produced, still granting a substitution rate inferior to 6%. Biomethane generated from cow manure is another option. A possible way to present its yield is to show how many annual kilometers can be traveled, by taking advantage of the yearly
Equivalent Km travelled / (per Year)

manure production of 10 cows; the answer isaround36.000kmperyear.Still,ifthiswas applied toGermany and all thecow manure

USW

10.1%

could be used to generate biogas, the substitution rate for road transport would be of no more than 3.1%. Similar calculations can be performed for USW. Each 100 persons generate enough to propel

Manure

3.1%

Woody wastes

33.8%

avehicleformorethan60.000kmayear.But if all USW was used for biogas production

40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000

10,000

20,000

30,000

thesubstitutionratewouldbearound10%.

ADVISORSimulations
After the analysis of the biofuels performed above it was decided to investigate HOSTs performance if fitted with a biofuel engine. Because the Smart 0.8CDi is fitted into HOSTs prototype the analysis of the biofuel adaptability was theoretical. Nevertheless because the Smart gasoline engine could be adapted to bioethanol use without major changes, the benchmark performed above holds for packaging and cleanliness has it would beEU4compliant.Onlyefficiencyhadtoestimatedand
Efficiency (Brake)
40%

hence dedicated engines for bioethanol, biodiesel and biogas were simulated. It is important to state that real lifeconversionsforbioethanolandbiogas,basedonthis engine, have been performed. The theoretical maximum efficiencies estimated for all engines are presented on the left and were based on results known from IFP articles. In our theoretical calculations, we took our downsizing strategy even further (500cm3 are
Gasoline Bio-Ethanol Comp. CH4 Smart Diesel Bio-Diesel

39%

38%

37%

36%

35%

34%

33%

32%

enough for biogas and bioethanol) and we also simulated 2 changes which the IFP did not perform:

Direct fuel Injection and turbocharger swapping for a lower inertia unit, with maximum torque coming at lower engine rpm. In the end the advisor simulations presented next were performed with the bioethanol version,duetotherangeproblemofbiogas,andthesuperiorpropertiesofbioethanol,comparedtobiodiesel. ADVISORResults CabinConfiguration
10mostrepresentativecycles

Average 26.3 9.2 41.1 342.6 128.4 397.0 148.9

Here we can see the huge potential of this hybridation technology. For mission 3 cycles the combined WTW GHG emissions are actually inside the EU target, and although outside for the 2 remaining cycles, theyarestillveryclosetothelimit andrepresents a huge reductionvs.

OeirasDrivingCycles Mission1 Mission2 Mission3 EthanolCons.(l/100km) 27.4 29.4 22.2 Distancepercycle(km) 4.6 8.0 14.9 Cyclesperday 56.0 33.7 33.7 TotalDailyDistance(Km) 257.8 268.1 502.1 CO2emissions(Kg/day) 106.6 111.6 166.9 CO2emissions(g/km) 413.0 443.6 334.5 BioethanolWTWCO2(g/km) 154.9 166.4 125.5

the820g/CO2perkmestimatedtobeemittedbythevehiclecurrentlyperformingthecycles.

The results for the homologation cycle yielded 18.2 liters of ethanol for the NEDC low cycle, containing the same energy as 10.5 liters of diesel, a significant result due to the comparability of homologation cycles. To allow fairer comparisons we provide figures for the FTP cycle (USA). The consumption achieved (19,7L/100km) equals 13,1L/100kmofgasoline,or18,5milespergallonin AngloSaxonunits.Thehybrid LexusRX400hSUV

CabinConfiguration HomologationCycles Ethanol Use (l/100km) Distancepercycle(km) Time(s) Cyclesperday TotalDailyDistance(Km) CO2 emissions(Kg/day) CO2 emissions(g/km) BioethanolWTWCO2 (g/km)

NEDCLow EPAFTP 18.2 10.6 1224 33.0 349.8 96.1 274.6 103.0 19.7 17.7 2500 19.8 349.6 103.9 297.3 111.5

has a fuel consumption of 24 miles to the gallon in the FTP cycle, despite weighting half as much as HOSTs CabinconfigurationandhavinganScxofonly45%ofHOSTs. CarSharingConfiguration OeirasDrivingCycles EthanolCons.(l/100km) Distancepercycle(km) Cyclesperday TotalDailyDistance(Km) CO2emissions(Kg/day) CO2emissions(g/km) BioethanolWTWCO2(g/km) The reduction obtained in the carsharing configuration Mission3 11.6 14.9 33.7 502.1 87.5 175.6 65.9 amounts to about 47%, when compared with the cabin configuration for comparable cycles. In the carsharing configuration, only the handicapped mission cycles were simulated since this configuration was not designed to perform the other measured cycles. It is fundamental to stress out that WTW GHG emissions in the range of 4060 g/km are comparable to those promised by pure electric vehiclestoreachproductionreadinessinthenearfuture.

MainResults
WTW GHG (g/km)
900 800 700

The figure shown was elaborated according to our own estimates, and the EUCAR study. Diesel CV refers to
39% 47% 75%

the GHG emissions of the vehicle currently performing mission 1 cycles, a good equilibrium between those of missions 2 and 3. The first 2 configurations presented next were equipped with a series hybrid powertrain which endows them both with decrease in energy use and GHG

600 500 400 300 200 100 0

Die se l CV Gasoline HEV-S Die se l HEV-S Biodie se l HEV-S Bioe thanol HEV-S Biogas HEV-S

80%

82%

emission. The gasoline powered HEV

S configuration allows a 39% reduction and a similar diesel fuelled powertrains goes even further (47%). The remaining 3 options (all biofuels) provide GHG reductions granted by their biomass nature credits. Bioethanol has a higher GHG reduction potential than biodiesel and since both fuels emit the same amount of CO2 per mass in the TanktoWheels phase because bioethanol is slightly less efficient it makes up for that difference in the WelltoTank phase, as biodiesel is penalized by higher fertilizer needs, which are significant N2O (GWP=310) emitters. Biogas has the lowest GHG emissions of all biofuels, but its low energy density reduces range severely inheavy vehicles performing intown cycles. The combined efforts of both technologies allow an 80% combined reduction in GHG emissions and a 40% energy consumption reduction due to powertrainhybridation.Thisperformance is whatmany(e.g.WuppertalInstitute)seeasaminimumthreshold to allow CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to reach sustainable levels. As can be seen, even in real life drivingcycles,thetargetputforwardbytheEUisnotanimpossibledreamforasmallfreightdiesel,aslongas biofuelscanbeprovidedinsignificantamounts.

10

References

J.G. Dufour, J.F. Fritsche and C. Ripert: Le programme Transports de marchandises enville:quelquesreprespouruneapprocheglobale,TransportUrbains,n.91,1996.

Alessandrini and L. Persia: Effects of low environmental impact buses, presented at theISATA2000conference,Dublin2000.

Alessandrini and L. Persia: Evaluation of hybrid buses in urban public transport service,2001PROSPERcongressHybridtechnologyinpublictransportservice,Karlsruhe.

Brown, S. Atterberg and N. Gerein: Detection and Location o GPS Interference SourcesUsingDigitalReceiverElectronics,IONAnnualMeeting,June2000,USA.

P.G. Sluiter, M. E .E. Haagmans: Comparative test between geodetic Ycode GPS receivers.Susceptibilitytoradiofrequencyinterference,GPSNiewsbrief,1995.

T.D.Gillespie:FundamentalsofVehicleDynamics,SAEedition,USA,1992.

Popov, D. J. Cole, D. Cebon and C. B. Winkler: Laboratory Measurement of Rolling Resistance in Truck Tyres under Dynamic Vertical Load, produced by the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Dunlop Tyres Ltd. and Cambridge VehicleDynamicsConsortium,2002.

KraftfahrtBundesamt: Fuel consumption and emissions type approval figures for Motor Vehicles with a national or EC whole vehicle type approval, recollection of the homologation data concerning fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, for vehicles approvedforcirculationinGermany;15thedition,2005.

EU Commission Staff: Monitoring of ACEAs Commitment on CO2 Emission Reductions from Passenger Cars (2003), Annual report on the progress of the EC CO2 targetcommitmentof1999;Brussels,2004.

J. M. M. Lopes: Motores de Combusto Interna (uma abordagem termodinmica), provisionaltext,Portugal,2000.

N. Fernandes: Temperature analysis in turbocharged HSCI engines: singlezone combustion model vs. results from test bench and vehicle for 2 TDI engines, Final DegreeThesis;Wolfsburg,2004.

F. Schfer,R. Basshuysen:Internal CombustionEngine (Handbook), a joint edition of SAEInternationalandSiemensVDOAutomotive,1stedition,USA,2004.

R. S. Benson, N. D. Whitehouse: Internal Combustion Engines, Pergamon InternationalLibrary,1stedition,LondonUK,1979.

D. N. Assanis, Z. S. Filipi, S. B. Fiveland, M. Syrimis: A predictive ignition delay correlation under steadystate and transient operation of a direct injection diesel engine, paper by the W. E. Lay automotive laboratory for the National Automotive CenteroftheUSArmyTank&AutomotiveResearch,UniversityofMichigan,1999.

J. Abraham, V. J. Magi: Modeling Radiant Heat Loss Characteristics in a Diesel Engine,SAEtechnicalpapern970888,1997.

C. Arcoumanis; A Technical Study on Fuels Technology related to the AutoOil II Programme Volume II: Alternative Fuels; study elaborated for the Directorate GeneralforEnergyoftheEuropeanCommission,2000.

G. Landahl; Biogas as Vehicle Fuel a European Overview, a summary report of the EuropeanexperienceswithbiogasontheTrendsetterEuropeanProject,Stockholm,2003.

AVL; Emissions from Flexible Fuel Vehicles with different Ethanol Blends, a report forTheSwedishRoadAdministration,Sweden,2005,pp48,ISSN11030240.

E.Lugar;EnergycropsspeciesinEurope,Wieselburg,Austria2001.

M. Ramesohl, S. Merten, F. Fischedick; Energy systems aspects of Natural Gas as an alternative fuel in transport, Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment Energy, Germany,2003.

JRC, EUCAR and CONCAWE: WelltoWheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context, joint study elaborated under the plan Action 2113 and part of the Transport and Air Quality monitoring service by the Institute for EnvironmentandSustainability(IES),Version2c,Belgium,2007.

P. Moriarty, D. Honnery: Alternative transport fuels: the longterm future, InternationalJournalofVehicleDesign,Vol.31,No.1,2003.

M. Schrock: Biomass, Bioenergy & Biofuels, presentation made on the Seminar Energy,EnvironmentalImpactsandSustainability,KansasUniversity,USA,2006. D. Cohn, L. Bromberg, J. B. Heywood: Calculations of Knock Suppression in Highly Turbo charged Gasoline/Ethanol Engines using Direct Ethanol Injection, article producedfortheLaboratoryforenergyandtheenvironment,MIT2006.

 G. Knothe: Cetane numbers of branched and straightchain fatty esters determined in anignitionqualitytester,Fuel82(2003).

D. Cohn, L. Bromberg, J. Heywood: Direct Injection Ethanol Boosted Gasoline Engines: Biofuel Leveraging for Cost Effective Reduction of Oil Dependence and CO2 Emissions,articlefortheLaboratoryforenergyandtheenvironment,MIT2005.

M. Brusstar, M. Bakenhaus: Economical, High Efficiency Engine Technologies for Alcohol Fuels; paper for the International Symposia on Alcohol Fuels in San Diego, September2005.

K. Yamane, A. Ueta, Y. Shimamoto: Influence of Physical and Chemical Properties of BiodieselFuelonInjection,CombustionandExhaustEmissionCharacteristicsinaDI CI Engine, article 308 presented at the 5th Symposium on Diagnostics and Modeling of CombustioninInternalCombustionEngines,Nagoya,2001.

M. Brusstar, M. Stuhldreher, D. Swain, W. Pidgeon: High Efficiency and Low EmissionsfromaPortInjectedEnginewithNeatAlcoholFuels,SAE,2002012743.

P. Aakko, N. Nylund: Low Temperature Particulates From Alternative Fuels, presentedattheWindsorWorkshopSeminaronJune2004.

N. Jeuland, X. Montagne, X. Gautrot: Potentiality of Ethanol as a fuel for Dedicated Engine,articlesigned on behalfof IFP,featuredinthevolume59ofthemagazineOil& GasScienceandTechnology.

U. Baretzky: The Development of the Audi 3.6litre V8TwinTurbo FSI Engine forLe Mans,articleproduced on behalf of AudiAG,featured in the March 2002edition ofthe MagazineAutoTechnology.

M.Crawford:FeasibilityandEmissionsofCompressionIgnitionEnginesFueledwith WasteVegetableOil,DissertationThesisatUniversityofSouthFlorida,2003.

Ahlbck: The evolution and functionality of the branch development project Biogas Vst an innovation system approach; Msc. Dissertation Thesis at the University of Chalmers,Gtemborg2003.

American Petroleum Institute: Properties of Fuels table; Publication No. 4261, WashingtonD.C.,1988,TableB1.