1 / 18

US CO 2 emissions from transportation vs. total (in MMT)

US CO 2 emissions from transportation vs. total (in MMT). 32.3%. 27.6%. Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/. Source: US EPA (2003) Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends. Source: US EPA (2003) Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends.

Renfred
Download Presentation

US CO 2 emissions from transportation vs. total (in MMT)

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. US CO2 emissions from transportation vs. total (in MMT) 32.3% 27.6% Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/

  2. Source: US EPA (2003) Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends

  3. Source: US EPA (2003) Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends

  4. Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends Source: US EPA (2003) Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends

  5. Pressure to reduce GHG emissions from vehicles is increasing: • European Union • Goal: Average of 120 g CO2 per km driven for passenger cars by 2015 • 1999/2000: Voluntary agreements with car manufacturers • 2007/2008 : Conversion into binding regulation • California - Assembly Bill 1493 • Goal: Average of 127 g CO2eq per km driven for passenger cars by 2016 • 2002: AB 1493 passes Assembly and Senate • 2004: AB 1493is approved by Governor • New York State • 2005: Official proposal to adopt California’s regulation • Canada • 2005 Voluntary agreements with car manufacturers Agreements / regulations do not use a full life cycle perspective

  6. Typical life cycle GHG emissions of a passenger car: Total: Compact ~ 50 tonnes of CO2 eq Midsize ~ 60-70 tonnes of CO2 eq SUV ~ 80+ tonnes of CO2 eq 5-15 % 4-5 % 80-90 % 0-1 % Vehicle GHG reduction strategies focus on the use phase

  7. There are many ways to reduce use phase GHG emissions of vehicles: • Power train modifications: HEV, FCV, BEV • Engine modifications: Variable valve timing and lift, cylinder shut-off • Fuel combustion modifications: Turbocharger, CVR, direct injection • Transmission modifications: Continuously variable transmission, shifting schedules • Alternative fuels: Biodiesel, ethanol, hydrogen • Reduction of aerodynamic drag: Body shape • Reduction ofrolling resistance: Tires • Vehicle mass reduction: Smaller vehicles, better packaging, light-weight materials

  8. Life cycle GHG emissions: ICEV versus HEV Average lifecycle GHG (in kg CO2eq) emissions of a Civic Hybrid (HEV) and a Civic LX (ICEV) Source: Bren Group Project on HEV (Class of 2005) (Average for manual and automatic transmission)

  9. Energy efficiencies of ICEV, HEV, BEV, FCV Internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) : Fuel productionand delivery ICE, powertrain friction 0.88 x 0.16 = 0.14 Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV): Fuel productionand delivery Electric motor, ICE, battery powertrain friction 0.88 x 0.32 = 0.28 Battery electric vehicle (BEV): Power plant Electricity transmission Battery Electric motor, powertrain friction 0.35 – 0.55 x 0.93 x 0.8 x 0.8 = 0.2 – 0.33 Fuel cell vehicle (FCV): Compression, transmission Fuel cell Electric motor, powertrain friction Reformation 0.8 x 0.75 x 0.5 x 0.8 = 0.24

  10. Use the PV method to answer the following question: After how many years of driving is the price premium of a hybrid vehicle recovered? • Compare the Toyota Camry Hybrid with a conventional Camry • Compare the Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid with a conventional Tahoe • Use the manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) • Use the new EPA combined MPG rating • Use 2009 model specifications (make sure models are equivalent) • Use fuel prices of $2.50 per gallon • Assume 15,000 miles driven per year • Assume a 5% discount rate

  11. Larrick R P, Soll J B (2008) The MPG Illusion, Science, Vol. 320, 20 June 2008 Purchase of a HEV instead of an ICEV 1 months Monthly fuel cost savings (MS) Price premium (PP) Example:

  12. Purchase of a PV system Loan to pay for PV system Example – Electricity from utility: Household consumption: 25 kWh / day (750 kWh / 30 days) Cost of electricity: 0.17 cents / kWh ($ 127.50 / 30 days) Monthly electricity cost savings months Monthly loan payments Example – PV system that generates 25 kWh / day Installation cost: $25,000 Lifetime: 25 years Financing: $25,000 loan, over 25 years, 5% fixed rate Monthly loan payments: ??? Installation cost of PV system

  13. Annuity Factor AF Cash flow structure of an annuity: C C C C C C C C C 1 i years

  14. Annuity Factor AF, continued C C C C C C C C C 1 i years

  15. Purchase of a PV system Loan to pay for PV system Monthly electricity cost savings $127.50 months Monthly loan payments Installation cost of PV system

  16. Citizenrē REnU Business Model Citizenrē plans, installs, maintains, and owns the PV system on your roof. All you have to pay is a fixed monthly rental fee. Expected average monthly electricity cost savings $127.50 months Fixed monthly rental fee $127.50 How can they do this?

  17. Citizenrē REnU Business Model Disclaimer: The numbers below are guesstimates and for teaching purposes only Example – PV system that generates 25 kWh / day Installation cost for Citizenrē: $20,000 (Citizenrē is vertically integrated) Lifetime: 25 years Financing: Assume average cost of capital for Citizenrē of 3% Monthly income: $127.50 Expected average monthly administration and maintenance cost: $15 Monthly capital expenses: Expected average monthly pretax operating profit per system: $ 17.66 For 34,791 systems: $ 614,409 per month

More Related