concept for an environmentally friendly vehicle efv examples
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
GRPE – informal meeting EFV WG (Bonn, 30 October 2008)

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 10

GRPE – informal meeting EFV WG (Bonn, 30 October 2008) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 85 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' GRPE – informal meeting EFV WG (Bonn, 30 October 2008)' - matthew-randall


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
concept for an environmentally friendly vehicle efv examples
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

seperate fuel vehicle characteristics
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

assumptions choices scope and parameters
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

objective
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

score fuels for average car
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

score vehicles for average fuels
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

include wtt energy efficiency both in wtw co2 g mj primary and wtw energy use mj primary km
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

score vehicles on wtw co2 g km and wtw energy use mj primary km
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

conclusions
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

slide10
Thank you !

10

TNO Science & Industry

ad