• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Resultados C40 en Latinoamérica
 

Resultados C40 en Latinoamérica

on

  • 178 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
178
Views on SlideShare
178
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Resultados C40 en Latinoamérica Resultados C40 en Latinoamérica Document Transcript

    • In  partnership  with:      Hybrid – Electric Bus TestProgram in Latin AmericaFinal ReportISSRCJanuary 2013Prepared by:International Sustainable Systems Research Center - ISSRC605 South Palm Street, Suite C, La Habra, CA 90631, USAwww.issrc.org
    • In  partnership  with:      Project Name: Hybrid Electric Bus Test Program in Latin America (HEBTP-LA)Implementing Agency: C40 - Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI)Tests performed by: International Sustainable Systems Research Center (ISSRC)This Report: Santiago Report (ISSRC-HEBTP-08)C40-CCI Contact Person: Manuel Olivera, LATAM Hybrid bus test program & CityDirector, Santiago D.C.: molivera@clintonfoundation.orgISSRC Contact Person: Mauricio Osses, maosses@issrc.org
    •    TABLE OF CONTENTS1   INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1  1.1   GENERAL BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................1  1.2   ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT ........................................................................................1  1.3   GENERAL METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................1  1.4   ABOUT HYBRID & ELECTRIC BUS TECHNOLOGIES ............................................................4  2   ENERGY PERFORMANCE AND DRIVING CYCLES ....................................................6  2.1   FUEL AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION.....................................................................................6  2.1.1   Rio de Janeiro .............................................................................................................7  2.1.2   Sao Paulo ....................................................................................................................7  2.1.3   Bogota .........................................................................................................................8  2.1.4   Santiago.......................................................................................................................9  2.2   DRIVING CYCLES ..............................................................................................................10  2.2.1   Rio de Janeiro ...........................................................................................................11  2.2.2   Sao Paulo ..................................................................................................................11  2.2.3   Bogota .......................................................................................................................12  2.2.4   Santiago.....................................................................................................................13  3   EXHAUST EMISSIONS AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION............................................15  3.1   OVERALL RAW EMISSIONS RESULTS .................................................................................15  3.1.1   Rio de Janeiro ...........................................................................................................16  3.1.2   Sao Paulo ..................................................................................................................17  3.1.3   Bogota .......................................................................................................................19  3.1.4   Santiago.....................................................................................................................20  3.2   EMISSIONS BY ENERGY DEMAND SITUATIONS PER CITY.................................................22  3.2.1   Rio de Janeiro ...........................................................................................................22  3.2.2   Sao Paulo ..................................................................................................................25  3.2.3   Bogota .......................................................................................................................28  3.2.4   Santiago.....................................................................................................................31  3.3   NORMALIZED EMISSIONS RESULTS ..................................................................................34  3.3.1   Rio de Janeiro ...........................................................................................................34  3.3.2   Sao Paulo ..................................................................................................................36  3.3.3   Bogota .......................................................................................................................37  3.3.4   Santiago.....................................................................................................................39  4   DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................41  4.1   EXHAUST EMISSIONS ........................................................................................................41  4.2   ENERGY AND FUEL EFFICIENCY .......................................................................................42  4.3   KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................44  4.3.1   Key findings and recommendations for stakeholders................................................45  4.3.2   Key recommendations ...............................................................................................45  
    • In  partnership  with:      
    •    LIST OF TABLESTable 2.1 Bus acronym and description .......................................................................................................... 6  Table 2.2 Drive cycle characteristics for HB2-S in Rio de Janeiro............................................................... 11  Table 2.3 Drive cycle characteristics for Sao Paulo...................................................................................... 11  Table 2.4 Drive cycle characteristics for Bogota .......................................................................................... 12  Table 2.5 Drive cycle characteristics for Santiago........................................................................................ 13  Table 3.1 Bus acronym and description ........................................................................................................ 16  Table 3.2 Raw results of emissions and fuel consumption, Rio de Janeiro .................................................. 16  Table 3.3 Raw results of emissions and fuel consumption, Sao Paulo ......................................................... 17  Table 3.4 Raw results of emissions and fuel consumption, Bogota.............................................................. 19  Table 3.5 Raw results of emissions and fuel consumption, Santiago ........................................................... 20  Table 3.6 Normalized results of emissions and fuel consumption, Rio de Janeiro....................................... 35  Table 3.7 Normalized results of emissions and fuel consumption, Sao Paulo.............................................. 36  Table 3.8 Normalized results of emissions and fuel consumption, Bogota .................................................. 37  Table 3.9 Normalized results of emissions and fuel consumption, Santiago................................................ 39  
    • In  partnership  with:      LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1.1 Testing methodology for exhaust emissions and fuel consumption .............................................. 3  Figure 2.1 Fuel consumption test results in Rio de Janeiro ............................................................................ 7  Figure 2.2 Fuel consumption test results in Sao Paulo.................................................................................... 8  Figure 2.3 Fuel consumption test results in Bogota ........................................................................................ 9  Figure 2.4 Fuel consumption test results in Santiago.................................................................................... 10  Figure 2.5 Drive Cycle for HB1-P in Rio de Janeiro .................................................................................... 11  Figure 2.6 Common Drive Cycle for Sao Paulo............................................................................................ 12  Figure 2.7 Common Drive Cycle for Bogota ................................................................................................ 13  Figure 2.8 Common Drive Cycle for Santiago.............................................................................................. 14  Figure 3.1 Raw results normalized in comparison with DB1-R in Rio de Janeiro ....................................... 17  Figure 3.2 Raw results normalized in terms of DB-R in Sao Paulo.............................................................. 19  Figure 3.3 Raw results normalized in terms of DB1-R in Bogota ................................................................ 20  Figure 3.4 Raw results normalized in terms of DB1-R in Santiago.............................................................. 21  Figure 3.5. CO2 per VSP-Bin Rio de Janeiro ................................................................................................ 23  Figure 3.6. NOx per VSP-Bin Rio de Janeiro ............................................................................................... 24  Figure 3.7. PM1.5 per VSP-Bin Rio de Janeiro ............................................................................................ 25  Figure 3.8. CO2 per VSP-Bin Sao Paulo ....................................................................................................... 26  Figure 3.9. NOx per VSP-Bin Sao Paulo ...................................................................................................... 27  Figure 3.10. PM1.5 per VSP-Bin Sao Paulo ................................................................................................. 28  Figure 3.11. CO2 per VSP-Bin Bogotá.......................................................................................................... 29  Figure 3.12. NOx per VSP-Bin Bogotá......................................................................................................... 30  Figure 3.13. PM1.5 per VSP-Bin Bogotá...................................................................................................... 31  Figure 3.14. CO2 per VSP-Bin Santiago ....................................................................................................... 32  Figure 3.15. NOx per VSP-Bin Santiago ...................................................................................................... 33  Figure 3.16. PM1.5 per VSP-Bin Santiago ................................................................................................... 34  Figure 3.17 Normalized results normalized in terms of DB-R in Rio de Janeiro ......................................... 36  Figure 3.18 Normalized results normalized in terms of DB-R in Sao Paulo ................................................ 37  Figure 3.19 Normalized results normalized in terms of DB-R in Bogota..................................................... 39  Figure 3.20 Normalized results normalized in terms of DB-R in Santiago .................................................. 40  Figure 4.1 Emissions reductions for carbon dioxide and criteria pollutants ................................................. 42  Figure 4.2Fuel and energy consumption results............................................................................................ 43  Figure 4.3 Fuel and energy consumption results per passenger.................................................................... 44  
    •    LIST OF ACRONYMSCCI Clinton Climate InitiativeHEBTP Hybrid-Electric Buses Test ProgramGHG Green House GasBRT Bus Rapid TransitHB Hybrid BusDB Diesel BusHB1-P Hybrid Bus 1 - Parallel configuration, running on conventional diesel and electricityHB1-S Hybrid Bus 1 - Serial configuration, running on conventional diesel and electricityEB1 Electric Bus 1 running on electricity onlyDB1-R Diesel Bus 1 – Reference, running on conventional dieselDB2-F Diesel Bus 2 – Filter, running on conventional diesel and fitted with DPFDB2-N Diesel Bus 2 – New, running on conventional diesel, new technologyDB2-A Diesel Bus 2 – Articulated, running on conventional diesel, 18 mt longVSP Vehicle Specific PowerSCR Selective Catalytic Reduction for NOx controlFE Fuel Efficiency in kilometers per literFC Fuel Consumption in liters per 100 kilometersGPS Global Positioning SystemFE fm Fuel Efficiency flowmeterDPF Diesel Particulate FilterDOC Diesel Oxidation CatalystLATAM Latin AmericaSOC State of Charge of the battery pack
    • Sao  Paulo  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center       1  1 INTRODUCTION1.1 General BackgroundThe Hybrid and Electric Bus Test Program (the “Program”) was conceived by C40-CCI,and has been actively supported by the IDB with a financial contribution of $1.49million. C40-CCI as the implementing agency was responsible for gatheringcontributions from multiple stakeholders, and especially those involved in the testing ofhybrid and electric buses and, for comparison purposes, conventional diesel vehicles.The Program aims to help cities to make sound decisions regarding test bus technologyperformance in city-specific driving conditions and duty cycles, with special attention tobus operating costs and to local emissions of air pollutants and emissions of GHG. TheProgram establishes the case for investment in hybrid and electric buses by bustechnology companies, cities, and local transport operators; compiles and shares resultswithin a network of participants, interested parties and cities in Latin American countries;and is designed ultimately to lead to the deployment of up to 9,000 hybrid and electricbuses across Latin American cities in the period up to 2018, resulting in a steady-statereduction of 475,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions annually.Local governments, bus suppliers and operators in Bogota, Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro andSantiago implemented the Program. The results of testing and economic analysis havecontributed to building a database that has been shared among cities and is helping tospeed up decisions related to the incorporation of efficient, low emissions bustechnologies.Reduction of GHG emissions will be demonstrated by verifying that performance ofvarious hybrid bus technologies is superior to conventional public transport vehicles.Performance will be evaluated in different geographical altitudes and driving cycles. Testresults will enable manufacturers to make appropriate adjustments to bus design oroperation while guiding cities in the purchase of new or replacement fleets for existing,new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or conventional systems.1.2 Organization of this Report1.3 General MethodologyVehicle emissions determination is a complex science; the most important challenge is toobtain representative results of a given technology under real operating conditions. Inaddition, it is particularly challenging to measure direct exhaust emissions from heavy-
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center     2  duty vehicles (trucks or buses), mainly because laboratory equipment required to testthese vehicles is almost inexistent in Latin America and most developing countries.A new methodology has been internationally developed to overcome these challenges;this methodology is called On Road Testing and to put it in practice Portable EmissionsMeasurement Systems (PEMS) are required.On the research performed on this Program, On Road Testing and PEMS have beenapplied to measure 17 buses in 4 cities of South America (Bogota, Sao Paulo, Santiagoand Rio de Janeiro). Basically, the methodology used in this Program is dealing with thefollowing challenges:• Testing buses with different technologies, in 4 Latin American cities using acommon and robust methodology• Measure exhaust emissions and energy performance from real buses performingunder real operating conditions• Being able to report comparative results between technologies and citiesIn order to tackle the above challenges, ISSRC has performed a rigorous protocol in eachcity participating in the Program, applying its IVE1methodology for measuring tailpipeemissions, driving cycles and energy use, and combining all these results through theVehicle Specific Power (VSP) binning methodology.Testing protocol comprises two phases, as shown in Figure 1.1. Phase 1 uses PEMSequipment for measuring direct raw emissions from the exhaust tailpipe of each busburning diesel fuel (diesel and hybrid technologies). Phase 2 measures energy use anddriving characteristics while buses are running under representative operating conditionsin each city (diesel, hybrid and electric technologies).After both phases have been performed, following a protocol of 10 repetitions for Phase 1and 50 repetitions for Phase 2, all results follow a normalization procedure in order tocompare results. On one hand, exhaust emissions are statistically binned according to theenergy required to move the bus, following the vehicle specific power delivered and theamount of pollutants emitted per second for each bus. This procedure is repeated for CO,HC, NOx, PM1.5 and CO2 and provides a matrix of VSP Emissions.On the other hand, driving cycles from all diesel-burning buses are combined into asingle cycle per city. Driving dynamics of this single cycle are also binned according tovehicle’s specific power, producing a set of driving conditions linked to levels of energyrequired to operate the bus along the designated route on each city. It is important to notethat Phase 1 and Phase 2 do not necessarily share the same route. This proceduregenerates a VSP Driving matrix, which is associated to an energy efficiency measuredunder the same conditions.1  International  Vehicle  Emissions  Model,  IVE,  available  at  www.issrc.org/ive  
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center   3  Crossing both matrices, VSP-Emissions and VSP-Driving, produces a set of normalizedemissions where all pollutants are estimated assuming the same driving characteristics.These emissions results are compared with fuel consumption and a validation processthrough carbon balance takes place closing the circuit.Using the VSP Binning Methodology both emissions and driving cycle can be classifiedunder different energy demand situations. The advantage of this methodology relays onits versatility, combining VSP Emissions and VSP Driving allows evaluations ofemissions under different routes for these buses or technologies.Figure 1.1 Testing methodology for exhaust emissions and fuel consumptionPhase 1 has been designed to obtain emissions under all possible energy demandsituations of a bus, defined as Emissions divided by Vehicle Specific Power (VSP Bin).This phase allows the evaluation of different Driving Pattern or Driving Cycles for thebus on the city, even future cycles developed by the city.
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center     4  Phase 2 has been designed to measure energy efficiency and to determine driving cyclesunder real world situations, basically under an existing bus route. In order to obtainrepresentative results each bus ran this route for at least 25 hours. Energy consumptionwas recorded using an external tank with a fuel flowmeter for diesel and with electronicequipment for hybrid and electric buses.In addition, each bus was equipped with a high resolution GPS which recorded busposition each second. This data frequency allows for fine energy demand analysis makingpossible the precise calculation of VSP binning.1.4 About Hybrid & Electric Bus TechnologiesHybrid and electric bus technologies are recognized as low carbon technologies. Hybridbuses combine a conventional internal combustion engine propulsion system with anelectric propulsion system. These types of buses normally use a diesel-electric power-train and are also described as hybrid diesel-electric buses. The electric power-train isintended to achieve better fuel economy than in a conventional vehicle. Modern hybriddiesel-electric buses make use of efficiency-improving technologies such as regenerativebraking, which converts the vehicles kinetic energy into electric energy to charge thebattery rather than it being dissipated as heat energy whenever the vehicle slows down.In general, hybrid electric vehicles can be classified according to how the power issupplied to the drive-train: in parallel or in series. In parallel hybrids, both the internalcombustion engine and the electric motor are connected to the mechanical transmissionand can simultaneously transmit power to drive the wheels, usually through aconventional transmission. In series hybrids, only the electric motor drives the drive-train, and the internal combustion engine works as a generator to power the electric motoror to recharge the batteries. Series hybrids usually have smaller combustion engines andlarger battery pack compared to parallel hybrids. Parallel hybrids have smaller enginescompared to the equivalent diesel bus.Hybrid buses do not require incremental investments in infrastructure. The hybrid systemconsumes less fuel and correspondingly reduces CO2, nitrogen oxides, and particulatematter emissions.Electric buses are powered by electricity and propelled by electric motors. They can beconnected by wires or run on batteries that need to be plugged into an electricity sourceand recharged over several hours. Battery-based vehicles run on chemical energy storedin rechargeable battery packs and do not have an internal combustion engine. Thesebattery electric vehicles (BEV) or electric buses are dependent on the battery beingplugged in at a charging station. Battery electric buses are propelled by motor controllersand electric motors instead of internal combustion engines. The motor controllerregulates the power to the motor, which can be either a central electrical motor or, morerecently, an in-wheel motor system. The wheel hub motor is an electric motor that isincorporated into the wheel hub which it drives directly, conferring additional savings by
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center   5  eliminating the need for a transmission, differential, and related mechanical parts. Thisreduces both the overall weight of the bus and energy losses due to friction.Tail pipe emissions generated by an electric bus can be close to zero if the electricity usedto charge it comes from low-carbon generating sources such as hydroelectricity. VehicleGHG savings depend also on how the electricity is generated.A fleet of electric buses requires charging stations in bus terminals, a combinationbetween quick-charging and slow-overnight charging schemes or multiple recharging perday at bus stops, which requires changes to the street infrastructure.The Program shows the better performance of hybrid and electric buses compared toconventional diesel buses in relation to exhaust emissions and energy efficiency.In Latin American countries the adoption of new low carbon technologies is subject tovarious policy scenarios regarding regulation and tax systems. For example, currentsubsidies for diesel tip the balance towards investing in conventional diesel technology,and import barriers in the form of duties favor continuation of local establishedproduction of diesel buses. Life-cycle costs are also a factor in long-term evaluations ofoperating costs. In analyzing different possible market scenarios, provision of technicalassistance, and a secondary market at the end of the life cycle can be important.Although the economic life cycle of a hybrid or electric bus is shorter than that of a dieselbus, over a 10-year period the case should not be argued on economic grounds only. Thebottom line in economic terms is a higher initial cost and a competitive operating cost,plus very low maintenance costs for electric buses. Their greatest advantages are theenvironmental, health, and social benefits of this technology. Decisions to adopt lowcarbon technologies could drive policy and market conditions and make thesetechnologies more competitive and more convenient than traditional ones.
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center     6  2 Energy Performance and Driving Cycles2.1 Fuel and Energy consumptionThe Program tested fuel consumption for diesel-only and hybrid diesel-electric buses, aswell as energy performance for full electric buses. Results varied by city, as showed inFigures 5 to 8, but in all cases energy efficiency of parallel-hybrid and full-electric buseswas better than traditional diesel buses. Two electric vehicles, seven hybrid technologiesand six diesel-only buses were tested in the four cities participating in the Program. Interms of fuel consumption, parallel-hybrid technologies reported an average of 31%reduction in fuel use compared to diesel buses. For electric buses an equivalent amount ofdiesel fuel was determined (eq-fuel), based on local electricity costs per kWh and dieselvalue per liter. Under these assumptions, electric technologies showed 76% eq-fuelconsumption reduction comparing between buses, as an average for Santiago and Bogota.This reduction gets down to 59% if eq-fuel consumption per passenger is calculated, dueto a lower carrying capacity when comparing electric and diesel-only vehicles. 2Fuel consumption results per city are described below, where diesel buses aredenominated as DB1 and DB2, hybrid buses are denominated as HB1 and HB2 andelectric buses are EB1-1 and EB1-2. As well as before, it is important to note that theseacronyms are not necessarily referred to the same buses or technologies when movingfrom city to city. The analysis included comparisons of fuel consumption by bus (FC) andby passenger (FC/pax), using the corresponding reference DB1 in each city.Different bus technologies were tested for fuel and energy consumption measurement andtheir designation for the analysis below are the following:Table 2.1 Bus acronym and descriptionID BUS DESCRIPTIONDB1-R Diesel Bus Reference tested in each cityDB2-F Diesel Bus with particulate Filter tested only in SantiagoDB2-A Diesel Bus Articulated tested only in Sao PauloHB1-PHB2-PHybrid Bus Parallel configurationsTB1-S Hybrid Bus Serial configurationEB1-C Electric Bus - equivalent fuel consumption based in energy CostsEB1-E Electric Bus - equivalent fuel consumption based in Energy content2  Diesel  buses  have  a  greater  passenger  capacity  given  their  comparatively  lighter  weight.  Hybrid  buses  have  20-­‐30%  less  capacity  than  diesel  buses  and  electric  buses  40-­‐50%  less.  
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center   7  Data for consumption for electric buses was compared to the base line per monetaryvalue and per unit of energy used. EB1-C estimates equivalent FC converting kWh intoliters of fuel using local prices for each type of energy source, thus including localsubsidies and/or taxes in the analysis. EB1-E estimates FC converting kWh and liters intokcal of energy, thus avoiding distortions or fluctuations from local energy market prices.2.1.1 Rio de JaneiroFour buses were tested in Rio de Janeiro: a diesel reference bus (DB1), a newer Euro 4diesel bus (DB2), a parallel-hybrid bus (HB1) and a serial-hybrid bus (HB2). Similarly tothe case for emissions, strong differences between the two hybrid technologies werefound for fuel use. The serial-hybrid (HB2) has considerably higher FC than DB1, whilethe parallel vehicle (HB1) was consistently lower. Hybrid Bus 1 (HB1) reported the bestfuel performance, with 32% less FC than DB1. Hybrid Bus 2 reported the worst fuelconsumption, with 3% higher FC than DB1.Figure 2.1 Fuel consumption test results in Rio de Janeiro2.1.2 Sao PauloFigure 2.2 shows results for Sao Paulo, where four buses were tested: a 12-meter dieselreference bus (DB1), an 18-meter diesel articulated bus (DB2), a 12-meter parallel-hybridbus (HB1) and a 12-meter serial-hybrid bus (HB2). In general hybrid technologies hadless fuel consumption than diesel standard technology. There was 42% reduction in fuelconsumption (FC) for HB1 and 22% for HB2. This reduction goes up to 47% for HB1when fuel consumption per passenger (FC/pax) is estimated and gets down to 14% for!"!!!!!#$%#!!!#$&#!!!#$#!!!#$(#!!!)$##!!!)$%#!!*+! *+!,!-./!!"#$%&()*+,-)&+."/0-$12"/++01)! 01%! 21)! 21%!
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center     8  HB2, due to its lower capacity. DB2 shows 16% higher FC than DB1, but due to itslarger capacity FC/pax is 19% lower (comparable to HB2).Figure 2.2 Fuel consumption test results in Sao Paulo2.1.3 BogotaFigure 2.3 shows two hybrid-parallel technologies and one full-electric bus comparedwith one reference diesel bus in Bogota. Hybrid and electric technologies had less fuelconsumption than diesel standard technology, under comparable conditions. There was a33% reduction of fuel consumption (FC) as an average for HB1 and HB2 technologies.This reduction goes down to 31% for HB1 when fuel consumption per passenger(FC/pax) is estimated and gets up to 43% for HB2, due to its higher capacity.There was one electric bus in Bogota, and its equivalent fuel consumption has beenestimated using the two approaches explained above. For EB1-1, equivalent fuelconsumption per bus was 72% lower for the electric bus in Bogota, compared with DB1,or 52% lower for equivalent FC/pax. For EB1-2 the same above savings were 81% and71% respectively.33  Costs  of  energy  in  Bogota  were,  at  the  time  of  analysis,  0.17  U$/kW  and  1.21  U$/liter  of  fuel  !"!!!!!#$%#!!!#$&#!!!#$#!!!#$(#!!!)$##!!!)$%#!!!)$&#!!*+! *+!,!-./!!"#$%&()*+,-)&+."/0-$12"/++01)! 01%! 21)! 21%!
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center   9  Figure 2.3 Fuel consumption test results in Bogota2.1.4 SantiagoTesting in Santiago comprised four buses for energy performance analysis. A diesel busused as reference (DB1), a second diesel bus fitted with particle filter and oxidationcatalyst (DB2), a parallel-hybrid bus (HB1) and a full-electric bus (EB1). There was 40%reduction of fuel consumption (FC) for HB1. This reduction goes down to 25% for HB1when fuel consumption per passenger (FC/pax) is estimated, due to its lower capacity.There was one electric bus in Santiago and, as well as in Bogota, its equivalent fuelconsumption has been estimated using two approaches. EB1-1 estimates equivalent FCconverting kWh into liters of fuel using local prices for each type of energy source. EB1-2 estimates FC converting kWh and liters into kcal of energy. For EB1-1, equivalent fuelconsumption per bus was 79% lower, compared with DB1, or 60% lower for equivalentFC/pax. For EB1-2 the same above savings were 73% and 50% respectively. Electricitycosts per kWh are lower in Santiago than in Bogota, while diesel cost per liter is similarin both cities. This distortion makes electricity more attractive in Santiago.44  Costs  of  energy  in  Santiago  were,  at  the  time  of  analysis,  0.086  U$/kW  and  1.155  U$/liter  of  fuel  !"!!!!!#$%#!!!#$&#!!!#$#!!!#$(#!!!)$##!!!)$%#!!*+! *+!,!-./!!"#$%&()*+,-)&+."/0-$12"/+01)! 21)! 21%! 31)")! 31)"%!
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center     10  Figure 2.4 Fuel consumption test results in Santiago2.2 Driving CyclesAccording to the methodology, each city participating in the Program selected one or twobus routes for conducting this testing. Each bus ran along the designated route during 10hours for Phase 1 and 25 hours for Phase 2. Phase 1 provided emissions in grams perkilometer and also emissions per VSP bins. Phase 2 provided energy consumption andalso driving dynamics recorded along the route.Several drive cycles have been created using GPS data collected in Phase 2. Each drivingcycle has two sections with the same duration, the first one corresponding to low speedconditions and the second one representing high speed operation. There is one cycle foreach bus participating in the program and, even the buses used the same route, there aredifferences in their driving behavior due to several factors such as vehicle technology,driver habits, variations in traffic conditions, and weather conditions.In order to generate emissions results that are comparable, a common driving cycle hasbeen produced combining cycles from all buses using diesel fuel (thus conventionaldiesel and hybrid buses). A VSP-Driving matrix is generated from this cycle, applyingVSP binning methodology. Combining VSP-Emissions and VSP-Driving matrices, a setof Normalized Emissions is calculated, where all buses share the same operatingconditions.Next, a summary of driving cycles for each bus and the common driving cycle used tonormalize emissions is shown.!"!!!!!#$%#!!!#$&#!!!#$#!!!#$(#!!!)$##!!!)$%#!!*+! *+!,!-./!!"#$%&()*+,-)&+."/0-$12"/+01)! 01%! 21)! 31)")! 31)"%!
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center   11  2.2.1 Rio de JaneiroFour buses were tested in Rio de Janeiro: a reference diesel (DB1-R), a new diesel modelwith modern technology (DB2-N), a parallel hybrid bus (HB1-P) and a serial hybrid bus(HB2-S).Table 2.2 Drive cycle characteristics for HB2-S in Rio de JaneiroVariableLowSpeedHigh SpeedCycle length [s] 600 600Idle [%] 52 14Operation [%] 48 86Average Speed [km/h] 3.39 22.68Average Acceleration [m/s2] 0.452 0.49Average Deceleration [m/s2] -0.34 -0.543Maximum Speed [km/h] 25.308 54.396Maximum Acceleration [m/s2] 2.33 5.03Maximum Deceleration [m/s2] -2.37 -3.04Figure 2.5 Drive Cycle for HB1-P in Rio de Janeiro2.2.2 Sao PauloFour buses were tested in Sao Paulo: a reference diesel (DB1-R), a parallel hybrid bus(HB1-P), a serial hybrid bus (HB2-S) and a conventional trolley bus (TB1).Combining driving characteristics from the above buses (one reference diesel and twohybrid vehicles) a common driving cycle has been created, which is described below.Table 2.3 Drive cycle characteristics for Sao Paulo
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center     12  VariableLowSpeedHigh SpeedCycle length [s] 240 240Idle [%] 46.25 15.42Operation [%] 53.75 84.58Average Speed [km/h] 7.037 20.866Average Acceleration [m/s2] 0.585 0.402Average Deceleration [m/s2] -0.717 -0.479Maximum Speed [km/h] 29.376 40.536Maximum Acceleration [m/s2] 1.63 3.97Maximum Deceleration [m/s2] -1.86 -4.19Figure 2.6 Common Drive Cycle for Sao Paulo2.2.3 BogotaFour buses were tested in Bogota: a reference diesel (DB1-R), two parallel hybrid buses(HB1-P and HB2-P) and a full electric bus (EB1).Combining driving characteristics from the above buses (one reference diesel and twohybrid vehicles) a common driving cycle has been created, which is described below.Table 2.4 Drive cycle characteristics for BogotaVariableLowSpeedHigh SpeedCycle length [s] 240 240Idle [%] 31.25 15.417Operation [%] 68.75 84.583Average Speed [km/h] 15.580 25.937Average Acceleration [m/s2] 0.323 0.387
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center   13  Average Deceleration [m/s2] -0.483 -0.586Maximum Speed [km/h] 33.627 47.524Maximum Acceleration [m/s2] 0.93 2.28Maximum Deceleration [m/s2] -1.7 -1.75Figure 2.7 Common Drive Cycle for Bogota2.2.4 SantiagoFour buses were tested in Santiago: a reference diesel (DB1-R), a diesel model fitted withdiesel particle filter (DB2-F), a parallel hybrid bus (HB1-P) and a full electric bus (EB1).Combining driving characteristics from the above buses (two diesel and one hybridvehicle) a common driving cycle has been created, which is described below.Table 2.5 Drive cycle characteristics for SantiagoVariableLowSpeedHigh SpeedCycle length [s] 240 240Idle [%] 44.583 18.333Operation [%] 55.417 81.667Average Speed [km/h] 7.489 21.860Average Acceleration [m/s2] 0.617 0.572Average Deceleration [m/s2] -0.649 -0.849Maximum Speed [km/h] 35.463 48.676Maximum Acceleration [m/s2] 1.36 1.2Maximum Deceleration [m/s2] -2.02 -2.43
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center     14  Figure 2.8 Common Drive Cycle for Santiago
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center   15  3 Exhaust Emissions and Energy ConsumptionThis chapter describes exhaust emissions and energy consumption results, based on themethodology used in this project. As a first step for measuring emissions, each bus wastested for around 10 hours with Portable Emissions Measurement Systems (PEMS). Thisstage is defined as Phase 1 and two important results were obtained from here: 1) RawAverage Emissions (Section 3.1) and 2) Emissions by Energy Demand or VehicleSpecific Power (Section 3.2).Raw Average Emissions correspond to a direct result of exhaust emissions in grams perkilometre, but since the bus is under certain operational restrictions due to the equipmentinstalled in the interior, these emissions are not totally representative of the same bus innormal operations. To overcome this issue, emissions are recorded at 1Hz frequency,allowing the correlation of driving behaviour with instant emissions (second by second).This frequency for measuring and collecting data allows the calculation of emissions byvehicle energy demand.Thus, emissions in terms of Energy Demand or by Vehicle Specific Power (VSP) areobtained in grams per second according to different energy bins. With this binningdistribution analysis, emissions can be matched to specific situations such as idling,braking or accelerating. In addition, this methodology allows estimating emissions forany driving pattern of the city. Thus, emissions can be modelled in different routes fromtheir representative driving patterns.Simultaneously, in Phase 2 each bus was tested in real traffic conditions, for 25 hours forone week. This Phase has two main products: 1) Fuel Efficiency and 2) Driving CycleDevelopment. Both results are obtained under real world conditions on a representativeroute defined by a local team in each city.Adding all driving results for all buses in each city, a common cycle was developed. Thiscycle has the distinction of representing a normalized driving behaviour. Each overallcycle included data recorded from 75 to 100 hours (270,000 to 360,000 seconds) of realconditions on a representative route.Finally, emissions by VSP and the common cycle of each city are processed together toobtain Normalized Emissions (Section 3.3). These emissions are comparable consideringthat each bus emissions are evaluated under the same driving pattern or drivingbehaviour.3.1 Overall raw emissions resultsThe following section describes exhaust tailpipe emissions and fuel consumptionperformed by each bus tested in Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Bogota and Santiago. Theseresults are directly taken from Phase 1 and are considered raw results.
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center     16  Different bus technologies were tested for emissions measurement and their designationfor the analysis below are the following:Table 3.1 Bus acronym and descriptionID BUS DESCRIPTIONDB1-R Diesel Bus Reference tested in each cityDB2-FDiesel Bus with particulate Filter testedonly in SantiagoDB2-ADiesel Bus Articulated tested only in SaoPauloHB1-PHB2-PHybrid Bus Parallel configurationHB2-S Hybrid Bus Serial configurationRegarding fuel consumption (FC), raw results are included in accordance with the testingphase where they were obtained. Fuel consumption measurements under emissionstesting methodology (Phase 1) are designed as FC Ph1.3.1.1 Rio de JaneiroThe first city were tests were performed was Rio de Janeiro. Table 3.2 shows raw resultsperformed by buses in Rio de Janeiro for emissions and fuel consumption.Table 3.2 Raw results of emissions and fuel consumption, Rio de JaneiroID BUSTHC(g/km)CO(g/km)NOx(g/km)CO2(g/km)PM1.5(g/km)FC Ph1[L/100km]DB1-R 0.12 5.46 10.07 1,073.4 0.10 39.37HB1-P 0.04 1.06 5.19 891.6 0.03 32.79HB2-S - 6.39 12.52 1,776.2 0.22 58.82In general, HB1-P performed with lower emissions rates (g/km) than DB1-R an averageemission reduction was 58%, considering all pollutants measured. The greatest emissionreduction result was for CO with 81%.Regarding NOx and PM1.5 in HB1-P, emission rates reached 5.19 (g/km) and 0.03(g/km), which is equivalent to a reduction of 48% for NOx and 74% for PM1.5.CO2 emissions were 1,073 (g/km) and 891.6 (g/km) for DB1-R and HB1-P, respectively,and equivalent HB1-P emission reduction was 17% with respect to DB1-R. Results for
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center   17  fuel consumption (L/100km) in HB1-P running under Phase 1 methodology were 17%lower than DB-R.In case of HB2-S tested in Rio de Janeiro, in general, it performed with higher emissionsrates (g/km) than DB1-R and average emission increase was 57%, considering allpollutants measured.Figure 3.1 shows the difference between diesel reference bus (DB1-R) and hybrid busestested in Rio de Janeiro, where raw results have been compared in terms of DB1-Remissions and fuel consumption results (DB1-R is 1).Figure 3.1 Raw results normalized in comparison with DB1-R in Rio de Janeiro3.1.2 Sao PauloFollowing Rio de Janeiro, the second city where tests were performed was Sao Paulo. Inaddition to the buses tested during the first campaign, a serial hybrid bus was measuredduring the second campaign. Table 3.3 shows raw results performed by all buses tested inSao Paulo for emissions and fuel consumption.Table 3.3 Raw results of emissions and fuel consumption, Sao PauloID BUSTHC(g/km)CO(g/km)NOx(g/km)CO2(g/km)PM1.5(g/km)FC Ph1[L/100km]DB1-R 0.19 8.83 13.52 1,442.1 0.32 53.45DB2-A 5.85 13.76 1,655.8 0.18 61.21HB1-P 0.08 1.02 7.38 995.3 0.10 35.88HB2-S 1.86 7.19 1,265.2 47.440.000.501.001.502.002.50THC CO NOx CO2 PM1.5 FC-Ph1RawEmissionsDB1-R HB1-P HB2-S
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center     18  Hybrid buses, both parallel and serial configuration, performed with lower emissionsrates (g/km) than DB1-R. Average emission reductions were, 58% and 46% for HB1-Pand HB2-S5, respectively. The greatest emission reduction results were in CO with 88%for HB1-P and 79% for HB-S.Regarding NOx in hybrid technology, HB1-P and HB2-S emissions rates reached 7.38(g/km) and 7.19 (g/km), which is equivalent to 45% and 47% emission reduction withrespect to DB1-R bus, respectively.In case of HB1-P, emissions reduction for PM1.5 was 70% lower than DB1-R bus andabsolute values were 0.10 (g/km) for HB1-P and 0.32 (g/km) for DB1-R.CO2 emissions were 1,442 (g/km), 995.3 (g/km) and 1,265 (g/km) for DB1-R, HB1-P andHB2-S, respectively, and equivalent HB1-P and HB2-S emission reductions were 31%and 12% with respect to DB1-R.Results for fuel consumption (L/100km) in HB1-P and HB2-S running under Phase 1methodology were 33% and 11% lower than DB1-R bus, respectively.An articulated diesel bus DB2-A was tested in Sao Paulo which performed with higherNOx and CO2 emissions rates than DB1-R with 2% and 15% of increment, respectively.On the other hand, DB2-A results for CO and PM1.5 emissions were lower than DB1-Rbus with 34% and 44% reductions, respectively.Figure 3.2 shows differences between diesel reference bus (DB1-R), hybrid buses and thearticulated diesel bus (DB2-A) tested in Sao Paulo, where raw results have beennormalized in terms of DB1-R emissions and fuel consumption results.5  There  are  no  THC  and  PM1.5  measurements  for  HB1-­‐S  in  Sao  Paulo  
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center   19  Figure 3.2 Raw results normalized in terms of DB-R in Sao Paulo3.1.3 BogotaThe third campaign of the Program was performed in Bogotá, Colombia. Four buses weretested, a reference diesel bus, 2 hybrid buses and 1 full electric bus. Only results for thebuses with an internal combustion engine are analysed in this subsection. Table 3.4 showsraw results performed by buses in Bogota for emissions and fuel consumption.Table 3.4 Raw results of emissions and fuel consumption, BogotaID BUSTHC(g/km)CO(g/km)NOx(g/km)CO2(g/km)PM1.5(g/km)FC Ph1[L/100km]DB1-R 0.53 6.40 12.19 1,011.0 0.066 37.66HB1-P 0.03 2.64 1.70 796.6 0.021 29.94HB2-P 0.03 3.95 6.07 890.7 0.019 33.58In general, both HB-P buses performed with lower emissions rates (g/km) than DB1-Rand average emission reduction was 59%, considering all pollutants measured in bothhybrid buses: HB1-P and HB2-P. The greatest emission reduction results were in THCwith 94% for HB1-P and 95% for HB2-P.Regarding NOx in hybrid technology, HB1-P and HB2-P emissions rates reached 1.70(g/km) and 6.07 (g/km), which is equivalent to 86% and 50% emission reduction withrespect to DB-R, respectively.Emissions reductions for PM1.5 were 68% (HB1-P) and 71% (HB2-P) in comparison withDB1-R and absolute values were 0.021 (g/km) for HB1-P, 0.019 (g/km) for HB2-P and0.066 (g/km) for DB1-R.0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.40THC CO NOx CO2 PM1.5 FC-Ph1RawEmissionsDB1-R DB2-A HB1-P HB2-S
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center     20  CO2 emissions were 1,011 (g/km), 796.6 (g/km) and 890.7 (g/km) for DB1-R, HB1-P andHB2-P, respectively, and equivalent HB1-P bus and HB2-P emission reductions were21% and 12% with respect to DB-R bus.Results for fuel consumption (L/100km) in HB1-P and HB2-P running under Phase 1methodology were 20% and 11% lower than DB1-R, respectively.Figure 3.3 shows difference between diesel reference bus (DB1-R) and hybrid busestested in Bogota, where raw results have been normalized in terms of DB1-R emissionsand fuel consumption results.Figure 3.3 Raw results normalized in terms of DB1-R in Bogota3.1.4 SantiagoThe last city where tests were performed was Santiago, Chile. In Santiago, 4 buses weretested. Once again only the internal combustion engines buses are analysed in this subsection. In Santiago, a diesel bus equipped with a particle filter was tested and comparedagainst the hybrid bus, Table 3.5 shows raw results performed by bus in Santiago foremissions and fuel consumption.Table 3.5 Raw results of emissions and fuel consumption, SantiagoID BUSTHC(g/km)CO(g/km)NOx(g/km)CO2(g/km)PM1.5(g/km)FC Ph1[L/100km]DB1-R 0.10 13.32 12.76 1,030.6 0.029 38.92DB2-F 0.02 1.84 15.44 956.9 0.001 36.00HB1-P 0.03 0.37 2.55 667.4 0.007 25.210.000.200.400.600.801.001.20THC CO NOx CO2 PM1.5 FC-Ph1RawEmissionsDB1-R HB1-P HB2-P
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center   21  In general, HB1-P produced lower emissions rates (g/km) than DB1-R and averageemission reduction was 72%, considering all pollutants measured. The greatest emissionreduction result was in CO with 97%.Regarding NOx and PM1.5, HB1-P, emissions rates reached 2.55 (g/km) and 0.007(g/km), which is equivalent to 80% and 76% emission reduction with respect to the DB1-R bus, respectively.CO2 emissions were 1,030 (g/km) and 667.4 (g/km) for DB1-R and HB1-P, respectively,and the equivalent HB1-P bus emission reduction was 35% with respect to DB1-R.Results for fuel consumption (L/100km) in HB1-P running under Phase 1 methodologywere 35% lower than DB-R bus.DB2-F, a diesel bus equipped with a Diesel Particle Filter was tested in Santiago, whichoperates with lower emissions rates than DB1-R bus in all pollutants with exception ofNOx. PM1.5 emission reduction was 97% and reached 0.001 (g/km). However, NOxemissions increased 21% and reached 15.44 (g/km). Regarding CO2 emissions, DB2-Freduced 7% with respect to DB1-R, equivalent to 956.9 (g/km).Figure 3.1 shows differences between diesel reference bus (DB1-R) and hybrid busestested in Santiago, where raw results have been normalized in terms of DB1-R emissionsand fuel consumption results.Figure 3.4 Raw results normalized in terms of DB1-R in Santiago0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.40THC CO NOx CO2 PM1.5 FC-Ph1RawEmissionsDB1-R DB2-F HB1-P
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center     22  3.2 Emissions by Energy Demand Situations per CityAs previously mentioned in this report, important sets of results from this study areemissions per unit energy demand. These types of results are only possible using highfrequency reading equipment on a real world testing procedure. The importance of thisapproach is based on the versatility to use it in future applications, allowing comparisonsof technology behavior under different energy demand situations and the possibility togive recommendations on how to optimize engines or even drivers during bus operation.Emissions by energy demand or by Vehicle Specific Power (VSP) are widely used in theUSEPA to make comparisons between technologies. On the appendix of each city reportVSP methodology is explained in detail and should be reviewed to better understand thefollowing results. In this case the VSP methodology used is according to the IVE modelmethodology (www.issrc.org/ive).In the following subsections, emissions by VSP per city are compared and analyzed.3.2.1 Rio de JaneiroIn Rio de Janeiro, the first field campaign, four buses were tested: a diesel reference bus(DB1-R), a new diesel euro 3 bus (not included in the analysis because it lacks the testingminimum time) and two hybrid buses, a parallel hybrid (HB1-P) and a serial hybrid(HB2-S).On the following graphs, emissions results by Vehicle Specific Power Bins (9 to 14) for 3buses are shown. Each Bin represents a comparable energy demand situation. Bins 9 to10 represent decelerating conditions, Bin 11 near idling conditions and Bin 12 to 14accelerating conditions.On the first graph, CO2 emissions are compared for DB1-R and HB1-P. CO2 emissionsare comparable for almost every VSP Bin, a noticeable difference appears in Bin 12where HB1-P shows a 13% reduction against DB1-R. Bin 12 is the first energy situationafter idling, and normally a high percentage of the driving is made under this situation,this difference explains a possible overall CO2 emissions reduction.Since HB2-S is a serial hybrid6, it shows a totally different emissions pattern. Basically,under any energy situation emissions stay constant. For VSP Bins 9 to 11 emissions aremore than double DB1-R emissions. This result explains high overall CO2 for this bus,considering that most of the driving is made under VSP Bin 11.6  In  serial  configurations  the  internal  combustion  engine  is  used  at  constant  rpm  as  a  generator  to  charge  the  batteries  
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center   23  Figure 3.5. CO2 per VSP-Bin Rio de JaneiroFor NOX emissions, VSP analysis shows the difference between technologies. DB1-Rand HB1-P follow the same pattern, increasing emissions by increasing VSP Bin with avery different rate. HB1-P reaches its maximum value on Bin 13 at 0,05 g/sec, DB1-Rreaches its maximum in Bin 14 at 0,18 [g/sec], on Bin 14 HB1-P NOX emissionreductions is 87% versus DB1-R. In general terms, HB2-S shows the same behaviour asexpected, with almost the same emissions for every VSP Bin, even though emissions onBins 9 to 11 are still higher than DB1-R.0510152025BIN 9 BIN 10 BIN 11 BIN 12 BIN 13 BIN 14CO2[g/s]DB1-RHB1-PHB2-S
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center     24  Figure 3.6. NOx per VSP-Bin Rio de JaneiroAverage PM1.5 emissions have a different tendency than other pollutants; HB1-Pemissions are the lowest for every VSP Bin, with a maximum of 77% reduction overDB1-R in Bin 11.HB2-S reported the highest emissions; on average for all Bins HB2-S is 33% higher thanDB1-R. The VSP Bin with the highest difference is Bin 11 with 117% more PM1.5emissions than DB1-R, normally this VSP Bin is the one with most time percentage inurban driving.0.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.160.180.20BIN 9 BIN 10 BIN 11 BIN 12 BIN 13 BIN 14NOx[g/s]DB1-RHB1-PHB2-S
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center   25  Figure 3.7. PM1.5 per VSP-Bin Rio de Janeiro3.2.2 Sao PauloThe second city where the tests were performed was Sao Paulo. Four buses were tested intwo rounds: a reference diesel bus (DB1-R), an articulated diesel bus (DB2-A) and twohybrids, a parallel hybrid bus (HB1-P) and a serial hybrid bus (HB2-S). The next graphsshow emissions in grams per second by energy demand (VSP Bins), this methodology isused according to the International Vehicle Emission (IVE) model, as mention previouslyin this report: Bin 11 represents energy demand near idling, Bin 9 and 10 representenergy demand when the vehicle is decelerating and Bin 12 to 14 represent energydemand when the vehicle is accelerating.In the case of CO2 emissions, there is an increase for all buses when the energy demandincreases as expected, from Bin 9 to 11 all buses show comparable results, except forHB2-S showing high emissions for lower VSP Bins, this high emissions on lower energysituations are related with the HB2-S configuration, this bus is a series hybrid whichmeans that the internal combustion engine is always running, normally charging batteries.This can result in high emissions when the bus is idling or decelerating.From Bin 11 differences appear between buses. For HB1-P emissions are 25% lower andfor HB2-S are 5% higher. In Bin 12 HB1-P shows a 31% reduction and HB2-S shows a27% reduction for the same energy situation. For Bin 13 HB1-P shows a reduction of16% and for Bin 14 it shows no reduction against DB1-R, HB2-S shows 53% reductionfor Bin 13 and 52% for Bin 14.00.00020.00040.00060.00080.0010.00120.00140.0016BIN 9 BIN 10 BIN 11 BIN 12 BIN 13 BIN 14PM1.5[g/s]DB1-RHB1-PHB2-S
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center     26  DB2-A emissions are almost the same that DB1-R for Bins 9 to 11, while for VSP-Bins12 and 13 emissions are 21% and 18% higher than DB1-R respectively.Figure 3.8. CO2 per VSP-Bin Sao PauloWith respect to NOx emissions, energy demand analysis shows that the differencebetween technologies, DB1-R, HB1-P and HB2-S, follow the same pattern, increasingemissions by increasing VSP Bin number, however the rates are different. It is noticeablethat HB2-S being a series hybrid is showing a similar pattern, this is possible consideringthat the bus regulating RPM of the engines under load conditions.While HB1-P reaches its maximum value on Bin 14 at 0.13 g/sec, DB1-R reaches itsmaximum also in Bin 14 at 0.18 [g/sec]; this means a reduction of 31% for NOxemissions at the maximum level. HB2-S is below both results, reaching a maximum of0.07 g/sec on Bin 14, which indicates a 59% emissions reduction against DB1-R for themaximum level.Interesting enough, DB2-A NOX emissions are lower than DB1-R emissions, for Bins 12and 13, and for the rest of the Bins DB2-A emissions are very comparable between eachother.051015202530BIN 9 BIN 10 BIN 11 BIN 12 BIN 13 BIN 14CO2[g/s]DB1-RDB2-AHB1-PHB2-S
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center   27  Figure 3.9. NOx per VSP-Bin Sao PauloPM1.5 emissions per VSP-Bin show important differences between DB1-R, DB2-A andHB1-P7, DB1-R is the dirtiest one for almost every energy demand situation while HB1-Pis the lowest. In average, PM1.5 emissions reductions are 68% for all VSP Bin, in BIN 13the main gap appears with a difference of 72% between DB1 and HB1-P. DB2-A shows a28% average PM1.5 reduction for all VSP Bins in comparison with DB1-R, althoughDB1-R is a smaller bus, this fact is explained due to DB2-A electronic which is moreadvance than DB1-R.7  HB2-­‐S  PM1.5  emissions  were  not  measure  due  to  PM  equipment  problems.  00.050.10.150.20.25BIN 9 BIN 10 BIN 11 BIN 12 BIN 13 BIN 14NOX[g/s]DB1-RDB2-AHB1-PHB2-S
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center     28  Figure 3.10. PM1.5 per VSP-Bin Sao Paulo3.2.3 BogotaIn Bogota, Colombia, once again four buses were tested, a diesel reference bus (DB1-R),two Parallel hybrids buses (HB1-P and HB2-P) and a Full Electric Bus (EB1).The following graphs show emissions in grams per second divided by energy demand(VSP Bins), this methodology is used according to the IVE model and is highlyrecommended to read the Annex related with this methodology on the report to betterunderstand this section results. Basically, Bin 11 represents energy demand near idling,Bin 9 and 10 represent energy demand when the vehicle is slowing down and Bin 12 to14 represent energy demand when the vehicle is accelerating.With respect to CO2 emissions, it is interesting how for all buses there is a similar trendwhen energy demand increases as expected, from Bin 9 to 10 all buses show verycomparable results. From Bin 11 differences appear between buses, for HB1-P emissionsare 35% lower and for HB2-P the reduction is 11% in comparison with HB2-P. In Bin 12HB1-P shows a 19% reduction and HB2 shows a 31% reduction for the same energysituation, once again respect DB1-R. For Bin 13 and 14 HB1-P shows little or nonreduction against DB1-P, HB2 shows 20% reduction for Bin 13 and 11% for Bin 14.Normally, the most of the time for urban conditions is spent in Bin 11; this is why HB1-Pstill may have an advantage over HB2-P although on the rest of the energy situations CO2emissions are higher.00.00050.0010.00150.0020.00250.0030.00350.0040.0045BIN 9 BIN 10 BIN 11 BIN 12 BIN 13 BIN 14PM1.5[g/s]DB1-RDB2-AHB1-P
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center   29  Figure 3.11. CO2 per VSP-Bin BogotáFor NOx emissions, energy demand analysis shows the difference between technologiesonce again in Bogota’s altitude (2600 mt). Emissions from DB1-R, HB1-P and HB2-Pfollow the same pattern, increasing by increasing Bin number and once again rates arevery different. While HB1-P reaches its maximum value in Bin 14 at 0.026 g/sec, DB1reaches its maximum in Bin 14 at 0.23 [g/sec], meaning there is a reduction of 93% inNOx emissions at the maximum level. On average, NOx reductions for all VSP Bins are78% for HB1-P compared with DB1-R.HB2-P is in between both results, reaching a maximum of 0.095 g/sec on Bin 14, whichindicates a 58% emissions reduction against DB1 for the maximum level. On average,NOx reduction for all VSP Bins is 37% for HB2-P compared with DB1-R.0510152025BIN 9 BIN 10 BIN 11 BIN 12 BIN 13 BIN 14CO2[g/s]DB1-RHB1-PHB2-P
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center     30  Figure 3.12. NOx per VSP-Bin BogotáPM emissions per Bin show important differences between the standard bus and hybridsbuses, DB1-R is dirtier for almost every energy demand situation than both hybridsbuses. On Bin 14 the main gap appears with a difference of 86% between DB1 and HB1.HB2 shows a difference of 83%, both hybrids shows very comparable results. In average,reduction from both hybrids is 64% compared with DB1-R.00.050.10.150.20.25BIN 9 BIN 10 BIN 11 BIN 12 BIN 13 BIN 14NOx[g/s]DB1-RHB1-PHB2
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center   31  Figure 3.13. PM1.5 per VSP-Bin Bogotá3.2.4 SantiagoThe last campaign was performed in Santiago, Chile, once again four buses were tested, areference diesel bus (DB1-R), a diesel equipped with diesel particle filter (DB2-F), ahybrid bus (HB1-P) and a Full Electric Bus (EB1). This last bus was not reported in thissection due to obvious reasons.The next images show emissions in grams per second classified by energy demand(Bins), as in rest of the program this methodology is used according to the IVE model8. Interms of driving dynamic Bin 11 represents energy demand near idling, Bin 9 and 10represent energy demand when the vehicle is decelerating and Bin 12 to 14 representenergy demand when the vehicle is accelerating.Analyzing CO2 emissions, the increase for all buses when the energy demand increases isconsistent with other cities. From Bin 9 to 11 results show higher emissions for DB2-Fand important differences appear from Bin 12 where DB1 shows higher emissions.Comparing DB1-R against DB2-F, CO2 emissions results are close as expected. For Bin11 and Bin 14 DB2-F is higher by 7% and 11%. DB2 shows lower emissions on Bins 12and 13 by 11% and 12%.Comparing HB1-P against DB1-R emissions for HB1 emissions are lower for all energysituations, from 68% on Bin 10 to 20% on Bin 14%. In average emissions reduction fromHB1-P to DB1-R is 45%.8  www.issrc.org  00.00050.0010.00150.0020.00250.0030.0035BIN 9 BIN 10 BIN 11 BIN 12 BIN 13 BIN 14PM1.5[g/s]DB1-RHB1-PHB2-P
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center     32  Figure 3.14. CO2 per VSP-Bin SantiagoIn the case of NOX emissions, energy demand analysis explain the differences betweentechnologies, DB1-R, DB2-F and HB1-P follow the same pattern, increasing emissionsby increasing Bin number, and as seen during the entire program rates are different onceagain.HB1-P emissions reaches its maximum value in Bin 14 at 0.049 g/sec, in the same BinDB1-R reaches its maximum at 0.29 [g/sec] and DB2-F reaches its maximum in Bin 14 at0.31 [g/sec] meaning there is a reduction of 83% for NOX emissions at the maximumlevel from DB1-R compared to HB1-P. In averaged, there is 59% reduction for all Binswhen comparing HB1-P to DB1-R.DB2-F shows an increase of NOx emissions against DB1-R of 21% from Bin 11 to Bin14, this can be explained by the effect of the Diesel Particle Filter (DPF) counter-pressureon the engine. In fact, looking at average results, NOx emissions are the only pollutantwhere DB2-F show higher emissions compare with the reference bus (DB1-R).05101520253035BIN 9 BIN 10 BIN 11 BIN 12 BIN 13 BIN 14CO2[g/s]DB1-RDB2-FHB1-P
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center   33  Figure 3.15. NOx per VSP-Bin SantiagoSantiago’s PM1.5 emissions per Bin provide an important technology comparison to theprogram: a diesel bus equipped with a diesel particle filter (DB2-F). In addition, Santiagohas the cleaner diesel in the program, less than 50 ppm of sulfur.As expected, DB1-R is dirtier for every energy demand situation. HB1-P shows anemissions reduction of 72% in average for all Bins compared to DB1-R, main differenceappear in Bin 10 with 85% reduction.The cleanest bus is DB2-F showing the lowest PM1.5 emissions, in average emissionsreduction for all Bin situations reaches a 96% with emissions reductions from 91% onBin 14 to 98% on Bin 10. This results show the high efficiency of diesel particle filters.0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.35BIN 9 BIN 10 BIN 11 BIN 12 BIN 13 BIN 14NOx[g/s]DB1-RDB2-FHB1-P
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center     34  Figure 3.16. PM1.5 per VSP-Bin Santiago3.3 Normalized Emissions ResultsFinally, to directly compare average emissions results under the same driving pattern ordriving behavior, normalized emissions are calculated. These emissions are calculatedcombining Phase 1 results with Phase 2 driving behavior results through vehicle specificpower binning methodology, to evaluate every bus of each city under the same drivingpattern represented by the over all driving cycle of a given city.In summary, with the GPS data collected in Phase 2 a representative driving cycle wasdeveloped for each city (see Chapter 3), this driving cycle include driving behavior, busesdynamics and traffics factor conditions that allows to normalized emissions by city.On the following sections normalized emissions are compared.3.3.1 Rio de JaneiroAs mentioned previously in this report, Rio de Janeiro was the first city to be tested;Table 3.2 shows raw results performed by bus in Rio de Janeiro for emissions and fuelconsumption.00.00010.00020.00030.00040.00050.0006BIN 9 BIN 10 BIN 11 BIN 12 BIN 13 BIN 14PM1.5[g/s]DB1-RDB2-FHB1-P
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center   35  Table 3.6 Normalized results of emissions and fuel consumption, Rio de JaneiroID BUSTHC(g/km)CO(g/km)NOx(g/km)CO2(g/km)PM1.5(g/km)FC Ph1[L/100km]FC Ph2[L/100km]DB1-R 0.13 6.23 11.32 1,230 0.13 46.67 33.33HB1-P 0.07 1.47 5.89 1,243 0.06 47.14 30.03HB2-S - 5.79 11.50 1,693 0.21 64.24 50.25In summary, HB1-P performed with lower normalized emissions rates (g/km) than DB-Rand average emission reduction was 46%, considering all pollutants measured. Thegreatest emission reduction result was in CO with 76%. In general, normalized emissionsincrease unitary emissions for most of the pollutants in HB1-P.Regarding NOx and PM1.5 in HB1-P, emissions normalized rates reached 5.89 (g/km) and0.06 (g/km), which is equivalent to 48% and 56% emission reduction with respect toDB1-R bus, respectively.Normalized CO2 emissions were 1,230 (g/km) and 1,243 (g/km) for DB1-R bus andHB1-P bus, respectively; these results correspond to no reduction between HB1-P withrespect to DB1-R bus. Results for fuel consumption (L/100km) in HB-P running underPhase 2 was 10% lower than DB-R bus.In the case of HB-S bus tested in Rio de Janeiro, in general, it performed with highernormalized emissions rates (g/km) than DB1-R bus and average emission increment was24%, considering all pollutants9measured. This result is better than raw emissions wherethe difference was 57% on average increase emissions over DB1-R.Figure 3.1 shows difference between diesel reference bus (DB-R) and hybrid buses testedin Rio de Janeiro, where raw results have been normalized in terms of DB-R emissionsand fuel consumption results.9  There  is  no  THC  measurement  for  HB-­‐S  in  Rio  de  Janeiro  
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center     36  Figure 3.17 Normalized results normalized in terms of DB-R in Rio de Janeiro3.3.2 Sao PauloAs mention before in this chapter, the second city were the tests were performed was SaoPaulo; in a second campaign, emissions from a serial hybrid bus were added to thecampaign analysis. Table 3.3 shows raw results performed by buses in Sao Paulo foremissions and fuel consumption.Table 3.7 Normalized results of emissions and fuel consumption, Sao PauloID BUSTHC(g/km)CO(g/km)NOx(g/km)CO2(g/km)PM1.5(g/km)FC Ph1[L/100km]FC Ph2[L/100km]DB1-R 0.174 7.91 12.33 1,363 0.28 51.73 65.23DB2-A 0.156 6.16 12.77 1,584 0.10 60.09 75.43HB1-P 0.082 1.06 7.12 1,063 0.09 40.34 37.92HB2-S - 1.74 6.45 1,112 - 42.19 51.03Hybrid buses, both parallel and serial configuration, produce lower normalized emissionsrates (g/km) than DB1-R and average emission reductions were, considering allpollutants measured, 54% and 48% for HB1-P and HB2-S10, respectively. The greatestemission reduction results were in CO with 87% for HB1-P and 78% for HB2-S.Regarding NOX in hybrid technology, HB1-P and HB2-S normalized emissions ratesreached 7.12 (g/km) and 6.45 (g/km), which is equivalent to 42% and 48% emissionreduction with respect to DB1-R, respectively.In case of HB1-P, emissions reduction for PM1.5 was 67% lower than DB1-R bus andabsolute values were 0.09 (g/km) for HB1-P bus and 0.28 (g/km) for DB1-R bus.10  There  are  no  THC  and  PM1.5  measurements  for  HB-­‐S  in  Sao  Paulo  0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.601.80THC CO NOx CO2 PM1.5 FC-Ph1 FC-Ph2NormalizedEmissionsDB1-R HB1-P HB2-S
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center   37  Normalized CO2 emissions were 1,363 (g/km), 1,063 (g/km) and 1,112 (g/km) for DB1-Rbus, HB1-P bus and HB2-S bus, respectively, and equivalent HB1-P bus and HB2-Semission reductions were 22% and 18% with respect to DB1-R bus.Results for fuel consumption (L/100km) in Phase 2, HB1-P and HB1-S results were 42%and 22% lower than DB1-R bus.An articulated diesel bus DB2-A was tested in Sao Paulo, which produces higher NOxand CO2, normalized emissions rates than DB1-R bus with 4% and 16% of increment,respectively. On the other hand, DB2-A normalized results for CO and PM1.5 emissionswere lower than DB1-R bus with 22% and 62% of reduction, respectivelyFigure 3.2 shows difference between diesel reference bus (DB1-R), hybrid buses (HB1-Pand HB2-S) and articulated diesel bus (DB2-A) tested in Sao Paulo, where raw resultshave been normalized in terms of DB1-R emissions and fuel consumption results.Figure 3.18 Normalized results normalized in terms of DB-R in Sao Paulo3.3.3 BogotaAs mentioned before, the first campaign after Brazil was performed in Bogotá, Colombia,4 buses were tested, a reference diesel bus (DB1-R), 2 hybrid buses (HB1-P and HB2-P)and 1 full electric bus (EB). Table 3.8 shows raw results performed by bus in Bogota foremissions and fuel consumption.Table 3.8 Normalized results of emissions and fuel consumption, BogotaID BUSTHC(g/km)CO(g/km)NOx(g/km)CO2(g/km)PM1.5(g/km)FC Ph1[L/100km]FC Ph2[L/100km]DB1-R 0.64 7.74 14.80 1,212 0.075 45.98 50.490.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.40THC CO NOx CO2 PM1.5 FC-Ph1 FC-Ph2NormalizedEmissionsDB1-R DB2-A HB1-P HB2-S
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center     38  HB1-P 0.04 3.34 2.05 967 0.027 36.69 33.57HB2-P 0.02 3.90 5.96 907 0.020 34.39 34.46As in previous cities, HB1-P buses produces lower normalized emissions rates (g/km)than DB1-R bus and average emission reduction was 63%, considering all pollutantsmeasured in both hybrid buses: HB1-P and HB2-P. The greatest emission reductionresults were in THC with 94% for HB1-P and 97% for HB2-P.Regarding normalized NOX in hybrid technology, HB1-P and HB2-P emissions ratesreached 2.05 (g/km) and 5.96 (g/km), which is equivalent to 86% and 60% emissionreduction with respect to DB1-R bus, respectively.Normalized emissions reductions for PM1.5 were 64% (HB1-P) and 73% (HB2-P) lowerthan DB-R bus and absolute values were 0.027 (g/km) for HB1-P, 0.020 (g/km) for HB2-P and 0.075 (g/km) for DB1-R.CO2 normalized emissions were 1,212 (g/km), 967 (g/km) and 907 (g/km) for DB1-Rbus, HB1-P bus and HB2-P bus, respectively, and equivalent HB1-P bus and HB2-Pemission reductions were 20% and 25% with respect to the DB1-R bus. This result is oneof the unique results where normalized emissions show increased reductions. In this case,HB2-P increases its reduction by 13% (it was only 12% in the case of raw emissions)over raw results. This is possible considering that emissions per VSP Bin (Section 3.2.3)for HB2-P are lower than HB1-S for VSP-Bin 12 and 13. The normalized cycle isexpending more time under this situation than the raw driving pattern.Results for fuel consumption (L/100km) in HB1-P and HB2-P results for Phase 2 were34% and 32% lower than DB1-R bus.Figure 3.3 shows differences between diesel reference bus (DB1-R) and hybrid busestested in Bogota, where raw results have been normalized in terms of DB1-R emissionsand fuel consumption results.
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center   39  Figure 3.19 Normalized results normalized in terms of DB-R in Bogota3.3.4 SantiagoAs mention before in this report, Santiago, Chile was the last city where tests wereperformed. In Santiago 4 buses were tested, once again only the buses with internalcombustion engines are analysed in this sub section. In Santiago, a diesel bus equippedwith a Diesel Particle Filter was tested and compared with the Hybrid bus. Table 3.9shows raw results performed by bus in Santiago for emissions and fuel consumption.Table 3.9 Normalized results of emissions and fuel consumption, SantiagoID BUSTHC(g/km)CO(g/km)NOx(g/km)CO2(g/km)PM1.5(g/km)FC Ph1[L/100km]FC Ph2[L/100km]DB1-R 0.19 22.03 22.03 1,756 0.056 66.61 55.95DB2-F 0.04 3.56 26.67 1,659 0.001 62.94 59.06HB1-P 0.05 0.60 4.14 1,128 0.013 42.80 33.56Once again, HB1-P normalized emissions rates (g/km) were lower than DB1-Rnormalized emissions rates. The average emission reduction was 73%, considering allpollutants measured. The greatest emission reduction result was for CO with a 97%reduction.With respect to normalized NOx and PM1.5 emissions for HB1-P, emissions ratesreached 4.14 (g/km) and 0.013 (g/km), which is equivalent to 81% and 78% emissionreduction with respect to DB1-R, respectively.Normalized CO2 emissions were 1,756 (g/km) and 1,128 (g/km) for DB1-R bus andHB1-P bus, respectively, and equivalent HB1-P bus emission reduction was 36% with0.000.200.400.600.801.001.20THC CO NOx CO2 PM1.5 FC-Ph1 FC-Ph2NormalizedEmissionsDB1-R HB1-P HB2-P
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center     40  respect to DB1-R bus. Results for fuel consumption (L/100km) in HB1-P running underPhase 1 methodology were 35% lower than DB1-R bus. Analogue HB1-P result forPhase 2 was 40% lower than DB1-R bus.A diesel bus with particulate filter DB-R was tested in Santiago, which produces lessemission rates than DB1-R bus in all pollutants with exception of NOX. PM1.5 emissionreduction was 98% and reached 0.001 (g/km). However, NOX emissions increased 21%and reached 26.67 (g/km). Regarding CO2 emissions, DB1-F reduced 6% with respect toDB-R, equivalent to 1,659 (g/km).Figure 3.1 shows difference between diesel reference bus (DB-R) and hybrid buses testedin Rio de Janeiro, where raw results have been normalized in terms of DB-R emissionsand fuel consumption results.Figure 3.20 Normalized results normalized in terms of DB-R in Santiago0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.40THC CO NOx CO2 PM1.5 FC-Ph1 FC-Ph2NormalizedEmissionsDB1-R DB2-F HB1-P
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center   41  4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONSThe Program involved 16 buses undergoing 30 hours of testing under real-world drivingconditions, for emissions and energy consumption, running along bus routes defined byeach participating city’s local authority and transport operators. Pioneering busmanufacturers, made buses available to the C40-CCI team for testing. Bus testingcomprised different hybrid (diesel/electric) and full electric vehicles, compared against adiesel bus (reference case). Following detailed planning, ISSRC group took on the testingin each city.Three main testing components were measured to assess bus performance:i. Direct exhaust emissionsii. Fuel and energy consumptioniii. Role of drivers, routes, topography and altitudeThe Program received the support of local bus operators and representatives in each city.Bus routes were identified by common agreement among the relevant representatives,and based on criteria such as specific local policies, normal operating conditions forpublic transport services, topography and maximum coverage of the main urban area.Tests were carried out under normal operating conditions at maximum loading capacityusing simulated weights.The results from the technical phase of the Program show that adoption of hybrid busescould reduce CO2 emissions by up to 35% (26% on average) compared to the referencediesel buses. Average reductions in local emissions of between 60-80% were achieved,alongside a 30% reduction in fuel consumption. Electric buses emit almost no localemissions and offer up to 77% reduction in energy consumption based on electricitycompared with diesel.4.1 Exhaust EmissionsThe Program tested several emissions components for diesel-only and hybrid diesel-electric buses (full electric buses are not included in this analysis since this technologyhas zero direct exhaust pipe emissions). Results varied by city, as described below, but inall cases emissions performance was higher for parallel hybrid buses than traditionaldiesel buses. Several hybrid technologies and diesel-only buses were tested in the fourcities participating in the Program. Both Brazilian cities presented two hybridtechnologies, a serial and a parallel bus; Bogota participated with two parallel hybridtechnologies; Santiago had one parallel hybrid bus. In Bogota and Santiago electric buseswere tested and a trolley was evaluated in Sao Paulo.Figure 1 compares CO2 and criteria pollutant reduction emissions for parallel-hybridtechnologies and the respective reference diesel bus, for the four cities participating in theProgram. On average, parallel-hybrid bus technologies registered 25% lower CO2emissions than the standard diesel technology, under comparable weights, routes and
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center     42  traffic conditions (all results have been normalized using a common driving cycle). Forcriteria pollutants, when comparing parallel-hybrid versus diesel-only technologies,average reductions were 61% for nitrogen oxides, 72% for fine particle matter, 72% forunburnt hydrocarbons and 79% for carbon monoxide.Figure 4.1 Emissions reductions for carbon dioxide and criteria pollutantsOne bus manufacturer made available its parallel-hybrid technology in all four cities; thegrey bars indicate how the technology improved over time. In Bogota there were twoparallel-hybrid technology vehicles being tested within the Program; they show relativelysimilar reductions compared with the reference diesel bus. Thus, the values for Bogotashown above are the averages of the two bus providers; for the other three cities the busmanufacturer was the same.Emission reductions for gases and fine particle matter were always greater than 50% forall parallel and improved-serial hybrid technologies, with increased performance of over70% reduction in all criteria pollutants analyzed. The results for PM1.5 are particularlyinteresting, showing an almost constant 72% reduction for all cities. These improvementswould have important impact on local air quality, resulting in major health benefits (thecombined population of the four cities is around 50 million). Introducing economicvaluations based on health impact analysis, and assuming fleet turnovers in favor ofhybrid technologies, should be considered part of an assessment framework.4.2 Energy and Fuel EfficiencyThe Program tested fuel consumption for diesel-only and hybrid diesel-electric buses, aswell as electric energy consumption for full electric buses and a trolleybus. The analysis!"#$%&#$!#$ !#$(#$)#$&)#$!)#$*)#$+)#$")#$%)#$)#$,)#$()#$&))#$-.!$ /.0$ 12&3"$ 45-$ -.$!"#$$#%&$()*+,-%&./(/00)01234(#*5)($+$*#)$)0678$9:$;<=:7>8$ ?<8$1<@A8$ BC:><D:$ E8D8F<$ ?<=G<D8$$
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center   43  includes comparisons of fuel consumption by bus (FC) and by passenger (FC/pax), usinga corresponding reference diesel bus in each city. Electric energy consumption isconverted into equivalent liters of diesel fuel, as explained below.Four reference diesel, seven hybrid and three full electric vehicles were tested in the fourcities participating in the Program. Reference diesel buses are denominated DB-R; hybridbuses are denominated HB-P and HB-S for parallel and serial technologies respectively;full-electric vehicles are EB whose equivalent fuel consumption is estimated byconverting kWh and liters into kcal of energy to avoid distortions to or fluctuations inlocal energy market prices. Note that these acronyms do not necessarily refer to the samevehicles between cities. As already explained, the hybrid buses were provided by threedifferent manufacturers, one serial (HB-S) and two parallel (HB-P) configurations, and inrelation to the full-electric vehicles (EB), Sao Paulo provided a conventional in-usetrolleybus, and in Bogota and Santiago brand new full-electric buses were tested, in theform of a single bus from a different manufacturer in each city. A representative dieselbus (DB-R) was identified at each location.Figure 4.2Fuel and energy consumption resultsFigure 2 shows that results vary by city, but in all cases energy efficiency from parallel-hybrid and full-electric buses was higher than for the traditional diesel bus. Average fuelconsumption was 31% less for the parallel-hybrid technologies compared to the dieselbus. This increases to 38% if the value for Rio de Janeiro is excluded; it is assumed thatthe bus manufacturer providing this technology learned and improved during the Programfollowing experience in Rio.Electric technologies showed differences between cities and vehicle types. An average77% better fuel consumption was achieved in the two cities testing brand new electricbuses (81% for Bogota and 73% for Santiago). Fuel consumption for the in-use trolleybustested in Sao Paulo was 56% lower than for the diesel bus.!"!#!"$#!"%#!"&#!"#("!#("$#("%#("&#)*+#,-#./0-*1+# 2/+#3/45+# 6+7+8/# 2/09/7+##!"#$%&()"*+,(%:6;2#<6;)#:6;3#=6;>#=6;=#
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center     44  Similar to the results for exhaust emissions, the fuel consumption results for the serialhybrid bus were poor compared to diesel in Rio de Janeiro (+51%) but improved andwere better than diesel in Sao Paulo (-22%). This improvement could be due to a learningprocess triggered by this Program, which might be ongoing and could produce betterresults.The values reported above change when calculated as consumption per passenger due tothe smaller passenger capacity of electric compared to diesel-only vehicles. Diesel buseshave a larger passenger capacity given their comparatively lighter weight. Hybrid buseshave a 10-20% smaller capacity than diesel buses, and electric buses can accommodate40-50% fewer passengers, due mainly to the extra load of the huge battery packs. Figure3 shows fuel and equivalent energy consumption per passenger.Figure 4.3 Fuel and energy consumption results per passengerThe serial hybrid technologies maintain their benefits, with 29% average reductioncompared with the diesel buses. Electric buses lose some of their advantage over thereference diesel bus, going from 77% average reduction to 61% taking account of loadcarrying capacity. Local operators were concerned about the smaller passenger capacityof the new and cleaner technologies, not only because of the reduced benefit in energysavings but also on operational logistical grounds. This is a problem that low carbontechnology bus manufacturers are tackling.4.3 Key Findings and Recommendations!"!#!"$#!"%#!"&#!"#("!#("$#("%#)*+#,-#./0-*1+# 2/+#3/45+# 6+7+8/# 2/09/7+##!"#$%&()"*+,(%+#-%+.))#(/#-%:6;2#<6;)#:6;3#=6;>#=6;=#
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center   45  4.3.1 Key findings and recommendations for stakeholdersThe Program has demonstrated the significant effects of hybrid and electric busescompared with conventional diesel vehicles:i) Reductions in GHG and emissions of criteria pollutants including especiallyPM1.5,which shows reductions of 75% on average;ii) Reductions in CO2 emissions of 26% on average;iii) More efficient fuel consumption based on reductions of between 31% and40% depending on altitude in the case of hybrid-electric buses, and up to 77%in the case of full electric battery powered buses (equivalent fuelconsumption).The Program found also that:i) Driving patterns, driver competence, and steepness of the terrain affect theperformance of low carbon buses;ii) Ten-year life-cycle analysis of hybrid and electric buses results in lower netpresent value compared to conventional diesel buses, for several scenarios;This is evidence that these technologies can compete with conventional buses with someinitial incentives, financing arrangements, and creative business models for the electricvehicle components.4.3.2 Key recommendationsBus manufacturers should be encouraged to pay attention to current regulation and workto adapt their products to the Latin American market directives especially regardingvehicle weights, which can have a negative effect on economic evaluations of busoperations. Suppliers should be invited to participate in the development of financialsolutions to facilitate the acquisition of these new vehicles by city bus operators.Cities and national governments should be encouraged to introduce and maintain certainincentives, such as low or zero VAT, import duty, and local taxes, in order to facilitatethe initial uptake of low carbon vehicles.Given the positive effect of the new technologies on population health and health sectorcosts, governments should contribute to the initial capital costs, for example, throughdirect subsidies or by allowing marginal increases to fares. Diesel prices should becorrected to reflect the real price of the fuel and pollution taxes should be imposed on thisenergy source.Cities in Latin America are responsible for the renewal of their bus fleets, representingpurchase of some 9,000 buses by 2020. Old vehicles should be scrapped and replaced bylow carbon technologies. Governments should develop, implement, and enforce strict fuelperformance regulations for buses to encourage the building of clean public
    • Santiago  Report  for  C40-­‐CCI-­‐IDB  Hybrid  Electric  Bus  Test  Program  in  Latin  America  International  Sustainable  Systems  Research  Center     46  transportation. The data provided by the Program are strong and persuasive. Theypropose firm benchmarks that cities can apply with confidence when setting regulation.In summary, Latin American cities have a great opportunity to drive the markets for lowcarbon transport technologies, and particularly hybrid and electric buses. The economiceffort required will be far outweighed by the large environmental and health benefits thatwill accrue. Both the IDB and C40-CCI have a deep commitment to helping lead cities tomove their transport sectors to the frontier in low carbon sustainable mobility.