Microsoft Word - 北京市替代燃料车发展战略研究 .doc

Transcription

1 1

2 i

3 LPG LPG MOBILE PART BAU ii

4 3.6.2 OEM BAU iii

5 CALINE CALINE iv

6 EPACT Alternative Fuel EEVs 1

7 AFV / ( ) COHC NOx 2

8 PM PM % NOx CO 1995 NOx CO 40.2% 76.8% O PM 2.5 NOx CO NOx HC PM

9 1992 Energy Policy Act, EPACT Alternative Fuel AFDC website LPG CNG % (MJ/l@15.6) a (MJ/l) (@15.6) () R+M/ RVP(psi) a psi CNG PAFCMCFC SOFC/SPFC/PEMFC 4

10 1.2.1 Dedicated vehicle/bi-fuel vehicledual-fuel vehicle 90% % G. Luigi Cola et al % ppm 200 CNG 1/625LNGCNG LNG LPG 441 o C550 o C427 o C LPG LPG Eva Liu et al. 1997LPG 5

11 LPG CNG LPG CNG LPG 5 / 1 1 OEM DOE NREL Honda CivicFord F250Dodge B2500 CNG GM Sierra / EPA FTP CNG ULEV ULEV LEVFord CNG NMHC 97%CO 63%NOx 81% 99%CO 2 17% Honda CNG NMHC 96%CO 90%NOx 69% 97% 6

12 CO 2 26%GM CNG NMHC NOx CNG CO CO 2 NREL LPG LPG LPG 1988 LPG LPG LPG 1995 LPG CO LPG NOx a. NOx g/km b. CO g/km 11 LPG NOx+NMHC CO 1 522% 2 085%(FFV)

13 NREL 1999 Dodge Caravan Ford Taurus / FTP FFV E8585%15% FFV E85 Dodge Caravan FFV E85 CO 142% Ford Taurus FFV E85 CO 31% FFV E85 CO 2 E85 NREL1999 DME DME 55 NOx LPG DME LPG DME DME 15 DME DME DME DME DME - (Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis) 8

14 () 1 2 CNG HCCO NOx CNG 3 CNG CO 2 CNG CO LPG 9

15 1.2.2 (Electric Vehicles, EV) (Hybrid Electric Vehicles, HEV) HEV 3 - HEV HEV / HEV 10

16 HEV Insight Civic Hybrid HEV - HEV Prius HEV HEV 56 2 Anant D. Vyas, Timothy E. Lipman2003 HEV (NAVC) 42 M.J. Bradley2000 Fuel Cell VehicleFCV FCV FCV DOE 11

17 Ballard FCV FCV FCV FCV 12 A. Bauen 2000 CNG 12 CO NMHC NOx PM SOx CH 4 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 28% 33% 219% 489% 64% 72% 75% 12

18 CNG 2% 6% 39% <0.5% 5% 277% 87% 2% 7% 43% 1% 17% 364% 141% FCV 0.6% 6.1% 15% 14% 3% 169% 83% FCV 0.3% 3% 9% <0.5% 3% 137% 53% FCV 0.4% 53% 30% 2% 68% 71% 71% FCV 1% 3% 16% <0.5% 7% 145% 56% (UKEM) 4% 1% 207% 496% 377% 722% 63% (CCGT) 4% 3% 67% 1% 32% 150% 54% 1)UKEM UK Electricity Mix 2)CCGT Combined Cycle Gas Turbine

19 1-4 14

20 / MOBILE5 PART5 CALINE

21 [1] Thomas W. McDade, Linda S. Adair. Defining the urban in urbanization and health: a factor analysis approach. Social Science and Medicine, 2001, 53: [2] Patrick Wakely. The inclusive city. The International Development Magazine, 2000, 10: 8 [3] [4] Noel de Nevers. Air pollution control engineering (second edition). & McGraw-Hill ~472 [5] [6] Brauer M. et al. Ozone personal exposures and health effects for selected groups residing in the Fraser Valley. Atmospheric Environment. 1997, 31: [7].., : 2835 [8].., 2000, 13(4): 2225, 38 [9] Wol., G.T.. Particulate elemental carbon in the atmosphere. Journal of the air Pollution Control Association, 1981, 31: [10] Hamilton, R.S., Mans.eld, T.A.. Airborne particulate elemental carbon: its sources, transport and contribution to dark smoke and soiling. Atmospheric Environment, 1991, 25: [11] [12] APEC Secretariat. The role of petroleum based and alternative transport fuels in reducing emission in the APEC region. Canada: Levelton Engineering Ltd. 16

22 December 2000 [13],. 21., 2002, 1: [14] M.J. Bradley, et al. Future Wheels: Interviews with 42 Global Experts on the Future of Fuel Cells for Transportation, Fuel Cell Infrastructure, and a Fuel Cell Primer. The Northeast Advanced Vehicle Consortium (NAVC), Boston [15], [16] A. Bauen, D. Hart. Assessment of the environmental benefits of transport and stationary fuel cells. Journal of Power Sources. 86(2000): [17] G. Luigi Cola, et al [18] Juan Carlos Fracchia [19] (2):2830 [20] NREL 1999a. FACT SHEET Bi-Fuel CNG Pickup GMC Sierra. NREL/FS [21] NREL1999b. FACT SHEETHonda CivicDedicated CNG Sedan. NREL/FS [22] NREL 1999c. FACT SHEET Ford F250 Dedicated CNG Pickup. NREL/FS [23] NREL1999d. FACT SHEETDodge CaravanEthanol-Fueled Minivan. NREL/FS [24] NREL 1999e. FACT SHEET Ford Taurus Ethanol-Fueled Sedan. NREL/FS [25] NREL FACT SHEET Dodge B2500 Dedicated CNG Van. 17

23 NREL/FS [26] AFDC website General Table of Fuel Properties. 18

24 2.1 (Environmental Protection Agency, EPA)(Department of Energy, DOE)(California Air Resources Board, CARB) g/km / / / 1 19

25 2 (2-1)(2-2) 1(Cost1) 2(Cost2) // Cost 1 = Vehicle / Year + ( Maint enance + Fuel) Kilometrage (2-1) Cost 2 = Vehicle / Year + ( Station Δ Pr ice GasAmount ) / Number (2-2) Vehicle Year Maintenance /Fuel / Kilometrage Station / Δ Pr ice GasAmount Number / 1 2 / 2 (2-2) Cost 2 = Vehicle / Year (2-3) / 20

26 // Effect1 Effect2 (2-4)(2-5) Effect 1 = Kilometrage DecEFi / IncCost1 (2-4) Effect 2 = Kilometrage DecEFi / IncCost 2 (2-5) DecEFi i,inccost1 1 IncCost km/h 60200km 21

27 2008 LNG CNGLPG CNG Fiat Multipla CNG 2 22

28 CNGLNGLPG 9 3 CNG LNG OEM Barwood CNG CNG Barwood CNG 10 CNG 10 2 Crown Victoria 4.6 V8GNG 10:1 9:1, CNG CNG 50% 7 CNG 7 (Federal Test 23

29 Procedure,FTP-75) CNG CNG CNG % (NMHC)(THC)NOx COCO 2 CNG (ULEV) Tier 1 CNG NOx CO CO 2 (THC) 200%300% (NMHC) 66% 2 Denver CNG SuperShuttle Denver LNG CNG 13 5 CNG SULEVEPA ULEV Inherently Low Emission VehicleILEV5 CNG EPA ULEV Tier 1 3 Tier E350 Ford 5.4 V8 CNG 9:1 13 FTP US06 US06 SC FTP US06 / SC03 SHED 8.9psi 328ppmCNG 91.7% 4.46% CO 24

30 CNG RFA (%) (g/mile) NMHC CO NOx THC (g/mile) CO CH (mile/gallon) CNG NMHC CO 90% NOx 70%96% CNG

31 CNG RMB/km RMB/km RMB/km CNG CNG 3 LPG OEM LPG 400 LPG Ford F Ford F-150 Ford F I LPG :1 78% LPG LPG LPG 10.1MPG/ 12.7 / 13.2MPG Ford F-250 F LPG LPG LPG LPG / LPG TNO LPG 26

32 5 Hertz M85 Los Angeles Hertz Ford Taurus350 Dodge Interpid1995 Dodge Interpid 3.3 V6 M8585%15% Dodge Interpid 44 Dodge Interpid 55 FTP 6 E85 2 E8585% 15% 2 2.1% FFV 1996 Ford Taurus 3.0 V6 9:1 FTP FFV NOx CO $50000 $

33 2004 Prius 20,510 Civic Insight 19,650 19, EPA FTP Prius NOx 0.009g/mile SULEV0.02g/mile TIER20.07g/mile EPA Civic Insight Prius 13 EPA2003InsightPrius Civic 60MPG3.9L/100km 60MPG 45MPG 66MPG3.6L/100km51MPG 4.6L/100km 51MPGPrius

34 E /CNG / / / 22 29

35 aco 30

36 bnoxnmhc THC 2-2 1LDGV,CNG LPG 2LDGT2 2LPG NOxNMHC NOxTHC LPG THC NMHC CNG CO LPG CO NOxNMHC 0.10g/km THC CNG THC 23 31

37 aco bnoxnmhc 32

38 cthc 2-3 LPG THC NMHC LPG NOxNMHC NOxTHC HEV 6 CNG CNG LPG CNG LPG 33

39 PM PM 2008 PM g/km CNG LPG 0.01 g/km PM mg/km PM 2.4 CNG LNGLPG Pierce Transit CNG Pierce Transit Tacoma CNG 1987 CNG Pierce Transit Cummins CNG 30 Cummins L10-240G 27 L10-260G 15 L10-280G 19 CNG 1998 Pierce Transit 45 CNG 1990 Pierce CNG Cummins L10 Cummins L10 CNG 34

40 20% CBD Cummins L10260 CNG NOx CO CO 2 THC PM CNG CNG NOxCO PM 55%98% 99%THC 90% CNG $30000$50000 CNG 20% CNG 1992 $ $ DART s LNG Dallas Area Rapid TransitDART LNG 15 LNG 5 12 LNG NOx PM LNG Cummins L10-280G Cummins M CBD NOx CO CO 2 NMHC PM 35

41 LNG LNG % 17%,LNG 4.0RMB/km 3.0RMB/km LNG / LNG 750 LNG 3LPG LPG DOE NREL LPG LPG Ø LPG 4 LPG 2 Ø LPG LPG 510% Ø LPG 20% LPG LPG 30% Ø LPG LPG CNG 36

42 4 Chattanooga Chattanooga km km/h 30% 40% kWh/mile, 7% 1/3 NYCT 5 Santa Barbara Santa Barbara MTD km 17% 7kW LPG 50% 37

43 9.1 70% 6080% 10% 6% NOx CO PM 95% 6NYCT (New York City TransitNYCT) Orion VI DOE NREL 9 Orion VI Orion Navistar DDC S30 DDC S50 230bhp@2300rpm 270bhp 17.5:1 15.0: kW@2000rpm A-hrs 10% 17% CBD 23% 6% CBD NY BUS Diesel Particulate FilterDPF 38

44 25 39

45 CBD NY Bus CO NOx HC PM CO 2 g/mile g/mile g/mile g/mile g/mile mile/gallon Orion Orion / -97% -36% -43% -50% -19% +23% Orion Orion / -56% -44% +88% -77% -40% +64% NY BUS HC RMB/km RMB/km RMB/km Ø Ø Ø NYCT Orion VII NYCT 646 CNG

46 7 LPG SunLine Thousand Palms XCELLSiS Phase 4 DaimlerChryslerFord Ballard Phase 3 Chicago Vancouver Phase 4 Ø 50% Ø 1500 kg Ø 20 8 Ø 12 1 Ø 45 3 Ø P3 90% 13 Ballard 14400km 8.9MPG/ CNG 2 CNG CNG NYCT CO 2 HCCONOx PM SunLine Hythane Hythane 20%80% 41

47 NOx CNG 40%Hythane 8 / E9595%+5% 17 8 Detroit Diesel CorporationDDC 6V92TA 20:1 DDC Series 50 CBD mile g/mile PM NOx HC CO Peoria Minnesota Miami New York Peoria Minnesota Miami NOx PM PM HC CO /

48 M100 E95 RMB/km RMB/km RMB/km / / / St. Louis 12.2 DDC 6V92TA 10 5 BD20 20% 80% 5 CBD THC CO NOx PM NOx 2.0% PMHC CO 10.1%21.4% 11.0% LPG PM NOx NMHCPM NOx PM 5.1 NOx 4.2 NMHC 1/2 43

49 LPG / LNG 67 90% LNG 1 10 / LPG CNG / 44

50 2-5 LPG a CO b NOxNMHC THC 45

51 cpm 2-5 LPG NOxNMHC NOxTHC CNG THC NMHC 25 PM PM PEVHEV FCV THC CO CO CO CNG CO E95 M100CO NOxNMHC CNGLNG LPG CNGLNG THC THC NOx 46

52 THC CNG LNG THC THC 25cCNG LNG PM LPG PM (2-3)(2-4) aco 47

53 bnoxnmhc c THC 48

54 dpm Ø CO CNG LPG Ø NOxNMHC CNG LNG Ø PEVHEV FCV THC Ø PM, CNGLNG PM 0.10 / THC CNG CNG THC 49

55 LNG CNG CNG UPS CNG UPS() 13 CNG 3 CNG Cummins B5.9G Cummins B5.9, CNG CNG CNG CO 75%NOx 49%PM 95%CO 2 7% UPS CNG UPS CNG (RMB/km)

56 (RMB/km) (RMB/km) UPS Hartford Waterbury $ CNG GNG WMI LNG LNG DOE (Waste Management Inc.) 5 LNG 3 LNG LNG Mack Trucks Mack E7G-325 Mack E7-300,LNG 150 LNG( 90 ) 72 LNG 1688 / 2295 / CBD (The Standard Central Business District Cycle )LNG NOxPM CO 2 16%94% 21% Waste Management Inc. LNG LNG (RMB/km) (RMB/km) (RMB/km) LNG LNG/ 51

57 3Raley LNG 1997 Raley LNG LNG DOE 8 LNG 2 LNG 12 LNG Cummins L10-300G Cummins M LNG( 104 ) mile Route5 5 LNG (g/mile) CO NOx NMHC PM CO LNG NOx 80%,PM 96% CO $35000 LNG (RMB/km) (RMB/km) (RMB/km) LNG LNG 52

58 4 Ralph s Grocery NOx Ralph s Grocery DOE 20 Detroit Diesel Series ECD mile Route CSHVRCity Suburban Heavy Vehicle Route, 5-mile Route CSHVR g/mile ECD ECD CO NOx HC PM CO NOx 1620%CO HC CO 2 PM 1.577RMB/km 1.505RMB/km 53

59 CNG E85 LNG CNG LPG LNG CNG LNG CNG LNG LNG 54

60 / LNG /LNG / LNG / DART s LNG LNG 10% 3040% LNG 25% CNG CNG 1CNG $15000 vs. $30002 CNG 3CNG CNG CNG

61 a CO bnoxnmhc THC cpm 2-8 CO CO CO LNG NOx NMHC LNG NOx THC CNG LNG CNGLNG 56

62 (2-3)(2-4) 29 57

63 aco bnoxnmhc 58

64 cthc dpm PM PM CNG LNG 2 59

65 3 CNG CO NOxNMHC NOxNMHC LNG CO NOxNMHC LNG CO 4 THC THC PM NOxNMHC PM %NOx % PM CNG NOxNMHC CNG CNG LPG PM PM 2008 PM

66 0.022 g/km 2 THC CNG CNG THC LNG CNG CNG 3 PM CNG NOxNMHC CO CNG 61

67 [1] Peg Whalen, Ken Kelly, Mardi John. Barwood CNG Cab Fleet Study: Final Results. DOE NREL, NREL/TP , May 1999 [2] Y. Huang, R.D. Matthews, and E.T. Popova. Texas Bi-Fuel Liquefied Petroleum Gas Pickup Study: Final Report. DOE NREL, NREL/SR , May 1999 [3] Eva LIU, S.Y. YUE, Joseph LEE. A Study On LPG As A Fuel For Vehicles. Research and Library Services Division Legislative Council Secretariat. March 1997 [4] U.S. Department of Energy. Hertz Puts You In The Driver s Seat And Methanol In Your Tank. April 1997 [5] Kevin Chandler, Margaret Whalen, Jeffrey Westhoven. Final Results From The State Of Ohio Ethanol-Fueled Light-Duty Fleet Deployment Project [6] Kevin Chandler, Kevin Walkowicz, Nigel Clark. United Parcel Service CNG Truck Fleet: Final Results. U.S. Department of Energy. August [7] Kevin Chandler, Paul Norton, Nigel Clark. Waste Management s LNG Truck Fleet: Final Results. U.S. Department of Energy. January 2001 [8] U.S. Department of Energy. Using LNG as a Fuel in Heavy-Duty Tractors: NREL Vehicle Evaluation Program. July 1999 [9] L.B. Hill. Diesel Engines: Emissions Controls and Retrofits. Clean Air Task Force [10] Robert Motta, Paul Norton, Kenneth Kelly, Kevin Chandler, Leon Schumacher, Nigel Clark. Alternative Fuel Transit Buses: Final Results from the NREL Vehicle Evaluation Program. U.S. Department of Energy. October 1996 [11] Alberto Ayala, Norman Y. Kado, Robert A. Okamoto, Britt A. Holmén, Paul A. Kuzmicky, Reiko Kobayashi, Keith E. Stiglitz. Diesel and CNG Heavy-duty Transit Bus Emissions over Multiple Driving Schedules: Regulated Pollutants and Project Overview. Society of Automotive Engineers Paper

68 2002 [12] U.S. Department of Energy. The Pierce Transit Story. January 1998 [13] Paul Norton. Demonstration of Caterpillar C-10 Dual Fuel Engines in MCI 102DL3 Commuter Buses. DOE NREL, NREL/SR January 2000 [14] Kevin Chandler, Paul Norton, Nigel Clark. Dallas Area Rapid Transit s (DART) LNG Bus Fleet: Final Results. DOE NREL. October 2000 [15] Indian Committee on Auto Fuel Policy. Report of the Expert Committee on Auto Fuel Policy, Chapter 9: Alternative Auto Fuels - CNG and LPG. August 2002 [16] U.S. Department of Energy. Electric Buses Energize Downtown Chattanooga. August 1997 [17] Four Year Report on Battery-Electric Transit Vehicle Operation at the Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District. WestStart - CALSTART, Inc [18] Kervin Chandler, Kevin Walkowicz, Leslie. New York City Transit Diesel Hybrid-Electric Buses: Final Results. DOE NREL Transit Bus Evaluation Project. July 2002 [19] Leslie Eudy, Richard Parish, Jonathan Leonard. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Bus Evaluation. Proceedings of the 2001 DOE Hydrogen Program Review, NREL/CP [20] [21] Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. A Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust Emissions. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 2002 [22] EPA2003. Green vehicle guide. URL: /autoemissions/select.htm Last updated on December 5th, 2003 [23]..,,

69 MAREA BIPOWER CNG MULTIPLA BIPOWER

70 % 60 50% 60% LPG LPG 33 (APEC) LPG 50 5% 3300 LPG LPG LPG % LPG LPG 90% LPG DOE EIA

71 () LPG 172, , , , , , , , , ,389 CNG 50,218 60,144 68,571 78,782 91, , , , , ,742 LNG ,172 1,681 2,090 2,576 2,708 3,030 3, LPGCNG LNG CNG LPG LNG ()

72 3-2 // LPG/CNG / LPG/CNG CO HC Cummins 67

73 OEM LPG LPG LPG LPG LPG LPG 3.2 LPG, 1999 CNG CNG CNGLPG LPG LPG 62 CNG 24 LPG 3.2 CNG LPG 5000 CNG B G CNG BK6111 Environmental Protection Agency, EPA

74 CNG CNG LNG LNG CNG2003 LNG LNG LNG LNG LNG LNG LPG Cummins B G 1998 Cummins CNG/LNG EPA (ULEV)LPG EPA (LEV) Cummins CNG EPA/CARB Cummins NMHC CO NOx PM HCHO (ft-lb) (ULEV) B5.9G CNG EPA LNG ULEV L rpm rpm B5.9 LPG EPA N/A 359 LPG (HD-5) LEV (THC) CI, 2800 rpm 1600 rpm 69

75 5.9-L C8.3G CNG EPA LNG ULEV L rpm rpm C8.3G CNG EPA LNG ULEV L rpm rpm L10G CNG EPA LNG ULEV rpm 10-L rpm L10G CNG EPA LNG ULEV rpm 10-L rpm g/bhp-hr Ø PM g/bhp-hr Ø NOx B5.9G CNG/LNG C8.3G L10G g/bhp-hr B5.9G LPG 2.3 g/bhp-hr Ø NMHC C8.3G CNG/LNG 0.6 g/bhp-hr B5.9G LPG THC 0.8g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr Ø CO B5.9G LPG C8.3G CNG/LNG g/bhp-hr B5.9G CNG/LNG 2.6g/bhp-hr L10G CNG/LNG g/bhp-hr Ø HCHO C8.3G L10 CNG/LNG g/bhp-hr C8.3G B5.9G CNG/LNG g/bhp-hr B5.9G LPG B G CNG CO HCHO

76 Cummins L10G C8.3G DDC Series 50G 77 Cummins CNG 405 CBD km 4500km 3-3 CBD Ø B G L10-280G 70% /3 Ø 1 CO NMHC C8.3G L10G B5.9G * Ø 71

77 L10-240G L10-280G CO B G C GL10-280G Ø HCCO NOx 1-4B G EPA Cummins CARB/EPA C G L10-260G L10-280G Ø Cummins Cummins 24 C G CNG 119 PM L10G CNG PM CNG 2002 / g km -1 HC CO NOx PM CNG C8.3G HC HC L10G 72

78 3.2.2 LPG LPG 2.2 LPG LPG LPG 134 LPG COHC NOx 87 LPG LPG / g km -1 CO HC NOx 134 LPG LPG LPG 3-5 LPG CO HC NOx 3-5 LPG COg/km HCg/km NOxg/km LPG LPG

79 LPG LPG 3-4 LPG g/km LPG CO HC NOx PM PM 2002 PM 0.018g/km PM LPG

80 3.2.3 LPG 1999 LPG LPG NREL F250 LPG LPG 3-5 LPG 3-5 Ford F-250 LPG LPG 2002 / g km -1 HC CO NOx PM 75

81 CNGLPG CNG PM 1/2CO LPG 60%HC 90% / NOx 1/3LPG HC CO PM

82 MOBILE5 PART5 MOBILE5 PART5 EPA FTP MOBILE5 MOBILE5 (LDGVLight Duty Gasoline Vehicles) (LDGTLight Duty Gasoline Trucks) (HDGVHeavy Duty Gasoline Vehicles) (LDDVLight Duty Diesel Vehicles) (LDDTLight Duty Diesel Trucks) (HDDVHeavy Duty Diesel Vehicles) (MCMotorcycles) 77

83 LDGTMOBILE5 (GVWGross Vehicle Weight) LDGT1(GVW2700kg) LDGT2(2,700kgGVW3900kg) ( ) MOBILE5 FTP FTP km/h 3 (ZML)(DR) 8 LDGV LDGT BEF=ZML+DR1 8+DR2 (MC-8) (3-1) BEF=ZML+DR MC (3-2) BEF (g/km)zml (g/km)dr1 DR2 (g/km 10 4 km)mc (10 4 km) MOBILE5 EPA MOBILE5 78

84 MOBILE5 MOBILE5 EFby EFby = (BEF+B T -B IM ) Cr Co Cs Ca (3-3) B T B IM I/M Cr Co Cs Ca EFby PART5 PART5 MOBILE5 12 ( ) (3-4) 25 EFCOMPv = EF TF m= 1 mv, mv, (3-4) EFCOMPv (g/km)efm,v m v (g/km)tfm,v m v EFm,v 79

85 EFm,v = f(v, Cs, Cpb, FQ, FE, PS, CA, IM) (3-5) V Cs Cpb FQ FE PS CA IM PART LDGVLDGT1LDGT2 HDGVHDDVMC MOBILE5 LDDV LDDT MOBILE5b PART g/km LDGV LDGT1 LDGT2 HDGV HDDV MC HC CO NOx PM Qi Q i = A EFi ( 1 η) (3-6) A EFi i η 80

86 14 A = l C (3-7) j t= 0 jt jt l jt j t C jt j t (3-6) LDGV LDGT1 LDGT2 HDGV HDDV MC HC CO NOx PM10* * 3-7 CO (a) HC (b) CO NOx PM (c) NOx (d) PM

87 Ø LDGT2LDGV LDGT1 HC CO HC 83% CO 86% HC CO MC HC 8% Ø LDGVLDGT2 HDDV NOx NOx 81%LDGV LDGT2 HDDV NOx Ø HDDV PM10 50% LDGT2 LDGV 17% 13% PM10 84% PM10 HDGV PM10 7%LDGV LDGT1 LDGT2 HDGV HC CO NOx PM10* 82

88 * t mg/m 3 mg/m 3 % CO NOx PM * * Ø CO0.022mg/(m t) Ø NOx0.010mg/(m t) Ø PM mg/(m t) Joyce Dargay Dermot Gately GDP

89 GDP S Gompertz C = θγ { exp[ αexp( βgdp )} + (1 θ) C it i it it 1 (3-8) C it i t i, Gompertz 3-8 GDP 84

90 GDP (3-22) GDP 17.1% 15.1% GDP 85

91 / (3-8) OriginPro7.0 i=-8.16,= r

92 GDP % 2020 () GDP GDP GDP 1990 Gompertz 20 (2000 ) ( ) GDP GDP GDP S

93 3.4.2 LDGV LDGV (3-22) LDGV LDGT1 LDGT2 HDGV HDDV MC % % LDGV LDGT1 MC

94 3.4.3 BAU Business As UsualBAU / 2000 MOBILE5b PART (g/km) LDGV LDGT1 LDGT2 HDGV HDDV MC HC CO NOx PM CNG LDGV LDGT1 LDGT2 HDGV HDDV MC HC CO NOx PM10*

95 10.3% CO (a) HC (b) CO NOx PM (c) NOx (d) PM

96 Ø HC CO LDGV LDGT1 LDGT1 LDGT2 HC CO HC 76% CO 86% HC CO MC HC 13% Ø LDGV HDDV NOx 39% 29% LDGT1 LDGT2 25% NOx NOx Ø PM10 PM PM10 HDGV () HC CO NOx PM10* 91

97 % CNG CNG LPG CNG LNG CNG 1998 Cummins CNG/LNG EPA (ULEV)LPG EPA (LEV) Cummins CNG EPA/CARB

98 3-16 g/bhp-hr a CO HC/NMHC/CH 4 NOx NMHC+NOx PM HCHO g EPA CARB // /1.2/ b // LEV c ULEV c EPA/CARB // /0.5/ d // kW // EEVs ESC // e ETC 2.2 /0.30/0.48 f ESC // h ETC 4.1 /0.58/1.19 f i ESC // ETC 3.0 /0.41/0.82 f a. EPA EPA 1 2 ECE R-49 EEVs 3 ESC ETC 4 b. c. d. NMHC+NOx NMHCNOx e. EEVs enhanced environmental friendly vehicles f. 3 4 ETC CH 4 g. HCHO 93

99 h rpm 0.10g/bhp-hr i rpm 0.16g/bhp-hr 3-16 EPA/CARB CONMHC+NOx 50% Cummins CNG PM PM 30 L10-260G/280G 161 PM 0.016g/km C G PM 0.053g/km 2/3 CNG/LNG LPG CNG CNG HC CO NOx PM (g/km) HC NMHC 1.5 CH 4 HC 90% 3 CH 4 CNG/LNG CNG CNG LPG Sonata LPG 2 TNO

100 LPG

101 3-11 LPG g/km 5 4 LPG CO HC 3 LPG NOx 2 LPG LPG 2001 LPG 62 LPG LPG LPG PM10 SO 2 NOx NOx HC CO SO 2 PM10 NOxHC CO 96

102 2008 HCCO NOx PM %21.3%32.2% 4.7% 38 2 PM PM10 46% 9900 CNG 17.7% PM10 ² PM CNG % PM % 2008 PM PM CNG 2500 CNG CNG 311 PM PM /0.162*100% 38.3% PM CNG 5000 CNG CNG 311 PM ² 97

103 8000 PM10 35%40% 3000 CNG LNG 1500 ² CO PM10 NOx % CNG % CNG % CNG % 8000 LNG % 98

104 (3-6) NOxCOPM10 HC PM10 NOxCO HCHC HC HC CO NOx PM10 CNG CNG CNG LNG % 0.4% 5.7% 12.3% CNG CNG CNG LNG

105 CNG 70 / 40 / 30 / 3 CNG CNG/LNG / 3.5 / 1.9 / 4 CNG CNG 47.6 CNG B G hp C8.3G L10G hp CNG CNG 100

106 % CNG % CNG % CNG % 8000 LNG % NOxCOPM10 HC PM10 NOxCO HCHC HC PM10 17% HC CO NOx PM10 CNG CNG CNG LNG % 0.5% 7.9% 16.9%

107 CNG CNG CNG LNG PM % % % Asif Faiz HCCONOxTSPSOx 18.97g 1.02g 324 /g HC CO NOx PM

108 HCCO NOx PM10 PM LPG LPG LPG LPG LPG LPG LPG 1 LPG LPG 3-4 LPG 2 LPG LPG LPG LPG 3 LPG LPG LPG 103

109 1.20 / 90# LPG 1.0 /1999 LPG / LPG LPG LPG LPG LPG 62 LPG LPG LPG 1 LPG Sonata LPG 95% 2 LPG 2 LPG LPG LPG 2.2 / / LPG LPG LPG 2008 LPG

110 LPG LPG LPG LPG /LPG /LPG / Cummins Cummins a Cummins 90% 88.0% 4% 6.0% 1.7% 3.0% 0.7% 0.2% N 2 CO 2 3.0% % CO 2 3.0% 0.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1% CO 0.1% 0.1% 105

111 0.001%() 16ppm 0.003% 200mg/m % 15mg/m % MJ/m 3 b / MJ/kg 36.3MJ/m 3 ( 31.4 MJ/m 3 ) 99.0% /15 20 a kPa20 b. Wobbe IndexK=* 1/ MJ/m 3 Cummins Cummins 0.001% 0.003% OEM

112 327 OEM OEM B5.9G Cummins Engine EPA C8.3G Company ULEV L10G CNG/LNG Detroit Diesel 50G 275 CARB Corporation 60G 330 EPA Caterpillar, Inc CARB CNG John Deere 6068H H 250 N/A CARB LPG Opel Vectra VBMW 318IToyota Carina E 1.6 XliRenault Laguna 2.0Honda Accord 2.0 is Sonata LPG 107

113 [1]. [2].., [1] [3]. PART (1)610 [4] Joyce Dargay, Dermot Gately. Vehicle ownership to 2015:implications for energy use and emissions. Energy Policy, 1997, 25,: [5] Joyce Dargay, Dermot Gately. Income s effect on car and vehicle ownership, worldwide: Transportation Research Part A, 1999, 33: [6] Peter H.KOBOS, Jon D.Erickson, Thomas E.Drennen. Scenario Analysis of Chinese Passenger Vehicle Growth. Contemporary Economic Policy, 2003,21(2): [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] ,2(3)15 [13] [14]

114 [15] ,5:39 [16].., :4245 [17].. [18] [19]., [20] [21] &image=images/title/hjgb.jpg [22] [23] [24] [25] Isaac Schifter, et al. An Evaluation of the LPG Vehicles Program in the Metropolitan Area of Mexico City. J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc : [26] Indian Committee on Auto Fuel Policy. Report of the Expert Committee on Auto Fuel Policy, Chapter 9: Alternative Auto Fuels - CNG and LPG [27] Liu Eva, et al. A Study On LPG As A Fuel For Vehicles. Research and Library Services Division, Legislative Council Secretariat, HK SAR. RP05/ March 1997 [28] Hien Ly. Effects of natural gas composition variations on the operation, 109

115 performance and exhaust emissions of natural gas-powered vehicles. IANGV. December 2002 [29] DOE EIA2004. Estimated Number of Alternative-Fueled Vehicles in Use in the United States, by Fuel, cneaf/alternate/page/datatables/atf1-13_03.htmllatest update on Feb [30] DOE EIA2004. Estimated Consumption of Vehicle Fuels in the United States, /atf1-13_03.htmllatest update on Feb [31] , [32]., [33].. [34] Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy s National Alternative Fuels Hotline. Heavy Vehicle and Engine Resource Guide. U.S. DOE. October, 1998 [35] Nils-Olof Nylund, Alex Lawson. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM NATURAL GAS VEHICLES. IANGV Emission Report. March 2000 [36] 110

116 EV EV1 EV+ EV Ranger RAV4 EV EV1 Think Neighbor Prius Estima 4 EBD (CVT) Insight Civic Highlander Prodigy 111

117 Orion VI Orion NECAR FCHV-BUS2 SunLine Berkeley (GEF) (UNDP)

118 () ()() EQ6100HEV EQ7200HEV /

119 Santa Barbara 130 Chattanooga % BJD6100EV

120 HC CO NOx PM (g/km) CNG PM NOx HC CO 115

121 /g km 1 HC CO NOx PM / ² GEF 116

122 100 ² % % % % 6 0.0% % 2000 (3-6) CONOxHC PM10 PM10NOx HC CO HC CO NOx PM10 117

123 % 0.3% 1.1% 1.6% % % % % 118

124 6 0.0% % 4000 (3-6) COHCNOx PM10 PM10NOx HC CO HC CO NOx PM % 0.5% 1.2% 1.7%

125 ² ² ² 120

126 [1]. [2],,.., [3], [4] Hal Harvey and Joe Ryan. Hybrid buses: the Brazilian experience. Hybrid vehicle technology workshop, Beijing, Nov

127 (5%) (MTBE) M85 ( 85%+15%) M85 (FFV) M FFV 2.1 FFV M M85 M () 2002 M85 34 M100 DOE EIA / g/m 3 122

128 3060 M100 M ( 80% ) % 78% 65% 97% (Clean Air Act Amendment CAAA)1978 E10 ( 10%)CAAA CO 2.7% ( 7.7%) /3 8% 1990 E85(85%) E95E100(95% 100%) E85 E

129 ,E % E () M85 18,319 20,265 21,040 19,648 18,964 10,426 7,827 5,873 4,917 4,592 M E85 1,527 4,536 9,130 12,788 24,604 87, , , , ,195 E M85 85% 15% 3E85 85% 15% 4E95 95% 5% E85 M85M100 E95 M100 E E85 DOE EIA2000 E E85 3.3% EPACT 1999 B20 ( 20%+80%) CNG LPG B20 124

130 PM B20 PM 15% / 40 / M M15 4 M (M85M100) /

131 / / % M85/E85 52 DOE 52 / (g/mile) 126

132 M85 E85 CH 3 CHO CH CO CO HCHO NMHC NOx OMHCE OMNMHCE THC CH 3 CH 2 OH CH 3 OH (MPG) OMHCE: Organic material hydrocarbon equivalent OMNMHCE: Organic material non-methane hydrocarbon equivalent CO NOx NMHC M85 E85 / % 15% 15% 127

133 , PM NOx / BAU / IM240 MOBILE5 PART

134 g/km LDGV LDGT1 LDGT2 HDGV HDDV MC HC CO NOx PM LDGV LDGT1 LDGT2 HDGV HDDV MC HC CO NOx PM10* HCCONOx PM %63.9% 73.3% 38.9%

135 CO (a) HC (b) CO NOx PM10 (c) NOx (d) PM Ø HC CO HC CO 5%10% 1997 Ø NOx 13% 42% NOx % 3% Ø PM 18% 13% 67% 1%2% 130

136 % 1015 DMFCV LPG LPG LPG LPG 55 % CNG % % 131

137 % % % % / CNG/LNG % / % LPG % % % % % / % %

138 3 Enhanced Environmental Friendly VehiclesEEVs EEVs 56 EEVs g/kwh a b CO HC NMHC CH 4 NOx PM Smoke ESC&ELR ETC a. ESCEuropean Stationary CycleELREuropean Load ResponseETCEuropean Transient Cycle b. ETC PM 0.02g/kWh g/kWh 1/8 3 EEVs LPG EEVs PM CNG LPG EEVs EEVs 4 3 PM 4 ETC PM 0.03g/kWh EEVs NOx 4 EEVs 3.5g/kWh 2.0g/kWh g/kWh EEVs NOx

139 3 EEVs 1998 LEVILEV ULEVZEV 316 EPA CNGRMB/m3 LPGRMB/l RMB/l a N/A 134

140 b a. b. CNG LPG 50% 135

141 [1].., 1999, 6: 610 [2] St. Louis Biodiesel Pilot Programevaluating the feasibility of using biodiesel to meet EPACT requirements, [3] Railroad Commission of Texas. Additional Information Facts on Alternative Fuels. Alternative Fuels Data Centre 2000 [4].., 2002, 3: 3435 [5],,.., 2002, 4: 9 11 [6],,,,.., 2002, 2: 46 [7] B. Sondermann, B. Emersleben.., 2001, 26(5): 7277 [8]. [9] Emission Standards: European Union, Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck and Bus Engines. [10] Air Pollution Information: Clean Fuel Fleet Program. [11]

142 % CNG % CNG % % % % 6 0.0% CNG % 8000 LNG % LPG % % NOxHCCO PM10 NOx 35.1% PM % 2008 PM10NOxCO HC PM10 137

143 8.6% HC 0.2% HC HC CO NOx PM % % % CNG % CNG % % % % 6 0.0% CNG % 8000 LNG % LPG % % NOxHCCO PM10 NOx 36.2% PM % 2008 PM10NOxCO HC PM % HC 0.2% HC 138

144 HC CO NOx PM % % PM10 NOx 4.4% HC CO PM10 4.8% NOxHC CO 1.5% 139

145 HC CO NOx PM % HCCO NOx PM10 13%18%PM %

146 PM10 HCCO NOx CO 30% CO 30% 141

147 CONOx PM Ci = fi Xi (6-1) Ci i fi i Xi i 2000 CO f CO = 0.022mg/(m t)x CO (4-1) C CO = [ ] = [ ] mg/m 3 NOxf NOx = mg/(m t) C NOx = [ ] = [ ] mg/m 3 PM10f PM = mg/(m t) C PM = [ ] = [ ] mg/m 3 CONOx PM

148 mg/m 3 CO NOx PM10* * 2000 CONOx PM mg/m mg/m mg/m 3 NOx 2000 NO NOx NO 2 CO NOx 76.5% 68.2% PM10 PM10 PM10 30% PM % PM10 51% PM10 CO NOx PM2.5 PM PM 143

149 63 CONOx PM10 mg/m CO NOx 16.4% 26.0% 16.6% 26.6% PM10 1.4% 1.9% 2020 CO NOx 58.8% 58.0% PM10 5.4% PM10 PM10 100µg/m 3 10%30% 144

150 PM10ug/m PM CALINE CALINE4 CALINE4 65 CALINE4 145

151 65 CALINE4 CALINE4 Equivalent Finite Line Source θ L = W n c L f (6-2) Lc W n Lf θ L f 3 = 1.1+ θ /( ) (6-3) dc 146

152 dc = 2 Qdy y [exp( 2 2πuσ σ 2σ y z y ( z h) )]{exp[ 2 2σ z 2 ( z + h) + exp[ 2 2σ z 2 ]} (6-4) Q (mg/m s)u (m/s)σy σz (m)h (m) C 2 2 Qdy ( z h) ( z + h) C = {exp[ + exp[ ]} PD 2 2 2π uσ 2σ z z 2σ z (6-5) PD PD = 1 2π y1 σ y σ y y p exp dp p = y / σ y (6-6) CALINE4 σy ±3σy N 1 1 ( z h 2kL) ( z h 2kL) C = { [exp( ) + exp( )] ( WT 2 2 2πu σ 2σ 2σ i= 1 zi zi 2 zi 2 6 j= 1 j Q PD )} (6-7) N WTj L k CALINE4 66 3m j ij 147

153 66 σzo T σ z 0 = T /10 (6-8) T 6-9 T W 2/( u sin θ), = W 2/( u sin 45 ), θ 45 θ < 45 (6-9) W2 θ CALINE4 CALINE4 CO NO 2 PM10 / NOx PM10 CALINE4 PM10 148

154 m 40m 60m 2100m

155 65 / CO NOx PM10 g/km m/s m20m30m 100m

156 m m 700m : COmg/m 3 NOxug/m 3 PM10ug/m

157 COmg/m 3 NOxug/m 3 PM10ug/m *** *** 1000ug/m 3 CO NOx PM10 PM10 17ug/m 3, CO 10mg/m 3 NO 2 NO 2 /NOx 0.37 NO / NO mg/m mg/m 3 152

158 0.24mg/m mg/m :3:1 8:2.7: CONOx PM mg/m 3 CONOx PM mg/m 3 CONOx PM mg/m 3 63 CO NOx, PM10 PM10 CO NOx 153

159 [1] [2]. PART (1)610 [3]. [] [4] Division of new technology and research, Caltrans. CALINE4A dispersion model for predicting air pollution concentration near roadways. State of California, Department of Transportation. FHWA/CA/TL-84-15, June 1989 [5] GB [6]. GB [2000]1 154

160 7.1 1 NOx PM ( PM NOx+NMHC ) 2 CNG LPG PM PM 2008 PM g/km 3 THC CNG CNG THC PM10 NOx 155

161 4 PM CNG NOxNMHC CO CNG LNG CNG CNG % 3000 CNG 37.5% 2 LPG % PM10 NOxCO HCPM10 9.1%NOx 4.4% m

162 6 CNG CNG % PM10NOxCO HCPM %NOx 5.9% m CNG 2020 HCCO NOx PM10 13%18%PM % CO mg/m mg/m 3 NOx 0.033mg/m mg/m 3 PM mg/m mg/m CO mg/m 3 NOx 0.075mg/m 3 PM 0.009mg/m 3 PM PM PM PM CONOx PM mg/m mg/m 3 157

163 EEVs 2 PM NOx 3 Cummins Cummins Cummins 0.001% 0.003% 4 CNG LPG 50% 5 158

164 159