General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Dec 19, 2017

Technologies for Urban Transport

Dhar, Subash; Shukla, P.R.

Publication date:2013

Link back to DTU Orbit

Citation (APA):Dhar, S., & Shukla, P. R. (2013). Technologies for Urban Transport [Sound/Visual production (digital)].Experience Sharing Workshop in preparation of Low-carbon Comprehensive Mobility Plans in Indian Cities,Udaipur, India, 22/08/2013

Technologies for Urban Transport

Experience Sharing Workshop on Low Carbon Comprehensive Mobility Plans in India

22 23 August, 2013Udaipur

P.R. ShuklaIndian Institute of ManagementAhmedabad, India

Subash DharUNEP Risø CentreRoskilde, Denmark

Contents

1. Trends of technological change2. Scenarios : National 3. Conclusions

Trends for technological change

Motorisation

• India has very low motorisation but is increasing • At similar income levels of motorisation can be different

Data Source: World Bank

Average Fuel Economy – Cross Country

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

Tested

 Fue

l econo

my (gCO

2/km

)

2005

2008

 5.2

 6.0

 6.9

 7.8

 8.6

 9.5

 10.3

India

Portugal

Italy

Malta

France

Japan

Belgium

Poland

Spain

Czech Re

public

Hung

ary

Sloven

iaRo

mania

Slovakia

Austria

EU‐27

Denm

ark

Ireland

Greece

Indo

nesia

Turkey

Luxembo

urg

Brazil

Egypt

UK

Netherla

nds

Cyprus

Mexico

Germ

any

Chile

Argentina

Malaysia

South Afric

aFinlan

dCh

ina

Ukraine

Estonia

Lithua

nia

Latvia

Russia

Thailand

Sweden

USA

Australia

Tested

 Feu

l Econo

my (lge/10

0km)

Registrations

1 million

10 millions

Source : Cuenot, F., and L. Fulton. 2011. International comparison of light-duty vehicle fuel economy and related characteristics. OECD/IEA, Paris.

Technology Options

Scenarios : National

Architecture for Transport Scenarios

Base (BAU)GDP – 8% CAGRCO2 – 3.6 deg C

Conventional Low Carbon Scenario

GDP ~ 8% CAGRCO2 – 2 deg C

Sustainable Low Carbon ScenarioGDP - Pegged to 8%

CAGRCO2 – 2 deg C

Sustainable Mobility

i. Public Transport ii. NMTiii. Urban Designiv. High speed rail

Sustainable Technologies

i. Electric Vehicle'sii. Fuel Economyiii. ICT - Navigation

Sustainable Fuelsi. Bio-fuelsii. CNGiii. Clean Electricity

Sustainable Logistics

i. Dedicated Rail Co.ii. Coal by wireiii. Regional Pipelines

Changes due to price of carbon

Changes due to targeted strategies + a

carbon budget equivalent to

conventional scenario

Passenger FreightPassenger & Freight

Emission Identity

Mass Transit Options

Bus Rapid Transit Light Rail system Metro

Capacity (passengers per line in one hour)

10,000 to 20,000 (Sometimes going to 40,000 Bogota

BRT)

10,000 to 20,000 12,000 - 45,000 (Sometimes going

upto to 80,000 Hong Kong Metro)

Costs (Million USD per km of length)**

5 to 27 13 to 40 27 to 330

Existing Networks in 2011**(km)

2139 15000 10000

CO2 per passenger **(gCO2/pkm)

14 to 22 4 to 22 3 to 21

Typical Fuel Diesel Electricity Electricity

** Data from IEA, 2012 Energy Technology Perspectives 2012

• Wide diversity in costs and emission reduction potentials• Electricity based options become attractive in low carbon scenarios

Alternative Drive Train Technologies

Battery Electric vehicles

Hybrid Gasoline

Plug in Hybrids

Fuel Cells

Drive Range 100 - 160 km for cars, 60 km for 2 wheelers

Same as gasoline cars

20 - 50 km on battery alone, remaining using ICE

Same as gasoline cars

Drive Train Electric Motor Internal Combustion Engine

ICE, Electric Motor

Fuel Cell, Electric Motor

Existing Vehicles 120 Million Electric 2 wheelers in China,

More than 5.8 million vehicles globally sold till end of 2012

Few hundred globally

Energy consumption per pkm (w.r.t to a Gasoline engine) **

70-80% lower 11-22% lower 20-60% lower 55% - 70% lower

Typical Fuel Electricity Electricity / Gasoline /Diesel

Electricity / Gasoline /Diesel

Hydrogen

** IEA, 2009 Transport Energy & CO2; Kobayachi et. al., 2009 Energy efficiency technologies for road11 vehicles. Energy Efficiency 2, 125–137; Plotkin et. al., 2009 Multi‐path transportation futures study : vehicle12 characterization and scenario analyses

Scenario storylines: Fuel Economy

• BAU Storyline - Fuel economy standards for 2015 and 2020 announced by BEE are implemented by the government.

• Increasing incomes mean that an increasing weightage for safety, reliability and comfort from car buyers.

• Increasing preference for medium size cars

• Fuel Economy storyline– The vision of 4 lit / 100

km in 2030 according to GFEI. The efficiencies can not be delivered by conventional drive train technologies and rather it is technologies such as hybrids which would be required for this scenario especially if vehicle weights increase. The improvements in engine technologies for cars also diffuse into 2 wheelers and buses

Fuel Efficiency: BAU and Fuel Economy

 ‐

 1.0

 2.0

 3.0

 4.0

 5.0

 6.0

 7.0

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Fuel Economy (Cars)(lit gasoline / 100 km)

BAU Fuel Economy 3.0

 4.0

 5.0

 6.0

 7.0

 8.0

 9.0

600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Corporate Average

 Fue

l Con

sumption (litres 

(petrol)/

 100

 km)

CAFC  Standards 2015 and 2020

CAFC 2015

CAFC 2020

CO2 Emissions transport: BAU & BAU + Fuel Economy

(*) Natural Gas emissions include both emissions from energy and fugitive emissions

Emission Intensity of Grid (Million tCO2/GWh)

Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Base Case 0.99  0.94  0.86  0.74  0.69 

Cumulative reductions between 2010 and 2050 are 1,696 Million tonnes

Fuel Mix: BAU & LCS

Mitigation Wedges : Transport

Conclusions

1. Fuel Economy can deliver mitigation plus co-benefits for environment and energy security

2. Cleaning of electricity is crucial for a low carbon transport

3. Bio fuels are essential for a low carbon strategy

Thank You

Questions / Suggestions