SUMMA
Deliverable 9 of Workpackage 2
Marginal Costs of Abatement
for Environmental Problems
Caused by Transport
FINAL  version 3.0
July 2003
RAND Europe (Netherlands)
Transport & Mobility Leuven (Belgium)
Kessel + Partner (Germany)
Study Group Synergo/Econcept (Switzerland)
Gaia Group (Finland)
SUDOP PRAHA a.s. (Czech Republic)
Institut für Energiewirtschaft und Rationelle Energieanwendung (Germany)
Funded by the EC in the R&D Programme "Competitive and Sustainable Growth".
Key action "Sustainable Mobility and Intermodality"
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Project Title:
SUMMA
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Deliverable:
Deliverable 9  Marginal Costs of Abatement for
Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Date of Delivery:
25 July 2003
Workpackage Ref:
WP 2
Keywords:
Sustainability, policy measures
Classification:
WP Report
Name of client:
European Commission – Directorate General for Energy and
Transport
Contract Number:
GMA2/2000/32061-S07.14497
For community activities in the field of the specific programme
for RTD and demonstration on “Competitive and Sustainable
Growth”
Project Co-ordinator:
RAND Europe
Authors:
Joeri Van Rompuy, Griet De Ceuster, Bart Van Herbruggen,
Filip Vanhove (Transport & Mobility Leuven)
Peter Bickel, Stefan Reis, Thomas Pregger (IER - University
of Stuttgart)
Distribution Level:
European Commission
Issue:
3.0
Contact details:
[email protected]
Page II
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMARY
This report is Deliverable D9 of the Fifth Framework project SUMMA, which addresses Key
Action 2 of the Growth Programme: “Economic, environmental, and social conditions for the
sustainable development of transport”.
There is an increasing demand for transport and mobility in our society. At the same time
there is a desire for a clean environment, preserving nature, and concern for the welfare of
future generations. Policy-makers have to accommodate these conflicting desires by
balancing the positive and negative impacts of transport. SUMMA helps policy-makers do so
by helping to develop more efficient and effective transport policies that cater to the need for
mobility while reducing transport’s adverse impacts to acceptable levels.
The SUMMA project is designed to support policy-makers by providing them with a consistent
framework for making trade-offs, where appropriate, among the economic, environmental and
social components of sustainability. SUMMA will provide an assessment of policy options for
promoting sustainable transport and mobility. To achieve this, SUMMA will
1) define and operationalise sustainable mobility and transport, develop an appropriate
system, and define a set of indicators for monitoring the environmental, economic and
social dimensions of sustainable transport and mobility;
2) assess the scale and scope of the problems of sustainability in the transport sector;
3) assess policy measures in the White Paper on transport policy, as well as other policy
measures, that are to be found in the literature, that can be used to promote sustainable
transport and mobility at the national, regional, and city levels.
The first step in achieving these objectives is taken in Workpackage 1 (WP1). WP1 has
reviewed the state of the art of concepts, evidence and experiences in the context of
sustainability, sustainable transport and mobility. It has covered its three dimensions economic, environmental and social sustainability - and reviewed existing indicator
development. This resulted in Deliverable D2, “Setting the Context for Defining Sustainable
Transport and Mobility”.
This deliverable (though part of Workpackage 2) is a continuation of the work in WP1. It
performs a literature survey on the costs and options of reducing environmental problems
caused by the transport sector for the SUMMA project. This executive summary presents the
key conclusions.
The report has been prepared by Transport & Mobility Leuven and by IER - University of
Stuttgart in co-operation with the members of the SUMMA Consortium and in coordination
with RAND Europe.
The abatement cost report reviews existing reports on the European Commission level and
includes some specific academic literature and local authority reports. Major EC reports
contributing to this survey are Cantique, cost-effectiveness reports from the Auto-Oil II
program, IIASA reports, and several reports on the Economic Evaluation of Sectoral Emission
Reduction Objectives for Climate Change. As such, the report contains results from a number
of transport specific models (TREMOVE, TRENEN, COPERT…) and of models
encompassing all economic sectors (PRIMES, RAINS, MARKAL…).
The objective is to assess methodological issues on calculating abatement costs for the
transport sector, and to indicate general headlines with respect to policy options to reduce
environmental externalities from transport and the associated costs.
Methodological issues focus on cost calculation methods, baselines used for calculating
emission reductions and costs, and cost scope – including second order effects of policy
measures-, as well as methods to deal with incorporating the benefits of policy measures that
reduce emissions of several pollutants simultaneously in the calculation of cost-effectiveness
indicators.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page III
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
Three main areas in the cost-effectiveness of environmental policy in transport are targeted;
up to which point is it cost-effective to focus on the transport sector to reduce environmental
annoyance if other sectors may contribute much cheaper to solving environmental problems?
Should policy measures focus on specific regions to reduce emissions from a costeffectiveness viewpoint? And which policy measures should be targeted first in transport to
achieve effective solutions at minimum cost?
In doing this, this report will contribute to forthcoming SUMMA work in
• identifying most cost-effective policy measures (SUMMA “Policy Measures”)
• identifying key environmental problems in transport (SUMMA “Environmental
indicators”)
• identifying which relationships require endogenous modelling (SUMMA “Model”)
• identifying side effects on economic or social capital (SUMMA “System Diagram” and
“Social and economic indicators”)
The scope of the report is limited to environmental impacts, as SUMMA has identified
transport as a major contributor to existing environmental problems in Europe and as
environmental impacts have been identified as primary targets of sustainable mobility. The
report distinguishes three major environmental impact areas, being air pollution, global
warming and noise. Furthermore, policy domains are split up according to their focus;
technology standards (vehicle technology, fuel technology), traffic management and transport
pricing.
Air pollution
The reports under survey that consider air pollution generally focus on PM10, NOX and VOC
reduction options. PM2.5, which appears to be more relevant in terms of adverse health
effects has been covered much less in the available studies. Technical abatement options
offer high reduction potentials and are therefore important elements in designing reduction
strategies. However, the analysis in e.g. RAINS reports has shown that there are significant
differences in specific abatement costs between sectors and countries that may offer
important insight in optimal EU policy design.
Cost-effective reduction strategies have to take into account that for example the reduction of
PM10/PM2.5 emissions should be addressed with measures in other sectors than road
transport, because associated costs are at least a factor of 3 lower in other sectors. Lower
abatement costs estimates in Germany e.g. are around € 70/kg PM while in industry PM
abatement costs € 25/kg. This is in general true for all countries, and may serve as an
indication that European environmental legislation in transport has been advancing at a
higher pace than in other sectors, leaving only limited potential for low-cost PM emission
reduction in transport. However, if very high PM reductions need to be achieved, measures in
the road transport sector may become cost-efficient at a certain point, either because the
control options in other sectors become extremely expensive (e.g. general switching to bio
fuels in residential heating) or because there is no more reduction potential in other sectors.
This would result in EURO-V and EURO VI standards for HDV and LDV with cost ranges from
€ 150 to € 300 per kg PM10.
Technological options to reduce NOX emissions however need to consider the transport
sector from some point on. In general the cheapest options are to be found in other sectors
with some values around € 250/ton NOX. When this potential is used, some countries need to
consider cheap NOX reduction options in transport to avoid wasting valuable resources
(€ 1.000-2.000 per ton). In order to reach quite substantial NOX reduction in a cost-effective
way, most countries would need to consider targeting HDV transport with NOX converters
(€ 2.000-3.000 per ton). Moreover, in contrast to PM, NOX emission reduction is not by
definition cheaper in accessing countries. Note that the RAINS analysis does not take into
account the effects on VOC, which are reduced simultaneously with NOX.
Traffic management and pricing policies should be viewed as contributors to cost-effective
urban air pollution abatement in transport. Several reports confirmed that in particular traffic
Page IV
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
control regulations, parking regulations and road pricing are low cost measures to reduce
emissions related to road transport. Infrastructural investments and major regulations for
freight transport are reported to be much less cost-effective in reducing ambient air quality in
major European cities. As these reports include combined effects when multiple air quality
indicators are affected, the risk of biased results appears to be small. Cost-effective nontechnical abatement costs for NOX ranged from € 3.700 to € 25.500 per ton, and from € 1.500
to € 4.330 for CO. These estimates do not take into account secondary benefits (reduction in
other pollutants or congestion), but cost-benefit analysis has shown attractive net benefits for
some non-technical policy measures.
Greenhouse Gas abatement
Greenhouse gas emission abatement options are to be found in vehicle technology, fuel
technology, and traffic management and road pricing options. The survey of these reports
indicates some limited potential in transport to reduce CO2 emissions, but stresses that other
sectors may provide these CO2 reductions at far lower costs. Moreover, as the baseline
scenarios in these reports often do not take into account new legislation decided upon, or the
voluntary ACEA agreement to reduce average fuel consumption of new cars, it is unclear
whether technological vehicle innovation as such offers more unexploited potential to reduce
carbon emissions below € 20/TCE.
Local reports contributed to the understanding of the importance of driving behaviour for
emission control, though SUMMA experts’ doubts on the effectiveness of measures targeting
driving behaviour should be noted. Nevertheless, the authors have pointed out the relevance
of cheap emission abatement contributions, even if the potential is rather small, as the
alternative abatement costs may be excessively high.
As an internal EC report and a US report point out, technological greenhouse gas abatement
measures may not be cost-effective as they entail second-order effects that may annihilate
emission abatement efforts, while still resulting in high extra costs. Moreover, similar
abatement results can be obtained at much lower cost by increasing fuel taxes or exploiting
road pricing options.
To illustrate this, some reports indicate that a fuel efficiency standard may represent social
costs of € 363/TCE, while equivalent fuel taxes reduce the costs to € 326/TCE. Taking into
account other external effects, the costs of a fuel efficiency standard would drop significantly
to € 255/TCE, while a € 1 increase in fuel taxation may offer € 175/TCE net benefits while
reducing CO2 as well. Equivalent road pricing would increase total benefits per carbon
abatement four-fold compared to fuel taxes, as the reduction in congestion costs entails major
societal benefits.
With respect to greenhouse gas abatement in other sectors, some reports indicate that it is
wise to look at other sectors first. The greenhouse gas emission reduction possibilities in
transport point to limited cost-effective potential in technological innovation, as carbon
emission abatement in other sectors is much cheaper than in transport.
The reports indicated a4% cost-effective emission reduction potential, compared to 13% in
industry and 39% in electricity generation, before the ACEA agreement. This leaves little
room for extra cost-effective measures as from now.
Reduction of noise annoyance
Noise reduction is a somewhat specific area of research, and no specific abatement costs
have been found in the survey, except for a report for the Netherlands indicating a total cost in
net present value of € 7.000 to € 9.500 million to reduce country-wide problem areas by 80%
in all cities and up to 55% in other remaining areas (compared to a threshold of 55 dB).
Future research may be required to assess noise reduction contributions of tire width
regulations, and road maintenance.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page V
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
General conclusions
In general, this literature survey revealed some important headlines for policy measures on a
European level.
A first headline points to the availability of non-technical measures, such as road pricing and
local traffic management interventions, to avoid using expensive vehicle or fuel technology
standards. In particular, road pricing and local parking and traffic management regulations
may contribute cost-effectively to the reduction of transport emissions. Taking into account
reductions in congestion costs, such policy measures in urban areas allow policy makers to
reduce emissions without net costs to society. Increased fuel taxes do allow for market-based
emission control as well, but have less impact on congestions and hence offer only a secondbest solution to an integrated transport policy.
A second headline points to the availability of low-cost reduction potential in other sectors.
Especially in greenhouse gas emission reduction and PM10/PM2.5 abatement the
economical potential to switch technologies in transport is limited when compared to the
potential in other sectors. This may be somewhat less the case for specific pollutants like NOX
and VOC, where the contribution of transport to total emissions is important, and end-pipe
technology for vehicles may become cost-effective if major reductions in these emissions
need to be established. However, insisting on increasingly high technical standards in
transport while not using low-cost opportunities in other sectors should be considered as a
waste of valuable resources.
A third headline points to the scarcely available information on cost-effectiveness of measures
that affect multiple pollutants -or external effects in general. Though technical estimates for
vehicle and fuel improvement are becoming widely available, and indications of costs are
becoming more reliable, only few reports consider the integrated cost-effectiveness of policy
measures that tackle multiple emission sources. As integrated reports become more
available, policy makers may find that some policy measures may seem expensive with
respect to single pollutant abatements, but prove to be least-cost alternatives in view of the
many pollutants it may target.
On advantages in focusing transport policy on specific countries or regions with respect to
emission reduction, little evidence has been found. These cost advantages seem much more
available in other sectors, where specifically accession countries offer low-cost opportunities
to reduce PM10/PM2.5 and greenhouse gas emissions.
Finally, European policy may be required to provide national and regional policy makers with
the required framework to assess integrated emission abatement policies in transport, notably
by indicating required methodology and estimates for calculating benefits of policy measures.
As indicated in this report, comparability across currently available reports is limited due to
different baseline assumptions, different calculation methodology, and different basic
parameters and approaches (such as the single pollutant approach versus integrated
abatement approaches).
A general framework providing generally accepted estimates on external damages (such as
ExternE) could provide a first step forward towards integrated policy assessment. These
estimates could be used in cost-benefit assessments as well as in multi-point cost
effectiveness assessments. As such efforts will be done later during the SUMMA project, this
could offer major improvements in both methodology and results of integrated resource
planning.
Page VI
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
CONTENTS
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... III
CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. VII
1.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
2.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES ................................................................ 5
2.1.
Scope ............................................................................................................................................5
2.2. Marginal costs of abatement......................................................................................................6
2.2.1.
Calculation of marginal costs of abatement......................................................................6
2.2.2.
Purpose of calculating marginal abatement costs .............................................................7
2.2.3.
Abatement costs of policy measures with multiple effects ...............................................9
2.3. Abatement costs in transport markets....................................................................................10
2.3.1.
Simplified transport market ............................................................................................10
2.3.2.
Increased complexity with congestion costs...................................................................11
2.3.3.
Taxes in transport markets..............................................................................................12
2.3.4.
Summary discussion of abatement cost in transport markets .........................................12
2.4.
Comparing abatement costs across studies ............................................................................13
3.
REDUCING TRANSPORT AIR POLLUTION .............................................................. 15
3.1. Technology options ...................................................................................................................16
3.1.1.
PM10 and PM2.5 abatement...........................................................................................17
3.1.2.
NOX abatement ...............................................................................................................21
3.1.3.
VOC abatement ..............................................................................................................25
3.1.4.
Assessment of simultaneous emission reduction ............................................................26
3.2. Non-technical options ...............................................................................................................28
3.2.1.
Overview of non-technical measures..............................................................................28
3.2.2.
Driving behaviour...........................................................................................................33
3.2.3.
Local traffic measures and urban air quality...................................................................36
3.3. Comparison with other sectors................................................................................................39
3.3.1.
PM10 abatement .............................................................................................................39
3.3.2.
NOX abatement ...............................................................................................................42
3.3.3.
VOC abatement ..............................................................................................................45
3.4.
Summary discussion of reducing transport air pollution......................................................46
4.
REDUCING TRANSPORT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .................................. 49
4.1. Technology Options..................................................................................................................50
4.1.1.
Road transport vehicle technology .................................................................................50
4.1.2.
Rail transport vehicle technology ...................................................................................58
4.1.3.
Aviation vehicle technoloy .............................................................................................59
4.1.4.
Fuel technology ..............................................................................................................59
4.1.5.
Summary discussion of technology options to reduce transport GHG emissions ..........62
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page VII
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
4.2. Pricing measures.......................................................................................................................64
4.2.1.
Circulation and registration taxes ...................................................................................64
4.2.2.
Subsidising vehicle scrappage ........................................................................................65
4.2.3.
Fuel taxes........................................................................................................................65
4.2.4.
Kilometre charging or road charging..............................................................................67
4.2.5.
Integrated transport pricing.............................................................................................68
4.2.6.
Summary discussion of pricing measures to reduce transport GHG emissions..............70
4.3. OTHER Non-technical options................................................................................................71
4.3.1.
Improving driving behaviour ..........................................................................................71
4.3.2.
Improving public transport .............................................................................................74
4.3.3.
Freight logistics policy ...................................................................................................75
4.3.4.
Summary discussion of other non-technical options to reduce GHG emissions.............76
4.4. Comparison with other sectors................................................................................................77
4.4.1.
Bottom-up analysis .........................................................................................................77
4.4.2.
Top-down analysis with PRIMES ..................................................................................79
4.4.3.
Top-down analysis with MARKAL................................................................................80
4.4.4.
Summary discussion of the comparison with other sectors ............................................82
4.5.
Summary discussion of reducing transport GHG emissions ................................................83
5.
REDUCING TRANSPORT NOISE ANNOYANCE....................................................... 85
5.1. Technology options ...................................................................................................................86
5.1.1.
Tire width .......................................................................................................................87
5.1.2.
Body noise - commercial vehicles ..................................................................................87
5.1.3.
Motor technology............................................................................................................88
5.2. Non-technical options ...............................................................................................................88
5.2.1.
Traffic management........................................................................................................88
5.2.2.
Infrastructure ..................................................................................................................89
5.2.3.
Integrated Policy Package...............................................................................................89
5.3.
Summary discussion of reducing transport noise annoyance ...............................................91
6.
ABATEMENT OF ROAD ACCIDENTS ....................................................................... 93
6.1.
SWOV study..............................................................................................................................93
6.2.
Vahidnia and Walsh study....................................................................................................... 95
7.
CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER STEPS ................................................................... 97
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 99
GLOSSARY........................................................................................................................... 103
ANNEX 1: LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................................... 109
ANNEX 2: EXTENDED TABLES FOR AIR POLLUTION REDUCTION ............................. 111
Page VIII
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
List of Tables
Table 3-1: RAINS PM10 Control technologies for road vehicles ............................................ 19
Table 3-2: RAINS PM10 abatement costs road transport (€/kg)............................................. 20
Table 3-3: RAINS NOX Control technologies for road vehicles ............................................... 24
Table 3-4: RAINS NOX Abatement costs road transport (€/t).................................................. 25
Table 3-5: EEV Options applicable to new heavy duty vehicles and buses............................ 26
Table 3-6: Gasoline scenarios - main results in 2010 (EU9)................................................... 27
Table 3-7: Cantique list of studies under survey ..................................................................... 29
Table 3-8: Cantique overview of cost-effective policy measures ............................................ 32
Table 3-9: AMINAL overview on technical traffic measures and vehicle emission ................. 33
Table 3-10: Correction factors for passenger cars when driving sportily ................................ 34
Table 3-11: Correction factors for passenger cars when driving economically....................... 34
Table 3-12: Correction factors for passenger cars when exceeding speed limits................... 34
Table 3-13: Correction factors for passenger cars when using air conditioning ..................... 35
Table 3-14: TNO NO2 and PM10 concentrations at 50m east from highway.......................... 37
Table 3-15: RAINS PM10 Abatement cost comparison with other sectors (€/kg) .................. 40
Table 3-16: RAINS NOX control technologies for stationary sources...................................... 43
Table 3-17: RAINS NOX Abatement cost comparison with other sectors (€/t)........................ 45
Table 4-1: CO2 reduction Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for technical measures; Petrol Cars
(Exc. Taxes)..................................................................................................................... 50
Table 4-2: CO2 reduction Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for technical measures; Diesel Cars
(Excl. Taxes).................................................................................................................... 51
Table 4-3: CO2 reduction Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for technical measures; Freight (Excl.
Taxes) .............................................................................................................................. 51
Table 4-4: GHG emission reduction options and costs in EU transport.................................. 52
Table 4-5: EU Transport emission reduction potential & costs in 2010 by cost bracket ......... 53
Table 4-6: Impact of CO2 emission reduction targets to EU transport sector ......................... 55
Table 4-7: Impact of CO2 emission reduction targets to EU transport sector ......................... 55
Table 4-8: Vehicle improvement in EU road transport ............................................................ 56
Table 4-9: Vehicle improvement in EU rail transport............................................................... 58
Table 4-10: Vehicle improvement in EU air transport.............................................................. 59
Table 4-11: Cost parameters in Proost (1997) EC report........................................................ 60
Table 4-12: CO2 Abatement cost of a fuel efficiency standard, without external costs........... 61
Table 4-13: External costs of transport excluding CO2 ........................................................... 61
Table 4-14: CO2 Abatement cost of fuel efficiency standard including external costs ............ 62
Table 4-15: CO2 Abatement cost of a €1 fuel tax increase, without external costs ................ 66
Table 4-16: CO2 Abatement cost of €1 fuel tax increase, including external costs................. 66
Table 4-17: CO2 Abatement cost of equivalent road pricing excluding external costs ........... 67
Table 4-18: CO2 Abatement cost of equivalent road pricing including external costs ............ 68
Table 4-19: Integrated optimal pricing policy for Brussels, 2005 ............................................ 69
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page IX
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
Table 4-20: Effects on transport volumes with optimal charges in Belgium, 2005.................. 69
Table 4-21: VLIETbis speed delimiter abatement costs.......................................................... 72
Table 4-22: VLIETbis cruise control abatement costs............................................................. 72
Table 4-23: VLIETbis board computer abatement costs ......................................................... 73
Table 4-24: VLIETbis econometers abatement costs ............................................................. 73
Table 4-25: VLIETbis eco-driver training abatement costs ..................................................... 74
Table 4-26: Sectoral emission reduction potentials for all sectors .......................................... 77
Table 4-27 Cost-effective sectoral contribution to Kyoto target .............................................. 78
Table 4-28: PRIMES top-down cost-effective Kyoto compliance ............................................ 80
Table 4-29: MARKAL cost effective emission reduction scenarios......................................... 81
Table 5-1: Noise reduction effectiveness in 2030 in dB(A) ..................................................... 90
Table 5-2: Cost estimates of noise annoyance reducing package in Netherlands ................. 91
Table 1: Marginal PM10 abatement costs (€1990) in 2010 in road transport and other sectors IIASA (2003) .................................................................................................................. 112
Table 2: RAINS Marginal NOX abatement costs (€1990) in the year 2010 in road transport
and other sectors (IIASA 2003) ..................................................................................... 120
Page X
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: A typical curve for the total costs of abatement ...................................................... 6
Figure 2.2: A typical curve for the marginal costs of abatement ............................................... 7
Figure 2.3: Cross-sector marginal cost curve and abatement .................................................. 8
Figure 2.4: Cost-ineffective abatement policies across sectors ................................................ 8
Figure 2.5: Abatement costs with adjustment for multi-point effects......................................... 9
Figure 2.6: A simplified transport market................................................................................. 10
Figure 2.7: A simplified transport market with congestion costs ............................................. 11
Figure 3.1: Cantique cost-effectiveness overview for CO2 ...................................................... 30
Figure 3.2: Cantique cost-effectiveness for NOX ..................................................................... 30
Figure 3.3: Cantique cost-effectiveness for CO ...................................................................... 31
Figure 3.4: Cantique Cost-Benefit overview for CO and NOX ................................................. 31
Figure 3.5: Cantique Cost-Benefit overview for CO, NOX, VOC and CO2............................... 32
Figure 3.6: TNO Local NO2 Impact of traffic measures near highway .................................... 36
Figure 3.7: TNO Local PM10 Impact of traffic measures near highway.................................. 36
Figure 4.1: Bottom-up GHG emission reduction in transport by cost bracket ......................... 54
Figure 5.1: Range of Variation of the Noise Sources with Future Trends............................... 86
Figure 5.2: Noise source distribution of a 74 dB(A) vehicle in pass-by test ................................. 87
Figure 5.3: RIVM effect of measures on noise problem areas in the Netherlands ................. 90
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page XI
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Page XII
SUMMA
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
1. INTRODUCTION
Motorised transport is an essential element of modern life and economy. At the same time,
transport contributes considerably to many problems we face, e.g. in the area of airborne
emissions and noise. In the year 2000 the transport sector contributed 29% of all CO2
emissions in the EU, of which road transport alone was responsible for 83% (European
Commission, 2003). Another serious problem is congestion; by some estimates the costs of
congestion amount to almost 0,5% of the EU GDP. Building new transport infrastructure is
unlikely to solve these problems. The need for new approaches in transport policy has been
recognised and the Treaty of Amsterdam introduced the idea of integrating environmental
considerations into Community policies. The Cardiff European Council (June 1998) asked the
1
sectoral councils to initiate this integration .
In October 1999, the “Transport” Council targeted five sectors, namely:
1) growth in CO2 emissions from transport,
2) health impacts from pollutant emissions,
3) anticipated growth in demand,
4) modal distribution and its development, and
2
5) noise from transport .
In November 2000, the Gothenburg European Council identified modal shift as being at the
heart of the sustainable development strategy. Furthermore, the Gothenburg Council
underlined the need for the Community’s transport system to be sustainable from an
economic, social and environmental point of view. The Commission's White Paper “European
transport policy for 2010: time to decide” reiterates the importance and urgency of taking
steps now to ensure the development of a sustainable transport system in the future.
There is an increasing demand for transport and mobility in our society. At the same time
there is a desire for a clean environment, preserving nature, and concern for the welfare of
future generations. Policy-makers have to accommodate these conflicting desires by
balancing the positive and negative impacts of transport. SUMMA helps policy-makers do so
by helping to develop more efficient and effective transport policies that cater to the need for
mobility while reducing transport’s adverse impacts to acceptable levels.
SUMMA is designed to support policy-makers in several ways. First, SUMMA will
operationalise the concept of sustainability, making it possible to assess the impacts of
various policies on the sustainability of transport and mobility. Second, SUMMA will develop a
system of indicators for monitoring developments inside and outside the transport sector that
are important for the sustainability of the transport sector. Policy-makers can use these
indicators for proactively deciding when and where policy action is needed. Third, SUMMA
will provide policy-makers with a consistent framework for making trade-offs, where
appropriate, among the economic, environmental and social components of sustainability, an
inherent part of choosing from among different policies. Finally, SUMMA will provide policymakers with an assessment of policy options for promoting sustainable transport and mobility.
The three main objectives of SUMMA are:
1) to define and operationalise sustainable mobility and transport, develop an appropriate
system, and define a set of indicators for monitoring the environmental, economic and
social dimensions of sustainable transport and mobility;
2) to assess the scale and scope of the problems of sustainability in the transport sector;
3) to assess policy measures in the White Paper on transport policy, as well as other policy
measures, that are to be found in the literature, that can be used to promote sustainable
transport and mobility at the national, regional, and city levels.
1
Cardiff European Council, 15 & 16 June 1998, Presidency Conclusions
2
(1999) Council strategy on the integration of the environment and sustainable development into
transport policy
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 1
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
The first steps in achieving these objectives have been taken in Work Package 1 (WP1),
where the state of the art of concepts has been reviewed, and evidence and experiences in
the context of sustainability, sustainable transport and mobility was collected.
The information provided in Deliverable 2 – “Setting the Context for Defining Sustainable
Transport and Mobility” - forms the starting point for defining and operationalising sustainable
transport and mobility and for developing indicators for sustainable transport.
The current report will contribute to WP2 in reviewing the potential and costs of different
options to bring European mobility back in line with sustainable mobility, focusing on two main
policy questions.
• Should environmental problems be tackled in the transport sector or are there
solutions in other sectors that provide cost advantages to do so?
• Within the transport sector, what policies could support sustainable transport at low
costs?
In doing this, this report will contribute to forthcoming SUMMA work in
• identifying most cost-effective policy measures (SUMMA “Policy Measures”)
• identifying key environmental problems in transport (SUMMA “Environmental
indicators”)
• identifying which relationships require endogenous modelling (SUMMA “Model”)
• identifying side effects on economic or social capital (SUMMA “System Diagram” and
“Social and economic indicators”)
The report on abatement costs will be restricted to environmental impacts for several reasons.
First, during WP1 environmental impacts have been clearly identified as primary targets of
sustainable transport, following the targets of the October 1999 Transport Council. Second,
several indicators in SUMMA pointed to the transport sector as a significant contributor to
existing environmental problems in Europe. This has been extensively documented in
Deliverable 2. Finally, reliable reports on environmental impacts of transport policy are
becoming widely available, and may offer significant input to the assessment of abatement
efforts in the transport sector. This document will compile abatement cost estimates from the
AUTO-OIL II program, and cost-effectiveness studies performed for the European
Commission in the framework of global warming and acidification (PRIMES and RAINS), and
will furthermore collect information on measures with multiple effects (e.g. three-way-catalysts
reducing the emissions of NO2, CO, and VOC, but increasing the emissions of N2O and CO2).
Moreover, this report will illustrate the broader effects of emission abatement measures based
on market equilibrium analysis. For example the introduction of a vehicle technology standard
may lead to a higher emission reduction than expected if vehicle users decide to drive their
“clean vehicles” less in response to increased vehicle costs, induced by this technology
standard. This will be done by referring to existing simulation results and will offer the
possibility to include non-technical traffic measures and transport pricing policies in the survey
of policies for sustainable mobility.
Special attention will be put on the problem of reaching the Kyoto target. Climate technology
becomes more and more relevant in international environmental policy negotiations. At the
Kyoto conference binding emission reduction targets have been established for several
regions of the world. The major challenge is how to realise these reduction goals with
minimum costs without generating new distributional and social difficulties. Results from
several reports for the European Commission and similar academic publications will be used
for SUMMA.
Results from a very relevant new project (CITEPA - Expert Group on Techno-Economic
Issues (EGTEI)) are expected to become available by mid of 2003, and will be taken on board
in an update of this report by the end of 2003.
The structure of this report is as follows. Chapter 2 gives a brief overview of some basic
concepts in transport economy and some methodological issues with respect to abatement
Page 2
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
cost estimates. Chapter 3 reviews existing work on abatement costs in reducing air pollution,
comparing costs of policy measures in transport with those of other sectors, and identifying
the most attractive policy measures within transport. Chapter 4 analyses if and how European
transport could contribute to Kyoto targets in greenhouse gas reduction. Some evidence on
the costs on reducing noise annoyance from transport is presented in Chapter 5. Chapter 6
draws the conclusions from the work undertaken with respect to the further work in SUMMA.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 3
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Page 4
SUMMA
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
2. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
This section will provide some details on the scope of the current report, and illustrate
methodological issues that may aid readers to understand the economic reasoning, purpose
and limitations of the literature survey.
Section 2.1 discusses the scope of the literature survey. Section 2.2 provides a framework for
calculating marginal costs of emission abatement. Section 2.3 elaborates abatement costs in
the framework of welfare economics. Some limitations on the comparability of abatement cost
results across reports are displayed in section 2.4.
2.1. SCOPE
The scope of this report is to summarise the available literature on costs of abatement for the
environmental impact of transport. Emphasis is put on studies and reports set up for the
European Commission, as these show broad acceptance and are generally publicly available.
Selected academic reports and studies will be used to stress specific issues whenever
required.
The main environmental effects associated with transport will be categorised according to the
following scheme, where available:
Air Pollution
- SO2
- CO
- NOX (+ ozone)
- VOC (+ ozone)
- PM
Climate Change
- CO2 emissions that are a direct result of the combustion of vehicle fuels
- Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions in transport sector
Noise
- Noise from motors and from tires
Road safety
- Accidents
Full abatement cost information on other transport impacts as income distribution, social
cohesion or land use has not been found.
Where available, for each type of environmental effect this report will distinguish:
- Emission reduction options & costs in transport (technical estimates)
- Second order effects (change in costs when reaching new market equilibrium)
- Abatement costs in other sectors
- Conclusions on policy options
As most of the published studies report only on EU-9 or EU-15 levels, the abatement costs for
accession countries (AC) have not been extensively included. For some policy areas, the
inclusion of AC in the geographical scope may dramatically change abatement cost estimates
and hence primary policy focus. The RAINS estimates in section 3 do provide estimates for
AC countries that are comparable with EU-15 estimates.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 5
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
2.2. MARGINAL COSTS OF ABATEMENT
There may be some opportunities for countries to reduce some emissions at no cost –
allowing for “no-regrets” solutions that are in the primary interest of policy makers. But largescale reductions in such emissions will definitely entail costs.
2.2.1.
Calculation of marginal costs of abatement
Figure 2.1 indicates a typical relationship between emission abatement and cost. On the xaxis the tons of emissions abated (or avoided) are displayed. The y-axis shows the costs
induced by emission reduction efforts. Total costs increase with the extent of abatement.
Initial emission abatement –to the left of the x-axis- will not entail large costs. As more
emission abatement efforts are taken, the costs of doing this increase along. This cost
increase is generally at an increasing rate, as indicated by the fact that the slope of the total
cost curve gets steeper, because for extensive abatement efforts, costlier equipment or policy
measures will be required.
cost (€)
Total costs
Abated emissions (ton)
Figure 2.1: A typical curve for the total costs of abatement
A central concept in evaluating environmental policy is the marginal cost of emission
reductions. The marginal cost is the cost of the incremental amount of abatement. For
example, it is the cost associated with augmenting the reduction in CO2 from 5 tons to 6, or
from 150 to 151.
The slope of the total cost curve represents the marginal cost – the extra cost of an
incremental unit in emission abatement. Figure 2.2 displays the marginal costs corresponding
to the various levels of abatement in Figure 2.1. For simplicity, marginal costs are assumed to
be linearly increasing in total emission abatement quantities. The area under the marginal
cost curve corresponds to the total costs involved. This marginal cost curve is the least-cost
solution to arrive at emission abatement quantities.
Page 6
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
€/ton
Marginal costs
(MC)
Abated emissions (ton)
Figure 2.2: A typical curve for the marginal costs of abatement
In Figure 2.2, the marginal costs increase with the amount of abatement. This corresponds to
the fact that the slope of the total cost curve in Figure 2.1 increases as the amount of
abatement gets larger. Rising marginal costs are consistent with the idea that it is relatively
easy to remove the first units of a pollutant, but that removing additional units becomes
increasingly difficult and costly.
2.2.2.
Purpose of calculating marginal abatement costs
Actual numbers for marginal abatement costs will be retrieved in the literature survey. These
estimates of abatement costs can be used to enforce efficient and cost-effective strategies
across sectors and within the transport sector.
Within the transport sector, policies aimed at reducing emissions or noise should target
selected least cost solutions first in order to avoid taking expensive policy measures where
cheaper alternatives exist. Essentially, this corresponds to ranking policy options by cost
levels and identifying their potential in emission abatement to derive the marginal abatement
cost curve in Figure 2.2.
Similar cost-effectiveness exercises can be done in other sectors, resulting in an abatement
cost curves or these other sectors (industry, power generation, agriculture, services, and
households). This is done in Figure 2.3.
Next, the potential and cost for both transport and other sectors can be added to derive a
marginal abatement cost curve for the whole economy (all sectors). This is done by
comparing for each cost level how much abatement potential there is in each sector and
adding this potential.
For a marginal cost of abatement MC*, the least cost solution to reduce emissions by Qa is to
take policy measures up to Qt in transport and Qo in other sectors. From Figure 2.3 it is clear
that in this case, the transport sector has relatively limited emission abatement potential at
low costs and hence should not be forced by policy measures to go into emission abatement
activities any further than Qt.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 7
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
€/ton
Transport sector
All sectors
Other sectors
MC*
Abated emissions (ton)
Qt
Qo
Qa
Figure 2.3: Cross-sector marginal cost curve and abatement
Policies that would fail to do so and aim at near-uniform emissions standards for all sectors,
would entail very high costs for the transport sector and do not use cross-sectoral variation in
abatement cost. Figure 2.4 displays such a policy where transport is required to produce half
of total emission abatements Qa.
€/ton
Transport sector
MCt
Other sectors
All sectors
MC*
MCo
Abated emissions (ton)
Qa/2
Qa
Figure 2.4: Cost-ineffective abatement policies across sectors
A policy that requires transport to contribute Qa/2 in emission abatement will result in rather
high marginal abatement costs MCt compared to marginal abatement costs in other sectors
(MCo). Total costs of emission abatement will be higher too.
If the transport sector could negotiate with other sectors, it would be willing to pay up to MCt
to the other sectors to take over some abatement responsibilities. Other sectors would gladly
accept because the cost for taking over these abatement efforts are only MCo. The result of
these negotiations would be a solution where both transport and other sectors reduce
emissions up to the point where marginal abatement costs in all sectors are MC* - which
essentially is the situation in Figure 2.3.
The problem here is that such negotiations between sectors are unfeasible. Thus, policy
makers need to be informed quite accurately about marginal abatement costs in all sectors
before they can decide how to allocate emission abatement efforts across sectors, without
running the economy into high and unnecessary costs. Models like PRIMES or RAINS
provide this information.
Page 8
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
2.2.3.
Abatement costs of policy measures with multiple effects
Several measures, both in transport and in other sectors, will show effects on multiple
emissions. For example, increased diesel fuel efficiency reduces CO2 emissions and may
reduce particulate matter emissions as well.
In case the full cost of a multi-point policy measure (e.g. CO2 reduction) is related only to
abated emissions of a single pollutant, the emission reduction in other pollutants (e.g. PM10)
is attributed a zero value. A methodology that does not correct for this will achieve biased
solutions towards policy measures that achieve major reductions in single pollutants (e.g.
specific end-pipe technology), and neglect feasible solutions that show intermediate
reductions in several pollutants (e.g. traffic management), even if the latter would be less
costly overall.
Two methodologies may remedy this bias. A first solution consists in setting up a full-scale
model where all pollutants and all technologies are combined (e.g. RAINS, MARKAL or
Primes). Hence, the least-cost solution for single pollutant abatement will typically depend on
the desired pollutant abatement levels for all other pollutants. As this will result in shadow
prices internal to the model, the true costs of reducing emissions of a single pollutant can be
calculated, e.g. increasing fuel efficiency may be chosen as cost-effective solution to reduce
PM emissions only if the Kyoto agreement needs to be achieved. The set-up of a full-scale
model is, however, out of the scope of this project. Several top-down studies included in this
survey will however indicate major headlines and conclusions.
A second way of amending this bias consists of using externally calculated costs for each
pollutant (marginal damage costs), and adjusting the abatement cost for the environmental
side-effects. Thus, multi-point policy measures are rewarded for all the effects they realise,
and the abatement cost per pollutant takes the monetised environmental effects into account.
The Cantique project discussed in section 3.2 provides cost/benefit results according to this
second adjustment method.
€/ton
Marginal
costs
Single pollutant
Corrected for
external effects
Abated emissions (ton)
Figure 2.5: Abatement costs with adjustment for multi-point effects
This method is widely accepted if there is sufficient consensus on the €-value of each
pollutants damage, and if that monetary value is sufficiently constant – which rules out
threshold value related problems or damage values that change in response to policy
measures. Future work in SUMMA will deal with the monetization of these damages. In the
literature under survey, some sources use these methods to reveal net costs and benefits of
policy measures – see for example section 4.2.5.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 9
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
2.3.
SUMMA
ABATEMENT COSTS IN TRANSPORT MARKETS
If a policy measure increases transport costs, transport users may change behaviour and
reduce the use of transport or change towards other transport modes. Hence, the analysis of
abatement cost will need to take these second-order behavioural changes into account if it
wants to calculate the net effect of a policy measure. Certainly, up to now, not all policy
evaluation models took this effect into account. Only some of the reports under survey do.
In order to illustrate the importance of these second-order effects of measures aiming at
reducing e.g. greenhouse gas emission from transport, we need to expound how
environmental policy measures affect the transport market equilibrium and how total welfare
costs are influenced by it. In this section the economic approach to calculate the social costs
will be illustrated using a simplified framework with an application to three types of policy
measures;
•
fuel efficiency standards
•
fuel taxes
•
road pricing
The approach illustrated here will serve as a framework in sections 3, 0 and 5.
2.3.1.
Simplified transport market
Assume a simple transport market where only one type of passenger car is used, the lifetime
of all cars is equal, no taxes or charges are paid, and transport users do not take into account
time needed to perform a trip. Figure 2.6 represents the demand for transport in a specific
area with a given infrastructure. For simplicity, linear relationships are used.
€/km
a
Demand curve
p2
e2
p1
b
Extra cost efficient car
e1
Transport cost per km
Q2
Q1
Transport (km)
Figure 2.6: A simplified transport market
The demand for transport is illustrated by the downward sloping curve, representing a high
willingness to pay for the first transport kilometres, and significantly less for more transport.
The initial supply curve is assumed to be horizontal – representing constant average costs
per km. The transport cost per kilometre takes into account all monetary costs components
(fuel, purchase cost, insurance …). The initial market equilibrium is found in e1, where Q1 km
are driven at a cost of p1. Total costs of transport are equal to p1 * Q1. Some of the reports
under survey –e.g. using the TREMOVE model- will include this extra cost in the abatement
cost estimate.
If a new fuel-efficient car standard is imposed, the purchase cost of new cars will increase,
but fuel costs per km will decrease. The net effect is an increase in transport costs up to p2.
The total costs of the fuel efficiency standard would hence be estimated in first order to be
Q1*(p2-p1).
Page 10
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
However, we know that transport users are sensitive to transport costs. The increased
transport costs lead to a lower transport demand from Q1 to Q2 in Figure 2.6. Total costs
under this new policy are p2*Q2. The policy has thus increased total transport costs by
(p2*Q2)-(p1*Q1). Note that total transport costs are not necessarily higher under this policy.
If total costs may be lower, what is lost then by using more expensive cars? The answer is
mobility. Transport users will travel less, and hence are worse off. The welfare loss induced
by this policy is measured by the change in consumer surplus (the difference between the
willingness to pay of the consumer -the surface under the demand curve- and the price that
he pays in the market). In Figure 2.6 the initial consumer surplus was equal to the surface a
e1 p1. After the introduction of a fuel-efficiency standard, consumer surplus is equal to surface
a e2 p2. Thus the loss in welfare is equal to the difference between both surfaces, p2 e2 e1 p1.
This welfare loss has two components:
•
The welfare loss to the consumers that do not drive anymore (e2 e1 b)
•
The increased costs for the consumers that keep driving (p2 e2 b p1)
This welfare loss is the true cost of the fuel efficiency policy. It is thus different from
the change in marginal transport cost, or technical cost : (p2-p1)
the change in total transport cost (p2*Q2)-(p1*Q1)
and should be related to the emission reduction obtained by this policy measure to calculate
abatement costs of a fuel efficiency standard.
2.3.2.
Increased complexity with congestion costs
In reality, transport costs for users entail more than only financial costs paid, and include
some value related to travel time (also called time cost or congestion cost). Existing
congestion problems on European roads support the idea that the required travel time
increases as more vehicle kilometres are driven in an area. Thus the congestion cost per km
increases as transport kilometres increase. Figure 2.7 illustrates a simplified transport market
where congestion costs are taken into account. For simplicity again all relationships are
assumed to be linear in kilometres driven.
€/km
a
Demand Curve
Extra cost efficient car
p2
e2
p1
px
c
e1
Congestion cost
b
Transport cost per km
Q2
Q1
Transport (km)
Figure 2.7: A simplified transport market with congestion costs
In a market with congestion costs, the equilibrium will be e1 with Q1 kilometres driven at a cost
of monetary transport costs per km plus a substantial congestion cost.
When a fuel-efficient vehicle is introduced to reduce emissions, an extra cost will occur driving
the market equilibrium to e2, with fewer kilometres driven. Again, the welfare loss caused by
the introduction of a new fuel efficiency standard is the difference between the consumer
surplus before (a e1 p1) and after (a e2 p2) the implementation of the measure.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 11
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
The welfare loss is thus equal to the grey surface, and is now composed of three
components:
•
The welfare loss for the consumers that do not drive anymore (e2 e1 c)
•
The increased costs for consumers that keep driving (p2 e2 b px)
•
The reduction in congestion costs for the consumers that keep driving (p1 c b px)
The increased costs that are caused by the introduction of the fuel efficiency standard are
partly compensated by the reduction in time costs due to the decrease in transport demand.
Policy measures that help reducing congestion costs should therefore see their associated
costs to be lowered to reflect these extra benefits. Policies that aim at reducing emissions or
noise, will need to account for these costs to evaluate the emission abatement to.
2.3.3.
Taxes in transport markets
Up to now the framework abstracted taxes in transport and its influence on abatement costs.
In reality taxes on fuel, vehicle taxes and annual registration taxes represent an important
share of the total costs to European transport users. A European fuel-efficiency standard
increases car costs (including taxes), but fuel costs and fuel taxes per km decrease. The net
result remains to be an increase of the total transport cost per km on the level of consumer
3
budgets . This cost increase will lead to a decrease in the transport demand, as in Figure 2.7.
A policy measure like a fuel-efficiency standard will therefore show to have an important
impact on the government revenues from transport. Government revenues from fuel taxes
decrease in two steps as a consequence of fuel efficiency standards.
• First, as fuel consumption per car km decreases, revenue is restricted.
• Secondly, as fewer kilometres are driven, the former effect is reinforced.
Thus the available government budget in transport may decrease substantially. In principle,
this should not be viewed upon as a particular problem as government taxes are a transfer of
wealth, and hence do not constitute a cost as such.
However, since the loss in tax revenue will need to be compensated by an increase in other
taxes (e.g. labour taxes) to balance the government budget, they may inflict a loss of social
welfare in those related markets. For this reason, welfare economics may attribute a
somewhat higher weight to the government budget, taking implicit costs of taxation into
4
account when evaluating total emission abatement cost .
2.3.4.
Summary discussion of abatement cost in transport markets
Second order effects are effects of a policy measure that induce changes in the equilibrium of
a transport market and may hence reinforce or weaken policy effects. Simple policy measures
like environmental standards for vehicles may increase production costs for vehicles. A
second order effect of this standard may be that fewer kilometres are driven. As such,
abatement cost estimates need to take these effects into account as they change both the
costs of a policy (the denominator of abatement costs) measure and the abatement level (the
divisor of abatement costs).
Moreover, as these simple models for transport markets have illustrated, abatement costs
may need to take into account more than production costs alone. Since policies may affect
the transport market equilibrium, they will influence the welfare of producers and consumers
in these markets.
Hence, cost indicators for policy measures should provide information on;
3
If a more fuel-efficient car would lead to a lower cost for the consumer, it would have been introduced
in the market already.
4
Similar results will be obtained if the government does not compensate the decline in fuel tax income
by increasing other taxes. In that case the government budget will decrease, and government
expenditures will have to be cut (e.g. through a reduction of government investments or social security
provisions), leading to a welfare loss for government expenditure receivers.
Page 12
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
•
•
•
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
impact on resource costs (excluding taxes)
impact on consumer welfare (including congestion costs)
impact on taxes raised in transport markets
2.4. COMPARING ABATEMENT COSTS ACROSS STUDIES
As this report covers a wide range of studies and reports, the underlying studies differ in
many aspects:
• in technologies and policy measures under research
• in geographical scope
• in approach and calculation method
• in baseline scenario to compare both emission reduction and related costs to
The difference in calculation method for abatement costs arises from differences in;
• Cost scope (first-order effects or inclusion of second-order effects, implementation
resource costs only or including costs borne by other economic agents – so called
welfare analysis)
• Cost data (among which discount rates and exchange rates for fuel prices)
• Cost calculation (discounted cost & abatement calculations vs. annuity cost method)
The difference in baseline projections is a particular issue for a survey on abatement costs.
Some sources consider a 1990 or 1995 “frozen technology” baseline to estimate emission
abatement costs, thereby neglecting exogenous technological progress that may reduce
pollution and abatement costs to lower levels. Other studies take into account different time
paths of technological progress, or assume different policy levels already decided on. Both
type of studies have proven to offer valuable information, but results of abatement cost
estimates and abatement potential are often not comparable.
In particular for transport, the 1999 ACEA voluntary agreement to reduce CO2 emissions for
cars, and the EU policy measures, e.g. implied in EURO I to IV standards for vehicles, have a
significant impact on the calculation of both baseline transport costs and on baseline emission
levels. Hence, comparing a pre-EURO II cost-effectiveness study to a post-EURO II study
may indicate important differences in abatement costs and options. As a consequence,
different optimal policy measures may be indicated, though these differences arise only due
to differences in baseline scenario assumptions. This issue is equally important for the
calculation of abatement costs in other sectors.
Hence fully comparable results in either abatement costs or abatement potential are in
general not achievable for such a diversity of reports. Consequently, the authors have
preferred to list the results for each transport market and emission reduction topic carefully
according to individual reports, and to assess the differences in approach and calculation
method across studies in separate evaluation headings. Where possible, this will be indicated
by a division into several paragraphs;
• background, scope and baseline
• abatement costs
• evaluation
The authors acknowledge that this approach may have effects on the structure of this report.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 13
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Page 14
SUMMA
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
3. REDUCING TRANSPORT AIR POLLUTION
Air pollution is considered to be a major regional problem. It exacerbates existing health
problems, produces health problems where otherwise there would not be any and, in severe
cases, may cause death. Air pollution is also responsible for a wide variety of negative
environmental effects including damaged forests and crops, acid deposition (acid rain) and
widespread destruction of acid sensitive aquatic environments and organisms. As such, air
pollution by the transport sector should be considered as a negative effect that is not
consistent with sustainable mobility.
The transport sector is responsible for an important share of emissions in this respect. In the
SUMMA report “Setting the context for Defining Sustainable Transport and Mobility”
(European Commission 2003), the transport sector was found to be responsible for;
• 38% of 1999 PM emissions in EU15
• 37% of NMVOC emissions
• 63% of NOX emissions
• 64% of CO emissions.
From this, it would seem that a reduction of transport air pollution is required. However, from
an economic point of view this is only true to the extent that the costs of reducing air pollution
are lower in the transport sector than in other sectors – see section 2.2.2. Moreover, within
the transport sector, policy measures with the lowest cost in reducing emissions should be
5
chosen first .
This section will offer a literature survey on the cost-effectiveness of reducing air pollution
from transport relative to pollution abatement in other sectors. Furthermore it will help to
identify which policy measures in transport may offer cost-effective emission reduction
solutions.
The structure of this section is as follows. Section 3.1 provides an overview of technology
options to reduce PM10/PM2.5, NOX and VOC emissions in the road transport sector. Main
sources for single emission abatement cost estimates for technical measures are the RAINS
databases. Estimates of the Auto-Oil II Project provide cost estimates for control options that
reduce several emissions simultaneously. Section 3.2 discusses costs of non-technical policy
measures, including traffic pricing and policy measures influencing driving behaviour, to
reduce air pollution. Major contributions here are from the EC Cantique project and some
local reports. In section 3.3 abatement costs in the road transport sector are compared to
abatement costs in other sectors. Section 3.4 discusses the policy options and costs to
reduce air pollution.
5
Note that the effects of emissions from different sources and different geographical areas may be
different, even if emission abatement costs are equivalent. For instance, fine particles emitted by cars in
general cause higher health effects than power plant emissions, simply because they take place closer
to people. Furthermore chemical transformation of pollutants, including ozone formation from NOX and
NMVOC and formation of nitrates, will have different impacts as the emissions are established in
different locations.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 15
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
3.1.
SUMMA
TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
Sections 3.1.1 to 3.1.3 discuss the findings of the RAINS database on NOX, PM10/PM2.5 and
VOC emission options, focusing on the relative cost advantage of transport in comparison
with other sectors. Section 3.1.4 presents costs of a number of options that reduce emissions
of several pollutants simultaneously, as they have been issued by the EC Auto-Oil II program.
The control options are similar to those assessed in RAINS. However in contrast to RAINS
the associated costs were not allocated to the reduction of the different pollutants.
The RAINS model identifies for each of its application areas (i.e. emission source categories
considered in the model) a limited list of characteristic emission control options. In each case,
RAINS estimates the specific cost of reductions, taking into account investment-related and
operating costs. Investments are annualised over the technical lifetime of the pollution control
equipment, using a discount factor of 4 per cent. The technical performance as well as
investments, maintenance and material consumption are considered to be technology-specific
and thereby, for a given technology, equal for all European countries. Fuel characteristics,
boiler sizes, capacity utilization, labour and material costs, on the other hand, are important
country-specific factors influencing the actual costs of emission reduction under given
conditions. Non-technical options are not included in the database since they would be better
addressed in energy-environment and/or economic models.
In RAINS abatement costs are calculated from the expenditures on emission controls, which
are differentiated into:
• investments,
• fixed operating costs, and
• variable operating costs
From these three components annual costs per unit of activity level are calculated. Next,
these costs are related to one ton of pollutant abated.
Some of the parameters are considered common for all countries. These include technologyspecific data, such as removal efficiencies, unit investment costs, fixed operation and
maintenance costs, as well as parameters used for calculating variable cost components like
extra demand for labour, energy, and materials.
Country-specific parameters characterise more closely the type of capacity operated in a
given country and its operation regime. To these parameters belong: average size of
installation in a given sector, plant factors, annual fuel consumption and/or mileage for
vehicles. In addition, the prices for labour, electricity, fuel and other materials as well as cost
of waste disposal also belong to that category.
The most important factors leading to differences among countries in unit abatement costs
are: different annual energy consumption per vehicle and country-specific unabated emission
factors. The latter difference is caused by different compositions of the vehicle fleet as well as
differences in driving patterns (e.g., different share of urban vs. highway driving depending on
available infrastructure in a given country).
Only abatement measures were selected, which go beyond measures implemented to fulfil
current legislation in 2010 (in other words: measures that are still available on top of
measures required by the current legislation).
Marginal abatement costs are given for the EU15 countries and eight of the 10 future EU
member countries (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia,
and Slovenia). For Malta and Cyprus RAINS does not provide cost estimates.
Page 16
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
3.1.1.
PM10 and PM2.5 abatement
3.1.1.1.
Abatement options
Klimont et al. (2002) describe the control options available in IIASA (2003), which form the
basis of the abatement costs considered. The main emission control options for road vehicles
can be divided into the following categories:
•
•
•
Changes in fuel quality, e.g., decreases in sulphur content. Changes in fuel
specifications may provide engine manufactures with greater flexibility to use new
emission reduction technologies.
Changes in engine design, which result in better control of the combustion processes
in the engine.
Flue gas post-combustion treatment, using various types of trap concepts and
catalysts to convert or capture emissions before they leave the exhaust pipe.
Engine technology is very different for diesel engines and for gasoline engines. Diesels emit
much higher amounts of particles than gasoline engines do, leading to much higher reduction
potential for diesel engines.
a)
Diesel vehicles
1)
Changes in fuel quality
High sulphur or aromatics contents have an impact on the quantity and quality of particulate
matter emissions. They also interfere with several technologies controlling diesel exhaust. A
reduction of fuel density lowers NOX and PM emissions, but on the other hand it increases
hydrocarbon (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) exhaust. The use of synthetic diesel fuel,
gained from feedstock such as gas or coal, significantly reduces all pollutant emissions,
including PM. Other measures, which may result in lower PM emissions, are the use of biodiesel, derived from various vegetable oils, and of dimethyl ether (DME), made, for example,
from natural gas and coal (http://www.dieselnet.com).
2)
Changes in engine design
Changes in diesel engine design have reduced emissions from diesel vehicles by more than
90 percent. Important improvements are electronic controls and fuel injectors to deliver fuel at
the best combination of injection pressure, injection timing and spray location, air-intake
improvements, combustion chamber modifications, exhaust gas re-circulation and ceramic incylinder coatings (see also Cofala and Syri, 1998b).
3)
Flue gas post combustion treatment
Catalysts increase the rate of chemical reaction. In emission control applications
heterogeneous catalysts are used, which are supported on high surface area porous oxides.
Two processes may cause malfunction of emission control catalysts: poisoning and thermal
deactivation. The catalyst’s active sites can be chemically deactivated or the catalytic surface
can be masked, mainly by sulphur and phosphorus. High temperature can result in a sintering
of the catalytic material or the carrier.
Diesel oxidation catalysts were first introduced in the 1970s in underground mining as a
measure to control CO. Today catalysts are used on many diesel cars in Europe, primarily to
control PM and hydrocarbon emissions. Early diesel catalysts utilised active oxidation
formulations such as platinum on alumina. They were very effective in oxidizing emissions of
CO and HC as well as the organic fraction (SOF) of diesel particles.
However, catalysts also oxidise sulphur, which is present in diesel exhaust from the
combustion of sulphur-containing fuels. The oxidation of sulphur to SO2 leads to the
generation of sulphate particulate matter. This may significantly increase total primary particle
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 17
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
emissions, although the SOF PM fraction is reduced. Newer diesel oxidation catalysts are
designed to be selective, i.e., to obtain a compromise between sufficiently high HC and SOF
activity and acceptably low formation of SO2.
Diesel particulate traps physically capture diesel particles preventing their release to the
atmosphere. Diesel traps work primarily through a combination of deep-bed filtration
mechanisms, such as diffusion and inertial particle deposition. The most common filter
materials are ceramic wall-flow monoliths and filters made of continuous ceramic fibres. A
number of methods have been proposed to regenerate diesel filters.
Passive filter systems utilise a catalyst to lower the soot combustion temperature. Active filter
systems incorporate electric heaters or fuel burners to burn the collected particles.
The regeneration of a diesel filter is characterised by a dynamic equilibrium between the soot
being captured in the filter and the soot being oxidised. The rate of soot oxidation depends on
the filter temperature. At temperatures that are typically found in diesel exhaust gases, the
rate of soot oxidation is small. Therefore, to facilitate filter regeneration, either the exhaust
gas temperature has to be increased or a catalyst has to be applied. The catalyst can be
applied directly onto the filter media or dissolved in the fuel as a fuel additive.
Wall-flow monoliths became the most popular diesel filter design. They are derived from flowthrough catalyst supports where channel ends are alternately plugged to force the gas flow
through porous walls acting as filters. The monoliths are made of specialised ceramic
materials. Most catalysed diesel traps utilise monolithic wall-flow substrates coated with a
catalyst. The catalyst lowers the soot combustion temperature, allowing the filter to selfregenerate during periods of high exhaust gas temperature. Filters of different sizes, with and
without catalysts, have been developed and are available as standard products.
The CRT (Continuously Regenerating Trap) system for diesel particulate utilises a ceramic
wall-flow filter to trap particles. The trapped PM is continuously oxidised by nitrogen dioxide
generated in an oxidation catalyst, which is placed upstream of the filter. The CRT requires
practically sulphur-free fuel for proper operation.
Fuel additives (fuel soluble catalysts) can be used in passive diesel trap systems to lower the
soot combustion temperature and to facilitate filter regeneration. The most popular additives
include iron, cerium, copper, and platinum. Many laboratory experiments and field tests have
been conducted to evaluate the regeneration of various diesel filter media using additives.
Cerium additive is utilised in a commercial trap system for diesel cars.
Electric regeneration of diesel traps has been attempted in off- and on-board configurations.
On-board regeneration by means of an electric heater puts a significant additional load on the
vehicle electrical system. Partial flow layouts or regeneration with hot air are more energy
efficient. An on-board, hot air regenerated diesel trap was tested on over 2000 urban buses in
the U.S. A system with off-board electric regeneration has also been developed and
commercialised.
Diesel fuel burners can be used to increase the exhaust gas temperature upstream of a trap
in order to facilitate filter regeneration. Fuel burner filters can be divided into single point
systems and full flow systems. The full flow systems can be regenerated during regular
vehicle operation but require complex control to ensure a thermally balanced regeneration. An
advanced system featuring electronically controlled full flow burner regeneration has been
developed.
b)
Gasoline engines
Although there are no standards for PM emissions from gasoline (spark ignition) engines,
implementation of emission control technologies aimed at mitigation of emissions of NOX and
NMVOC also reduces the emissions of particles from those engines. For gasoline exhaust it
has been assumed that catalytic converters lead to a reduction of PM emissions of 50 %
(Euro I to Euro VI).
Page 18
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
1)
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Implementation of control options in RAINS
The options to control vehicle emissions in RAINS simulate the effects of implementation of
European legislation on mobile sources. Table 3-1 presents the control options considered.
See Klimont et al. (2002) for more information.
Table 3-1: RAINS PM10/PM2.5 Control technologies for road vehicles
Diesel engines
Diesel light duty trucks
and passenger cars
EURO I -1992/94
EURO II – 1996
EURO III – 2000
EURO IV – 2005
EURO V - post- 2005, Stage 1
EURO VI - post 2005, Stage 2
Gasoline engines
Heavy duty vehicles, spark ignition
engines
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Motorcycles, and mopeds 2-stroke
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Motorcycles 4-stroke
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
3.1.1.2.
Heavy duty diesel trucks and buses
EURO I – 1992
EURO II – 1996
EURO III – 2000
EURO IV – 2005
EURO V – 2008
EURO VI - post-2008
Light duty gasoline
direct injection (DI) engines
EURO III
EURO IV
EURO V - post 2005, stage 1
EURO VI - post 2005, stage 2
Light duty 4-stroke
spark ignition engines, not DI
EURO I
EURO II
EURO III
EURO IV
EURO V - post 2005, stage 1
EURO VI - post 2005, stage 2
Abatement costs
Table 3-2 and Table 3-3 give an overview of the ranges of marginal PM10 abatement costs
for the road transport sector in the EU15 countries plus 8 future member states and PM2.5
6
abatement costs for a subset of these countries respectively . The range of abatement costs
is based on marginal abatement cost curves given by IIASA (2003).
The tables indicate a “low” value, giving the cheapest measure on top of measures required
by the current legislation (CLE). The “central” value gives the marginal costs of the measure
with which 50% of the total reduction achieved in the sector (on top of CLE) is reached. This
value provides an indication of the cost of an “average” abatement option in the respective
sector and thus can be used for comparisons. The “high” value does not give the cost of the
most expensive control option available, but gives the cost of the measure with which 98% of
total amount abated (on top of CLE) is reached. This procedure is used to cut extreme values,
which occur at the high end of the abatement cost curves.
Table 3-2 shows that the cost for the cheapest abatement measure is the same for all
accession countries. For those countries – as well as for Austria, Belgium, Germany,
Portugal, Spain and Sweden – the introduction of 2-stroke motorcycles and mopeds
complying with stage 2 offers the cheapest opportunity for reducing PM10 emissions. For
Italy, the introduction of further heavy-duty diesel vehicles complying with EURO IV
represents the cheapest measure. In the rest of the countries, introduction of diesel light duty
and passenger cars according to the post-2005 stage1 (“EURO V”) standard is the least cost
measure.
6
More detailed information is included in Annex Table 0-1 page 112 and Table 0-2 page 117.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 19
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
When looking at the sum of emissions that can be abated using all control options (see Table
0-1 in the Annex), it shows that road transport has a relevant potential for abating PM10
emissions in most countries. For most countries considered the cheapest control option lies in
a quite narrow range of 68 to 89 €/kg PM abated. Denmark, Luxemburg and Italy showing
higher costs, Spain and Greece lower costs. The case of Greece is interesting, because it
offers the cheapest measure of all countries, but belongs to the most expensive countries for
7
the central value and at the high end of the cost curve .
With the exception of Finland, France, Italy and the Netherlands the central value, which is
the most suitable for comparisons, is considerably higher than the low value. For Finland and
France the cheapest control option allows to reach 50% of the total abatement potential in the
road transport sector; therefore low and central value are identical.
Table 3-2: RAINS PM10 abatement costs road transport (€/kg)
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxemburg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UK
Czech Rep.
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithouania
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia
Road Transport
Low
Central
High
77,9
101,4
121,7
77,9
109,9
324,5
103,5
156,5
262,8
89,1
89,1
195,6
73,3
73,3
170,4
68,1
118,3
211,7
25,7
199,7
335,5
82,0
228,4
383,5
124,4
126,7
209,0
99,3
120,3
202,1
82,7
88,6
291,2
77,9
147,1
247,1
52,8
143,4
145,1
77,9
110,1
184,8
86,1
127,2
213,7
77,9
151,8
256,0
77,9
162,4
272,7
77,9
151,8
255,0
77,9
162,4
272,7
77,9
162,4
272,7
77,9
151,8
255,0
77,9
151,8
255,0
77,9
183,9
308,9
When comparing the central value between countries, a variation of up to a factor of 3 can be
found. Finland, France and the Netherlands offer the cheapest control options; Ireland,
Greece and Slovenia have the highest costs. When aiming at implementing abatement
measures in European road transport, this should be taken into account. It has to be noted,
that abatement measures in the future member countries are not necessarily cheaper than in
the EU15 countries.
Table 3-3 presents the abatement costs for PM2.5 instead of PM10 for a subset of the
countries covered above. The measures included in the analysis are the same as for PM10,
however the removal efficiency is lower for PM2.5 compared to that for PM10. This implies
that the cost per kg are higher for the same control option. The abatement measures
identified are mostly the same as for PM10, therefore the conclusions are basically the same
as above. A striking exception is the high value for Poland, which is extremely high. To reach
7
The exceptional situation of the Greek transport system in PM10 reduction may be attributed largely to
the lack of diesel passenger cars in Greek vehicle stock.
Page 20
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
98% of the emission abatement possible in the road transport sector a very expensive option
– the reduction of particle emissions from light duty vehicles with 4-stroke spark ignition
engines – has to be implemented.
Table 3-3: RAINS PM2.5 abatement costs road transport (€/kg)
France
Germany
Greece
Italy
Spain
Sweden
UK
Czech Rep.
Hungary
Poland
3.1.2.
Road Transport
Low
Central
High
88,4
88,4
172,6
145,6
163,7
290,1
37,3
37,3
396,2
133,4
133,4
224,2
89,4
190,6
190,6
105,3
125,7
210,0
124,5
124,5
254,2
105,3
132,8
289,7
105,3
132,8
289,7
105,3
132,8 41.818,8
NOX abatement
3.1.2.1.
Abatement options
Cofala and Syri (1998) describe the control options used for abatement cost calculations in
RAINS. Main emission control options for road vehicles are;
• Changes in engine design to better control the combustion processes in the engine.
• Flue gas post combustion treatment of the exhaust gas by various types of catalytic
converters.
a)
Diesel engines
The high pressures and temperatures and the relatively low fuel-to-air ratios in diesel engines
reduce the incomplete combustion, making these engines more fuel efficient than sparkignition engines. Due to the lower degree of incomplete combustion, diesel engines emit
lower amounts of VOC and CO than do Otto engines, whereas NOX emissions depend on the
design and the rated power of the engine. Approximately 10 to 20 % of nitrogen oxides from
diesel engines are emitted as NO2 (nitrogen oxide), which is five times more toxic than NO
(nitrogen monoxide). Gasoline engines emit less than 10 % as NO2. However, this NO is
converted to NOX within short time.
For diesel engines there is also an inherent conflict between some of the most powerful NOX
control techniques and the emissions of particulates. This ‘trade-off’ is not absolute – various
NOX control techniques have varying effects on soot and VOC emissions, and the importance
of these effects varies with engine speed and load. These tradeoffs place limits on the extent
to which any of the three pollutants can be reduced.
1)
Changes in engine design
Modern engines of diesel passenger cars and light duty trucks are built according to two
concepts: the direct injection and the indirect injection of fuel. Engines for heavy-duty trucks
are built as direct injection engines. The uncontrolled emissions of NOX for direct injection
engines are typically twice as high as with the indirect injection design. However, after
implementation of appropriate control measures the emissions from these two types of
engines become comparable.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 21
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
There is no single technology to drastically reduce NOX emissions from light- and heavy-duty
diesel engines without major adverse impacts on the emissions of soot, VOC and noise, and
on the fuel efficiency. Thus usually reduction measures are applied in combination and need
to be optimised to achieve a reasonable trade-off between the emissions of individual
pollutants. Measures available are discussed below.
Injection Timing. The timing relationship between the beginning of the fuel injection and the
top of the compression stroke of the piston has an important effect on diesel engine
emissions and fuel economy. For purposes of fuel efficiency it is preferable that the
combustion begins just at the point of greatest compression, which requires fuel injection
somewhat before this point. A long ignition delay provides more time for air and fuel to mix,
which increases both the amount of fuel that burns in the premixed combustion phase and the
maximum temperature in the cylinder. Both of these effects tend to increase NOX emissions,
but reduce particulate and VOC emissions. Therefore, the injection timing must compromise
between emissions of particulates and VOC and fuel economy on one hand and noise, NOX
emissions and maximum cylinder pressure on the other. A higher injection pressure might
alleviate the need for this compromise. The injection pressure in modern engines reaches
1.500 bar.
Turbo charging and intercooling. A turbocharger consists of a centrifugal air compressor
feeding the intake manifold, mounted on the same shaft as an exhaust gas turbine in the
exhaust stream. By increasing the mass of air in the cylinder prior to compression, turbo
charging correspondingly increases the amount of fuel that can be burned without excessive
smoke, the potential maximum power output and the fuel efficiency of the engine. The
compressed air can be cooled in an intercooler before it enters the cylinder. This increase of
the air mass in the cylinder and the reduction of its temperature can reduce both NOX and
particulate emissions. In the USA, virtually all heavy-duty engines produced since 1991 are
equipped with these systems.
Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). EGR reduces the partial pressure for oxygen and the
combustion temperature, leading to reduced NOX formation. EGR is a proven NOX control
technique for light-duty gasoline and diesel vehicles. In heavy-duty trucks, EGR has shown to
increase wear rates and oil contamination, resulting in higher maintenance expenses and
shorter engine life. After initial difficulties the EGR is also considered as a viable option for
heavy-duty engines.
2)
Flue gas post-combustion treatment
The process of catalytic NOX reduction used on gasoline vehicles is inapplicable to diesel.
Because of their heterogeneous combustion process, diesel engines require substantial
excess air, and their exhaust thus inherently contains significant oxygen. The three-way
catalysts used on automobiles require precise stoichiometric mixture in the exhaust gas to
properly function; in the presence of excess oxygen, their NOX conversion efficiency rapidly
approaches zero. The application of catalytic converters to diesel engines has been
intensively tested. For light duty engines the zeolyte catalyst with reducing agent as well as
other types of de-NOX catalysts offers a promising solution. NOX catalytic converters for
heavy-duty engines are expected to be on a market within the next years. The catalysts
enable to reduce the emissions by more than 80 % compared with the uncontrolled emissions
from engines with the late 1980’s design.
b)
Gasoline engines
The combustion temperature determines the formation of NOX in gasoline fuelled Otto
engines, the residence time in the peak temperature zone and by the oxygen content of the
fuel-to-air ratio.
Gasoline engines without emission control are usually operated with stoichiometric or slightly
over-stoichiometric fuel-to-air ratio, whereas engines built in the sixties were designed to
operate below stoichiometry. The resulting high CO emissions of the early design initiated the
first technical regulations to limit CO emissions. The new engines indeed reduced the CO and
Page 22
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
VOC emissions, but at the same time (due to the higher stoichiometric ratio) the NOX
emissions increased drastically. There are several means to reduce NOX emissions from
gasoline-fuelled cars.
1)
Changes in engine design
Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). The recirculation of exhaust gases substitutes part of the
fresh intake air by exhaust gas, reducing the oxygen content in the combustion chamber and
dampening through its additional heat capacity the temperature peaks. Both effects contribute
to lower NOX emissions. Removal efficiencies of up to 30 % are achievable without any
increase in fuel consumption.
Lean burn engines. A change in the stoichiometry of the fuel-to-air ratio towards leaner
mixtures results also in reduced NOX emissions. To guarantee satisfactory operation of the
engines, some changes in the general design of the engines are necessary. Therefore, only
new engines can be designed along the lean burn concept.
2)
Flue gas post-combustion treatment
A catalytic converter enables and accelerates the chemical conversion of CO, VOC and NOX
to CO2, H2O and N2 at temperatures well below that at which it would occur spontaneously.
Completing the combustion process facilitates the oxidation of CO and VOC, nitrogen oxides
are catalytically reduced. The catalysts consist of ceramic materials coated with precious
metals (platinum, palladium or rhodium) or with active metal oxides (e.g., gamma alumina,
copper oxide, etc.). Catalysts require the use of lead-free fuels, since the leaded antiknock
additives form inorganic lead salts, which deposit on the catalytic surface, deactivating it.
The three-way catalyst, which is standard equipment for currently produced cars, uses a
single unit, which oxidises CO and VOC to carbon dioxide and reduces NOX to nitrogen. For
this process to work, it is necessary to have a very careful control of the concentrations of all
the gases on the catalytic surface. Therefore, these systems require a fuel injection system
capable of maintaining precise control of the fuel-to-air ratios under all driving conditions. This
is achieved by means of electronic fuel injection combined with an oxygen sensor in the
exhaust gas stream. The catalytic unit is programmed to control some 70 to 90 % of the
CO/VOC/NOX during urban diving and up to 99 % at high speed.
Advanced catalysts are characterised by a shorter warm-up periods to avoid idle operation
after starting up the car. Possible solutions depend on splitting the whole mass of catalyst into
two parts - one located close to the engine manifold and the main catalyst. The pre-catalyst
warms-up quickly and reduces the emissions in the period when the main catalyst has not yet
reached its working temperature. Also electrically heated catalysts and burner-heated
catalysts with are under development.
3)
Implementation of control options in RAINS
The available control options were grouped into technology packages that enable to meet the
current emission standards as well as legislative proposals discussed in the European context
for individual categories of vehicles. It should be stressed that these packages comprise
different types of measures, i.e., not only the changes in engine technology and the use of
catalytic converters, but also changes in fuel specifications and measures to improve
inspection and maintenance. Table 3-4 presents the control options considered (see Cofala
and Syri (1998) for more information).
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 23
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
Table 3-4: RAINS NOX Control technologies for road vehicles
Gasoline 4-stroke passenger cars
and LDV
3-way catalytic converter - 1992 standards
3-way catalytic converter - 1996 standards
Advanced converter with maintenance
schemes – EU
2000 standard
Advanced converter with maintenance
schemes – possible EU post-2005 standard
Natural gas 4-stroke passenger cars
and LDV
3-way catalytic converter
Heavy duty vehicles
Natural gas - catalytic converter
Gasoline - catalytic converter
3.1.2.2.
Diesel passenger cars and LDV
Combustion modification - 1992 standards
Combustion modification - 1996 standards
Advanced combustion modification with
maintenance schemes - EU 2000 standards
NOX converter
Heavy duty vehicles - diesel
Euro I - 1993 standards
Euro II - 1996 standards
Euro III - EU 2000
maintenance schemes
Euro IV (NOX converter)
standards
with
Abatement costs
Table 3-5 presents the ranges of marginal NOX abatement costs for road transport in the
8
EU15 countries plus 8 future member states . The range of abatement costs is based on
marginal abatement cost curves given by Cofala and Syri (1998). As in the case of PM10,
three values are used to characterise the cost curve: the “low” value, associated with the
cheapest measure on top of measures required by the current legislation (CLE); the “central”
value, giving the marginal costs of the measure with which 50% of the total reduction
achievable in the sector (on top of CLE) is reached; and the “high” value, indicating the cost of
the measure with which 98% of the total amount abatable in a sector (on top of CLE) is
reached.
Low values differ considerably between countries with many of the new member countries at
the higher end. For Denmark, Finland, France, Sweden and the UK low and central value are
identical, because the cheapest control option allows reaching 50% of the total abatement
potential in the road transport sector in these countries.
8
More detailed information is included in the Annex tables.
Page 24
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Table 3-5: RAINS NOX Abatement costs road transport (€/t)
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxemburg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UK
Czech Rep.
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithouania
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia
Road Transport
Low
Central
High
975
2,049
18,294
1,114
2,637
17,774
2,404
2,404
18,294
2,216
2,216
16,298
2,047
2,047
24,152
1,754
3,146
17,349
2,560
3,772
21,066
1,738
4,019
16,043
793
1,746
35,711
1,424
3,371
19,601
1,203
2,138
19,837
4,255
6,268
41,962
1,088
2,374
35,328
2,355
2,355
16,684
2,976
2,976
16,396
2,927
3,424
40,570
1,806
3,179
27,047
1,925
3,709
38,380
1,945
3,424
27,047
1,945
3,424
27,047
4,520
6,087
37,190
5,091
5,955
40,570
2,543
3,424
27,047
It is remarkable that the central value for road transport for all countries considered is
9
associated to the same control option: Diesel HDV - EURO4 (NOX converter) . However, the
marginal costs differ considerably; there is a factor of 3.6 between the cheapest
implementation in Italy and the most expensive implementation in Portugal. So if there is a
choice for geographical differentiation, this measure should be implemented in Italy first. As
for PM abatement, the control costs in the new member countries belong to the highest of all
23 countries considered.
3.1.3.
VOC abatement
Many of the options for reducing NOX emissions from road transport activities simultaneously
reduce VOC emissions. Separate VOC cost curves for such measures are not available in
RAINS. As a consequence, RAINS gives only marginal abatement costs for reducing
evaporative losses from gasoline powered vehicles and reducing exhaust emissions from
two-stroke gasoline engines (see Klimont et al., 2000). Refuelling losses are estimated as
part of the emissions from gasoline stations.
The three main sources of evaporative emissions from vehicles are:
• diurnal emissions - result from the vapour expansion inside the gasoline tank that is
associated with the daily variation in ambient temperature,
• hot soak emissions - occur when a hot engine is turned off and the heat from the engine
and exhaust system raises the temperature of the fuel system, and
• running losses - during vehicle operation, high ambient temperature and heat from the
exhaust system will contribute to the generation of vapour in the gasoline tank
The magnitude of emissions from these sources will be affected by the volatility of the
gasoline, the ambient temperature, temperature changes, and vehicle design characteristic
and driving habits.
9
See Annex; Table 0-3 page 120
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 25
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
Control options include small and large on-board carbon canisters, which adsorb gasoline
vapours and desorb them to the engine under appropriate conditions. Also, use of lower
volatility gasoline results in reduction of emissions. Currently RAINS includes small carbon
canisters (SCC) as a control option with a unit cost range of 50 – 600 €/t VOC. The EU
Directive 91/441/EEC requires the installation of carbon canisters in all new gasoline
passenger car models since 1993. For this reason, this control option is not relevant for our
purpose of looking at measures on top of current legislation.
Uncontrolled two-stroke gasoline engines are characterised by very high VOC emissions
rates. These types of engines are used in cars, mopeds and in some off-road machinery, e.g.
lawn mowers and motor saws used in forestry. With oxidation catalysts tailpipe emissions of
VOC from two-stroke engines can be reduced by up to 90 %. Oxidation catalysts reduce
hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions. Klimont et al. (2000) indicate a unit cost of
900 €/t VOC.
3.1.4.
Assessment of simultaneous emission reduction
The Auto-Oil II reports (European Commission, 1999, 2000a to 2000d) perform a social
welfare analysis on emission reductions in 9 EU countries and a number of European cities.
In terms of vehicle technology, effects and costs of future emission limits for motorcycles have
been investigated. Furthermore, the report presents options for so-called Enhanced
Environmentally Friendly Vehicles (EEV) and associated costs for heavy-duty vehicles and
buses, and for passenger cars and light duty vehicles. Table 3-6 lists emission reductions and
associated costs for heavy-duty vehicles and buses for illustration.
Table 3-6: EEV Options applicable to new heavy-duty vehicles and buses
% cost increase
(on catalyst cost)
Vehicle types
All with oxidation catalysts
All with particulate traps
All with deNOX catalysts,
deNOX traps or selective
catalytic reduction (SCR)
0-10
200
(2)
€ 1.500 SCR
15-300 over oxidation
catalysts for deNOX
catalysts or traps
% emission reduction on top of standards
for 2005 and in advance of 2008
PM
CO
HC
NOX
60-95
60-95
0
20-25
(1)
50-80
0-60
0-60
50-70
0-50
All with more than one or all
20-400
50-95
50-95
50-70
50-80
above devices
(MeOH) reformer or direct
n.a.
95
95
99
99
MeOH fuel cell vehicles
(1)
All reduction in particulates are in mass. For particulate trap systems incorporating catalysts the
highest reductions assume the use of < 10 ppm sulphur fuel since on 50 ppm fuel the sulphate part of
the total particulate mass would be equivalent to the 2005 limit values.
(2)
SCR -- Selective Catalytic Reduction
The control options considered are very similar to those included in the RAINS abatement
cost estimates. But in contrast to RAINS, the AUTO-Oil II reports do not allocate costs to
single pollutants. This better reflects reality but makes comparisons between measures and
sectors almost impossible.
Page 26
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
In terms of fuel technology, Auto-Oil II investigates effects and costs of a number of fuel
quality scenarios. These scenarios aim at improving vehicle emissions taking account of
predicted trends in the market and regulations already in place. Based on air quality
predictions for 2010 and the expected needs for further improvements, European wide fuel
scenarios were focused on reductions in PM and VOC emissions as only PM and ozone
concentrations were expected to exceed the Community standards in a number of European
urban areas. For other pollutants under consideration, Community standards were expected
to be met in general although some problems were expected to remain in some cities or in
some limited areas in city centres. To solve those local problems, certain tailor made
solutions were analysed, including city fuel scenarios and/or the promotion of alternative
fuels.
Table 3-7 shows an example result for the gasoline scenarios analysed. Note that these fuel
adjustments increased NOX and PM10 emissions, but offered primarily reductions in VOC.
Contrary to RAINS, the indicated costs are net present values of the costs required to change
the fuel supply chain (refineries…). As such, these costs are not comparable with RAINS
results.
Table 3-7: Gasoline scenarios - main results in 2010 (EU9)
EU9 in 2010
Cost and impact on transport
Impact on emissions (ton)
Total extra
cost (NPV
2005-2020)
-
2010
budget
impact
-
Passenger
demand
(Mpkm)
5.474.409
Freight
demand
(Mtkm)
2.253.687
NOX
PM
VOC
NMVOC
1.463.540
61.202
789.472
730.441
Fuel – MQ1
1.532
-27
-427
22
15.444
81
-9.045
-8.087
-46
Fuel – MQ2
3.517
-59
-955
41
31.539
84
-25.112
-22.762
-134
Fuel – MQ3
2.367
-40
-641
28
19.904
82
-16.323
-14.729
-90
Fuel – MQ4
3.833
-66
-1.065
49
25.409
85
-21.112
-19.106
-149
Base case level
Impact on transport (%)
CO2
(kton)
660.513
Impact on emissions (%)
Fuel – MQ1
0,0%
0,0%
1,1%
0,1%
-1,1%
-1,1%
0,0%
Fuel – MQ2
0,0%
0,0%
2,2%
0,1%
-3,2%
-3,1%
0,0%
Fuel – MQ3
0,0%
0,0%
1,4%
0,1%
-2,1%
-2,0%
0,0%
Fuel – MQ4
0,0%
0,0%
1,7%
0,1%
-2,7%
-2,6%
0,0%
To summarise, the Auto-Oil II report indicated that considerable reductions in pollutant
emissions could be achieved with control options in the field of vehicle technology and fuel
technology. However, it is difficult to derive quantitative marginal abatement costs for different
pollutants from the information given in the Auto-Oil II report.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 27
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
3.2. NON-TECHNICAL OPTIONS
This section contains an overview of non-technical policy options, including traffic pricing and
measures that influence driving behaviour, to reduce air pollutions. Section 3.2.1 provides an
overview of several options as they have been reported in the EC Cantique reports. Section
3.2.2 discusses a report of the Flemish Community on potential effects of policy measures
that influence driving behaviour. Section 3.2.3 reports on a Dutch TNO study for the impact of
local traffic management on urban ambient air quality.
3.2.1.
Overview of non-technical measures
3.2.1.1.
Background, scope and baseline
Cantique (Concerted Action on Non Technical Measures and their Impact on Air Quality and
Emissions) aims to inform policy-makers on the use of non-technical transport measures to
improve urban air quality and reduce CO2 emissions. Non-technical measures cover a wide
range of measures like public transport and inter-modality, traffic management, efficient road
freight transport, pricing measures and other measures influencing drivers’ and travel
behaviour. The target audience for Cantique are policy makers on EU-, national and regional
level as well as planners and consultants.
Based on the available information about research projects and practical attempts on national
and EU-level the environmental and economic effects of non-technical measures have been
analysed and put into a scheme with the aim to make them comparable.
A cost-effectiveness analysis was made and ranking of measures was performed (subject to
data availability). Furthermore, an assessment of the most promising measures was made,
both individually and in bundles.
The notion of costs adopted is quite “restrictive”, i.e. it does not refer to generalised cost
perceived by users (travellers, households and so on), but only to costs directly involved for
its implementation, mainly related to infrastructure equipment, maintenance and personnel.
The discussion of costs in the context of an impact assessment could hence distinguish
between:
• Costs directly induced by a measure (investment, operation, maintenance...)
• Costs saving by changing traffic parameters, i.e. the monetary value of emissions and
CO2, including health damage, buildings and crops.
The former are regarded as the costs of a measure, the latter as the benefits - reductions of
environmental costs, with no accounting of accident costs and time costs due to lack of data.
Cantique does not offer complete information on benefits (emission reduction) as in many
reports some pollutants are not considered. This detracts from the significance and
comparability of monetary cost/benefit assessments. Therefore the benefits were also
computed in terms of abatements of (available) pollutants in physical terms and a cost/benefit
analysis was carried out in terms of cost per unit mass of abated pollutant.
This resulted in a two-level approach in the cost-benefit analysis:
• a “cost-effectiveness” level, analysing costs of measure with reference to each
specific pollutant abated
• a “cost-benefit” second level, based on more restricted measure, with a common
spectrum of pollutants abated.
Table 3-8 provides an overview of the non-technical measures analysed in Cantique, with
project reference and project location.
Page 28
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Table 3-8: Cantique list of studies under survey
PROJECT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
MEASURE
LOCATION
PRICING POLICIES - PARKING CHARGES
AUTO OIL II
Parking charges
ATHENS
AUTO OIL II
Parking charges
LYON
AIUTO
Parking charges
COMO
PRICING POLICIES - ROAD PRICING
AUTO OIL II
Road Pricing
ATHENS
NASQ
Road Pricing
LONDON
EUROTOLL
Cordon Pricing
STUTTGART
AIUTO
Road Pricing
COMO
INFRASTRUCTURE -INVESTMENT
AIUTO
New lines, Public Transport COMO
Frequency Increase
OVERALL ECONOMIC..
Integrated Telematic Systems
GERMANY- AREA WIDE AUTO OIL II
UTC- increasing road capacity
ATHENS
AUTO OIL II
Bus lanes, priority
ATHENS
QUARTET PLUS
ITC
TURIN
INFRASTRUCTURE - URBAN FREIGHT MANAGEMENT
OVERALL
Distribution Centre
GERMANY- AREA WIDE ECONOMIC..
CITY LOGISTICS
Distribution Centre
COLOGNE
OVERALL ECONOMIC..
Increased of payload
GERMANY- AREA WIDE AUTO OIL II
City Logistics
ATHENS
REGULATIONS - AIR QUALITY RESPONSIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL
NASQ
Parking management
LONDON
OPTION TO REDUCE
Traffic restrictions
NETHERLAND
-AREA WIDENASQ
Low emission zones
LONDON
REGULATIONS - URBAN FREIGHT TRANSPORT
CITY LOGISTICS
Enlarging consignments
COLOGNE
CITY LOGISTICS
Supply condition
COLOGNE
OVERALL ECONOMIC..
Route planning
GERMANY- AREA WIDE PACKAGES OF MEASURES - TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT
23
24
25
AIUTO
AIUTO
AIUTO
Park Pricing & Car Pool
COMO
Park Pricing & Dial a Ride
COMO
Park Pricing & Public transport
COMO
PACKAGES OF MEASURES - ITS MEASURES
26
27
28
29
QUARTET PLUS
QUARTET PLUS
QUARTET PLUS
QUARTET PLUS
ITS- Packages
ITS- Packages
ITS- Packages & bus/tram priority
ITS- Packages & bus/tram priority
STUTTGART
GOTHENBURG
STUTTGART
GOTHENBURG
The Cantique report accepts the cost calculation of the underlying studies it surveys, which
reduces comparability of results, both on the cost side and on the emission abatement side.
The Cantique report itself points out several discrepancies undermining cross-study
comparability, like the base period to estimate abatement costs and the discount rates used
for investments in infrastructure.
Nevertheless, the report tackles differences in environmental benefits calculations by referring
to DG Environments ExternE projects and using uniform monetary impact values for all
studies under survey to perform cost-benefit calculations. However, the cost-benefit
calculation produces only relative numbers, in a cost/benefit ratio, thus reducing comparability
with other reports.
3.2.1.2.
Abatement costs for road transport
In order to limit dispersion of results of the CANTIQUE reports, this section contains sections
on CO2 abatement as well. Further CO2 abatement assessments are made in section 0.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 29
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
NON-TECHNICAL MEASURES
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT PER 1 TONN. CO2 REDUCED
- 000/EUROs 1995 pricesParking charges (Athens) 0.007
Regulations Traffic Control (London Lez)
0.016
Parking charges (Lyon)
0.025
Regulations Traffic Control (London)
0.060
Road Pricing (Athens)
0.120
Infrastruc. Urban Freight Manag. (German-Payload)
0.147
Infrastruc. Investment (Cologne)
0.167
Road Pricing (Stuttgart)
0.168
Road Pricing (London)
0.314
Regulations Urban Freight Transport (German-Route)
0.513
Infrastruc. Urban Freight Manag. (Cologne)
0.527
Infrastruc. Investment (Turin)
0.555
Infrastruc. Investment (Athens Bus Lanes)
0.568
Infrastruc. Urban Freight Manag.(Athens)
0.666
Infrastruc. Urban Freight Manag. (German Avr.)
1.482
Infrastruc. Investment (Athens-Utc)
1.519
2.701
Regulations Urban Freight Transport (Cologne-Suppl. Cond.)
5.026
Regulations Urban Freight Transport (Cologne-Size Incr.)
Figure 3.1: Cantique cost-effectiveness overview for CO2
NON-TECHNICAL MEASURES
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT PER 1 TONN. NOx REDUCED
- 000/EUROs 1995 pricesRegulations Traffic Control (Netherland Avr.) 0.1
Regulations Traffic Control (London Lez)
1.6
Parking charges (Athene)
2.3
Regulations Traffic Control (London)
5.8
Parking charges (Lyon)
8.8
Road Pricing (Como)
Road Pricing (Athens)
12.2
24.4
Road Pricing (London)
30.1
Infrastruc. Investment (Athens Bus Lanes)
32.6
Packages TDM (Como-Park Pricing&Car Pool)
38.1
Packages ITS (Stuttgart-Public)
45.9
Road Pricing (Stuttgart)
51.0
Parking charges (Como)
50.2
Packages TDM (Como-Park Pricing&Dial-a-Ride)
Infrastruc. Investment (Turin)
Packages ITS (Gothenburg-Public)
Packages TDM (Como-Park Pricing&Pub.Trans.Incre.)
Infrastruc. Investment (Athens-Utc)
51.6
32.6
68.8
245.0
297.3
Packages ITS (Stuttgart-Individual)
722.2
Figure 3.2: Cantique cost-effectiveness for NOX
Page 30
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
NON-TECHNICAL MEASURES
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT PER 1 TONN. CO REDUCED
- 000/EUROs 1995 prices0.4
Parking charges (Athene)
Regulations Traffic Control (London Lez)
0.6
Parking charges (Lyon)
0.8
Road Pricing (Como)
0.9
Regulations Traffic Control (London)
2.4
Packages TDM (Como-Park Pricing&Car Pool)
2.9
Road Pricing (Stuttgart)
3.0
Parking charges (Como)
3.8
Packages TDM (Como-Park Pricing&Dial-a-Ride)
3.8
9.1
Road Pricing (Athens)
12.2
Road Pricing (London)
14.9
Infrastruc. Investment (Athens Bus Lanes)
17.6
Packages TDM (Como-Park Pricing&Pub.Trans.Incre.)
25.5
Infrastruc. Investment (Turin)
Figure 3.3: Cantique cost-effectiveness for CO
The Cost-benefit of Non-Technical measures for CO and NOX is assessed as:
NON-TECHNICAL MEASURES
BENEFIT/COST RATIO ASSESSMENT FOR REDUCING CO AND NOx EMISSIONS
- EURO GAINED PER 1EURO INVESTED 1995 prices6.083
Regulatio ns Traffic Co ntro l (Lo ndo n Lez)
4.932
P arking charges (Athene)
2.420
Ro ad P ricing (Co mo )
1.666
P arking charges (Lyo n)
1.639
Regulatio ns Traffic Co ntro l (Lo ndo n)
P ackages TDM (Co mo -Park P ricing&Car
P o o l)
0.420
Ro ad Pricing (Athens)
0.394
Ro ad P ricing (Stuttgart)
0.354
P arking charges (Co mo )
0.319
Ro ad P ricing (Lo ndo n)
0.315
Packages TDM (Co mo -P ark Pricing&Dial-aRide)
0.313
Infrastruc. Investment (A thens B us Lanes)
Infrastruc. Investment (Turin)
P ackages TDM (Co mo -Park
P ricing&Pub.Trans.Incre.)
0.286
0.163
0.067
Figure 3.4: Cantique Cost-Benefit overview for CO and NOX
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 31
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
The Cost-benefit of Non-Technical measures for CO, NOX, VOC and CO2 is assessed as:
NON-TECHNICAL MEASURES
BENEFIT/COST RATIO ASSESSMENT FOR REDUCING CO, NOx, VOC AND CO2
-EURO GAINED PER 1 EURO INVESTED 1995 prices10.676
P arking charges (A thene)
9.300
Regulatio ns Traffic Co ntro l (Lo ndo n Lez)
3.573
P arking charges (Lyo n)
2.507
Regulatio ns Traffic Co ntro l (Lo ndo n)
Ro ad Pricing (Stuttgart)
Ro ad P ricing (Lo ndo n)
Infrastruc. Investment (Turin)
0.710
0.482
0.255
Figure 3.5: Cantique Cost-Benefit overview for CO, NOX, VOC and CO2
As was clearly illustrated in Figure 3.1 to Figure 3.5, and represented in Table 3-9, parking
regulations, road pricing and traffic control regulations offer most cost-effective emission
reductions, with the notable exception of CO2 abatements where infrastructure policies may
offer cost-effective solutions. Please note that these numbers cannot be compared to e.g.
RAINS estimates as they indicate net present value costs for a long period and since they
take into account reductions in transport users welfare.
Table 3-9: Cantique overview of cost-effective policy measures
Policy
Cost-effectiveness values 000/ton
CO2
NOX
CO
Pricing
0,127
25,56
4,33
Infrastructure
0,704
120,83
20,18
Regulations
1,663
3,67
1,50
Package-TDM
-
111,54
8,094
Package-ITS
-
278,99
-
Taking into account ExternE results on €-values for other emission reductions (see section
2.2.3 on multi-point policy measures), Cantique also reports importantly advantageous costbenefit ratios for parking charges and some traffic control regulations as these policy
measures do not entail major infrastructure investments.
The most promising measures, individually or in bundles, appear to be expected from the
association of pricing policy and regulatory measures. This statement was also confirmed
by expert opinions’ emerging from the questionnaire answer analysis that was performed in
this study.
Page 32
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
3.2.2.
Driving behaviour
3.2.2.1.
Background, scope and baseline
To control the emissions of road transport, the regional government of Flanders has
established an environmental policy plan (MINA-plan 2). One part of this plan concerns the
development of a package of measures to influence driving behaviour. In this context, a study
was assigned to the VUB and TNO, see VUB (2002). The purpose of the study was to
quantify the influence of driving behaviour on the emissions of NOX, HC, PM, CO, SO2 and
CO2.
Although this report does not provide any information on the costs associated with policy
measures, it does provide crucial information on emissions avoided by influencing driving
behaviour and by infrastructure options. Other reports, not included here, may provide
information on the cost side of measures that contribute to influencing driving behaviour.
Two types of measures were analysed to determine their influence on fuel consumption and
vehicle emissions: technical traffic measures influencing driving behaviour on a local scale
(plateau humps, 30 km/h zone, green wave, roundabouts…), driving behaviour itself and onboard systems.
Two methodologies are used to obtain emission reduction results. A first methodology uses
measurements in actual driving conditions, which lead to driving cycles that are performed on
a number of vehicles in laboratories to deliver final results. A second methodology uses the
Vehicle Simulation Program (VSP) developed by VUB. Final conclusions are made on the
basis of the results of both methodologies.
3.2.2.2.
Emission abatements for technical policy measures
The influence of technical traffic measures was determined on the basis of actual driving
conditions, and repeated in reference driving cycles in laboratory conditions.
Table 3-10 summarises the results of the measurements on 12 vehicles (7 petrol cars and
5 diesel cars). Statistically non-significant results are indicated n.c. (not consistent, e.g. when
there was no common trend among all vehicles tested).
Table 3-10: AMINAL overview on technical traffic measures and vehicle emission
Plateau humps
30 km/h zone
Green wave
Roundabouts
Petrol
Diesel
Petrol
Diesel
Petrol
Diesel
Petrol
Diesel
CO2
[g/km]
+45%
+55%
-10%
-10%
-20%
-20%
+10%
n.c.
CO
[g/km]
n.c.
n.c.
n.c.
n.c.
-80%
n.c.
-60%
n.c.
HC
[g/km]
+25%
-65%
n.c.
-75%
n.c.
n.c.
n.c.
NOX
[g/km]
+55%
+75%
-50%
n.c.
-40%
-40%
n.c.
n.c.
PM
[g/km]
+75%
-35%
-35%
n.c.
As expected, some traffic management measures influence local emissions considerably.
Specifically plateau humps that reduce traffic speed have severely increased emissions for all
vehicles and hence do not contribute to emission reductions. “Green wave” speed
harmonization on the other hand has high emission abatement potential for urban areas.
Roundabouts are reported to have emission potential for CO, but increased emission for CO2.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 33
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
3.2.2.3.
SUMMA
Driving behaviour and emission reductions
Up to the point where information campaigns and driver training are effective, some measures
may help to reduce emissions. As in Cantique reports, no cost information is available, so
emission abatement potential is highlighted. Table 3-11 to Table 3-13 show correction factors
for passenger cars, where 1 indicates no extra emissions, 0.5 indicate a 50% reduction in
emissions, etc…
Table 3-11: Correction factors for passenger cars when driving sportily
highwa
y
urban
rural
highwa
y
urban
rural
highwa
y
urban
rural
Euro 0
Euro 1
Euro 2
1,6
5,8
5,8
1,5
8,1
8,1
1,1
6,2
6,2
1,6
4,0
4,0
1,5
7,4
7,4
1,1
2,8
2,8
1,6
3,0
3,0
1,5
1,7
1,7
1,1
1,2
1,2
-
-
-
Euro 0
Euro 1
Euro 2-IDI
Euro 2-DI
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,0
1,0
1,0
1,0
1,5
1,5
1,5
1,5
1,4
1,4
1,4
1,4
2,0
2,0
2,0
2,0
2,6
2,6
2,6
2,6
2,0
2,0
2,0
2,0
2,0
2,0
2,0
2,0
1,6
1,6
1,6
1,6
2,1
2,1
2,1
2,1
1,8
1,8
1,8
1,8
1,5
1,5
1,5
1,5
standard
highwa
y
PM10
NOX
rural
fuel
HC
urban
CO
petrol/LPG
diesel
Table 3-11 indicates sportily driving behaviour should be considered as a severe polluter in all
emission categories, with emission factors running up to 8 times for CO in normal driving
conditions and 3 times for NOX. Although diesel cars have less extreme emissions resulting
from sportily driving behaviour, 20%-150% extra emissions needs to be considered with care
knowing how costly a 5% reduction in emission may be.
Table 3-12: Correction factors for passenger cars when driving economically
PM10
NOX
fuel
petrol/LPG
diesel
urban
0,5
1
rural
0,5
0,7
urban
0,9
rural
0,8
Economical driving on the other hand may contribute to emission reduction programs as
emissions are significantly reduced (10%-50%), both in urban as in rural conditions.
Table 3-13: Correction factors for passenger cars when exceeding speed limits
CO
fuel
petrol/LPG
diesel
severe
3
10
HC
slight
1,5
5
severe
1,3
1
slight
1,15
1
NOX
severe
slight
1,3
1,15
2
1,5
PM10
severe
slight
4
2
Note: Exceeding speed limits above 120 km/h (severe > 10 km/h, slight < 10 km/h)
Table 3-13 shows that speeding on highways is detrimental to all emissions with factors up to
15%-50% for gasoline cars. Note that diesel speeding should be considered as an extremely
heavy polluter for NOX, CO and especially PM10. Cheap measures contributing to reducing
speeding may help in reducing emissions cost-effectively, though the potential of this should
not be overstated.
3.2.2.4.
On-board instruments and emission reductions
In several experiments and demonstration projects involving econometers, cruise control,
board computers and speed limiters, it is shown that the use of in-car devices results in an
average reduction in fuel consumption of 5%.
Page 34
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
On the other hand, air conditioning should be considered as detrimental as correction factors
for most emission show high excess emissions in most conditions. Moreover, other reports
indicate that non-CO2 GHG are emitted as a consequence of leakage in mobile air
conditioning. In view of the increased demand for mobile air conditioning, these effects may
contribute to increasingly higher emissions in the future. Reducing air conditioning use in cars
may contribute cost-effectively to emission abatement, even though hot climate car users may
not feel compelled to switch car air-conditioning off so that reduction in hot areas may not be
achievable.
Table 3-14: Correction factors for passenger cars when using air conditioning
HC
PM10
highway
urban
rural
highway
rural
highway
urban
rural
highway
petrol/LPG
8,5
13,0
3,8
4,0
3,7
1,7
2,0
1,0
1,2
-
-
-
diesel
12,0
0,5
1,0
0,5
1,0
2,0
1,6
1,5
1,5
2,4
1,6
3,6
fuel
3.2.2.5.
urban
rural
NOX
urban
CO
Evaluation
The VUB/TNO report indicates sportily driving behaviour and speeding are highly polluting.
Low-cost policy measures contribution to reducing this excess in emissions may offer some
limited potential to reduce emissions from transport.
Several measures may help drivers to do this: traffic measures like low-speed zones and
green waves offer significant emission reductions, and on-board instruments may help drivers
to control driving behaviour.
The use of plateau humps and especially the increasing use of mobile air conditioning may
deserve attention of local infrastructure managers and drivers as they prove to be detrimental
to air pollution emissions.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 35
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
3.2.3.
SUMMA
Local traffic measures and urban air quality
This presentation presents emission reduction measurements for local NO2 and PM10 levels
on a highway in the Overschie district (Netherlands), see TNO (2002). The baseline emission
level is normal traffic without policy measures. Two policy results have been reported,
a 80 km/h speed limit and a truck ban.
Figure 3.6: TNO Local NO2 Impact of traffic measures near highway
Figure 3.7: TNO Local PM10 Impact of traffic measures near highway
The TNO report indicates that PM10 and NO2 contributions of highway traffic are reduced to
10
some extent by speed control, but are more affected by a ban on heavy-duty vehicles .
10
TNO however notes that this may not be economically achievable.
Page 36
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Table 3-15: TNO NO2 and PM10 concentrations at 50m east from highway
3
NO2 [ug/m ]
Before measure
After measure
3
PM10 [ug/m ]
Before measure
After measure
Background
37
37
Background
30
30
Traffic
15
12
Traffic
3
2
Total
52
49
Total
33
32
However, as background levels of pollutions in the test area are more important in
determining air quality, the impact of traffic measures on air quality is rather limited.
TNO finally notes that these measures were welcomed by residents, indicating that local
noise levels may strongly be influenced by these measures. Reports on noise abatement and
costs thereof are taken up in section 5.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 37
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Page 38
SUMMA
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
3.3. COMPARISON WITH OTHER SECTORS
The following section compares the abatement costs for road transport with those for other
sectors. The basis for the comparison is the RAINS databases, which provide consistent cost
values for the different sectors. In every section a brief overview of the emission control
options in other sectors is given, before the costs are compared.
3.3.1.
PM10 abatement
3.3.1.1.
Control options for other sectors
The emission control options for other sectors (mainly stationary emission sources)
considered in Klimont et al. (2002) reflect groups of technological solutions with similar
emission control efficiencies and costs. For large boilers in industry and power stations, and
industrial processes the following options are available:
• Cyclones;
• Wet scrubbers;
• Electrostatic precipitators (three stages, i.e., one field, two fields, and more than two
fields);
• Wet electrostatic precipitators;
• Fabric filters;
• Regular maintenance of oil fired industrial boilers;
• Two stages (low and high efficiency) of fugitive emissions control measures.
These options are divided into three categories: power plants, industrial combustion, and
industrial processes that can have different emission reduction and cost characteristics.
For small and medium size boilers in the residential/commercial sector, a number of
measures, depending on the size, fuel, and operation mode (manual or automatic loading),
are available:
• Cyclones;
• Fabric filters;
• Regular maintenance of oil fired boilers;
• New type of boiler, e.g., pellets or wood chips.
For domestic sources, i.e., fireplaces, single-family boilers, the principal option is a switch to a
newer type of installation. Additionally for fireplaces, an option of installing a catalyst or noncatalyst insert is included. Modernization options (two stages potentially including catalytic
and non-catalytic and/or primary and secondary air deflectors) are included for coal and wood
stoves. As with other categories, regular maintenance of oil-fired boilers is also included.
For non-combustion PM sources the following control options are included:
Agriculture:
• Feed modification (all livestock)
• Hay-silage for cattle
• Free range poultry
• Low-till farming, alternative cereal harvesting
• Good practice (other animals)
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 39
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
Other sources
• Good practice, storage and handling
• Good practice in oil and gas industry, flaring
• Ban on open burning of waste
• Good practice in mining industry
• Spraying water at construction sites
• Filters in households (kitchen)
• Generic, e.g., street washing
For more information see Klimont et al. (2002).
3.3.1.2.
Comparison of abatement costs
Table 3-16 gives an overview of the ranges of marginal PM10 abatement costs for the road
transport sector on one hand and for other sectors on the other hand, in the EU15 countries
plus 8 future member states (Table 3-17 presents the same information for PM2.5 abatement
11
costs in a subset of countries) . The range of abatement costs is based on marginal
abatement cost curves given by IIASA (2003).
The tables indicate a “low” value, giving the cheapest measure on top of measures required
by the current legislation (CLE). The “central” value gives the marginal costs of the measure
with which 50% of the total reduction achieved in the sector (on top of CLE) is reached. This
value provides an indication of the cost of an “average” abatement option in the respective
sector and thus can be used for comparisons. The “high” value does not give the cost of the
most expensive control option available, but gives the cost of the measure with which 98% of
total amount abated (on top of CLE) is reached.
Table 3-16: RAINS PM10 Abatement cost comparison with other sectors (€/kg)
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxemburg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UK
Czech Rep.
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithouania
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia
11
Road Transport
Low
Central
High
77,9
101,4
121,7
77,9
109,9
324,5
103,5
156,5
262,8
89,1
89,1
195,6
73,3
73,3
170,4
68,1
118,3
211,7
25,7
199,7
335,5
82,0
228,4
383,5
124,4
126,7
209,0
99,3
120,3
202,1
82,7
88,6
291,2
77,9
147,1
247,1
52,8
143,4
145,1
77,9
110,1
184,8
86,1
127,2
213,7
77,9
151,8
256,0
77,9
162,4
272,7
77,9
151,8
255,0
77,9
162,4
272,7
77,9
162,4
272,7
77,9
151,8
255,0
77,9
151,8
255,0
77,9
183,9
308,9
Other Sectors
Low
Central
High
11,4
30,4
566,7
15,4
30,4
234,1
19,9
28,0
566,7
15,9
30,4
566,7
9,4
30,4
566,7
24,7
30,4
540,1
0,3
2,1
234,1
24,7
30,4
234,1
15,4
30,4
566,7
24,6
30,4
138,1
15,4
28,7
138,1
19,7
30,4
566,7
9,1
30,4
566,7
15,4
30,4
566,7
12,1
30,4
138,1
0,1
0,1
92,0
0,1
0,1
92,0
1,1
9,4
92,0
0,2
3,6
566,8
0,2
28,0
234,1
0,6
2,1
566,7
0,4
1,4
30,4
0,2
2,0
566,7
More detailed information is included in Annex Table 0-1 page 112 and Table 0-2 page 117.
Page 40
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
For all countries considered in Table 3-16, an emission reduction in other sectors is much
cheaper than in the road transport sector, at the lower end of the abatement costs ("low" and
“central” value). A closer look at the central value shows that in the EU15 countries (except
Greece) and Lithuania abatement in road transport is a factor 3 to 7,5 more expensive than
for other sectors. In AC (except Lithuania) and Greece, this factor is even higher (starting
from 16). This implies that abatement measures should be taken in other sectors first on cost
grounds. However, of course the picture may change if the associated benefits (above all
reduced health effects) are taken into account. Due to the proximity of the emission sources
to the receptors the benefits from measures taken in the road transport sector may be much
higher than in other sectors.
At the high end of the cost curves, the picture is different. For Austria, Denmark, Finland,
France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Latvia, Poland, and Slovenia the high value
is lower for road transport than for other sectors. This means that if very high reductions need
to be achieved, measures in the road transport sector become cost efficient at a certain point.
For the remaining countries the order between road transport and other sectors does not
change.
It has to be noted, that transport sector measures in the future member countries are not
necessarily cheaper than in the EU15 countries. This is in contrast to the situation in other
sectors, where abatement measures in future member states (except Lithuania) are up to one
12
order of magnitude cheaper than in EU15 countries (except Greece) .
When looking at the sum of emissions that can be abated using all control options (see Table
0-1 in the Annex), it shows that road transport has a relevant potential for abating PM10
emissions in most countries. For Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the UK the abatement potential (in terms
of absolute emissions that can be abated when applying all measures on top of CLE in the
sector) in road transport and other sectors is similar. In the other countries, the potential for
reducing emissions in other sectors is much higher than in road transport.
Table 3-17 presents the abatement costs for PM2.5 instead of PM10 for a subset of the
countries covered above. The conclusions are mostly the same as for PM10. With the
exception of the high value for Poland, which is caused by the need for applying a very
expensive option for reaching 98% of the emission abatement possible in the road transport
sector.
Table 3-17: RAINS PM2.5 Abatement cost comparison with other sectors (€/kg)
France
Germany
Greece
Italy
Spain
Sweden
UK
Czech Rep.
Hungary
Poland
Road Transport
Low
Central
High
88,4
88,4
172,6
145,6
163,7
290,1
37,3
37,3
396,2
133,4
133,4
224,2
89,4
190,6
190,6
105,3
125,7
210,0
124,5
124,5
254,2
105,3
132,8
289,7
105,3
132,8
289,7
105,3
132,8 41818,8
Other Sectors
Low
Central
High
14,7
142,5
3020,6
51,8
91,3
2114,5
0,5
1,1
585,0
15,7
142,5
665,1
11,4
91,3
665,1
15,7
142,5
665,1
23,2
91,3
665,1
1,9
2,8
443,8
1,0
2,4
526,3
1,4
1,4
585,0
12
The exceptional situation of the Greek transport system in PM10 reduction may be attributed largely
to the lack of diesel passenger cars in Greek vehicle stock.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 41
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
3.3.2.
SUMMA
NOX abatement
3.3.2.1.
Control options for other sectors
The control options for other sectors (mainly stationary emission sources) considered in
Cofala and Syri (1998) can be categorised into following broad groups:
• In-furnace control of NOX emissions for stationary sources, i.e., the so-called combustion
modifications (CM) or primary NOX reduction measures;
• Secondary measures depending on the treatment of flue gases (selective catalytic
reduction (SCR), selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR));
• Measures to control process emissions.
1)
Primary measures (Combustion Modification)
Improvements in the boiler design can result in considerable reductions of NOX formation
during the combustion processes. Although the level of NOX emissions from the same fuel
varies considerably with the type of the plant (depending on design characteristics such as
the placing of burners or the fuel-to-air ratio), all combustion modification techniques or
primary measures make use of the same principles:
• the reduction of excess oxygen levels (especially at periods of peak temperature);
• reduction of the peak flame temperature.
The most commonly used primary measure to reduce NOX emissions from boilers and
furnaces is the use of low-NOX burners (LNB). Compared with the classical burners, where
the total amount of fuel and air is injected in the same point, low NOX burners modify the way
of injecting air and fuel to delay the mixing, reduce the availability of oxygen and reduce the
peak flame temperature. LNB retard the conversion of fuel-bound nitrogen to NOX and the
formation of thermal NOX, maintaining high combustion efficiency. The low NOX burners are
easy to install and are suitable for retrofit in existing plants. Energy losses caused by
unburned fuel particles are small. The reductions of NOX emissions achieved through the use
of LNB are typically in the range of 50 %; for lignite, oil, and gas furnaces efficiencies of up to
65 % are reported.
Another NOX emission reduction technology that falls into the ’Combustion modification’
category is fuel injection, or reburning at boiler level. This technology creates different
combustion zones in the furnace by staged injection of fuel and air. The aim of reburning is to
reduce the nitrogen oxides that have already been formed back to nitrogen. In boilers using
that concept three combustion zones can be distinguished. In the primary zone 85 to 90 % of
fuel is burnt in an oxidizing or slightly reducing atmosphere. In the second (reburning) zone,
the secondary fuel is injected into a reducing atmosphere. Hydrocarbon radicals produced in
this zone react with already formed nitrogen oxides. Next, in the burnout zone, final air is
added to complete the combustion. The reduction efficiency of that technology is in the range
of 50 to 60 %. The technology can be applied to boilers at power plants and in the industry.
Implementation to waste incinerators as well as to some industrial processes (glass and
cement production) is in the phase of development.
It is also possible to decrease emissions of nitrogen oxides through the use of oxygen instead
of combustion air (the so-called oxy-combustion). This decreases the nitrogen content in the
combustion zone, leading to lower emissions of nitrogen oxides. Oxy-combustion has found
its application mainly in industrial furnaces (glass production), where high combustion
temperatures are necessary due to technological reasons.
2)
Secondary measures (Flue Gas Cleaning)
A variety of flue gas treatment methods have been developed to remove NOX after the
combustion process. From the large number of available processes, the selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) has become the most important technique and is at present widely applied in
some countries. The SCR process uses ammonia to convert nitrogen oxides into molecular
nitrogen (N2) and water (H2O) in presence of a catalyst.
Page 42
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Selective non-catalytic reduction is another add-on technique that can be used for controlling
NOX emissions. It depends on injection of ammonia or other reducing agents into the flue gas;
the NOX reduction takes place without use of a catalyst. The SNCR process is also
temperature-sensitive and, therefore, the effectiveness of NOX removal depends on
successful temperature control. In contrast to SCR technologies, no catalysts are required,
which lowers investments and maintenance costs because no replacement of catalyst is
necessary. Furthermore, energy costs are lower, and less space is required. If combined with
primary NOX reduction measures, removal efficiencies of about 70 % and more are possible.
3)
Combined NOX control
Because SCR and SNCR options apply to different parts of the NOX formation process, it is
also possible to combine primary measures such as combustion modification and secondary
options such as SCR or SNCR. In case when SCR is combined with primary measures the
resulting removal efficiency (compared to uncontrolled combustion) could reach 90 %.
Because of the lower NOX concentration at the inlet of the SCR plant, the consumption of
reaction agents (NH3) is reduced compared with the exclusive use of add-on secondary
reduction measure.
4)
Control of process emissions
Industrial activities emitting nitrogen oxides can be divided into combustion processes and
processes where emissions cannot be directly linked to energy use. The latter are processes
that release nitrogen contained in the raw material (e.g. during production of nitric acid) or
processes where the emission factors are intrinsically different compared with the emissions
from boilers due to different (much higher) process temperature (e.g., cement production).
The available measures for reducing emissions from process sources are strongly related to
the main production technology. They are site-specific and depend, inter alia, on the quality of
raw materials used, the process temperature and on many other factors. Therefore, it is
difficult to develop generally valid technological characteristics of control technologies at the
same degree of detail as for fuel-related emissions. Thus, for estimating emission control
potentials and costs, the emissions from all processes are combined into one group, to which
three stages of control can then be applied. Without defining specific emission control
technologies, these three stages are represented by typical removal efficiencies with
increasing marginal costs of reduction.
Table 3-18: RAINS NOX control technologies for stationary sources
Power plant sector
Brown Coal - Combustion modification (CM)
– existing plant
Brown Coal - Selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) – new plant
Brown Coal - CM + SCR – existing plant
Hard Coal – CM – existing plant
Hard Coal - SCR – new plant
Hard Coal – CM + SCR – existing plant
Oil and Gas - CM – existing plant
Oil and Gas - SCR – new plant
Oil and Gas - CM + SCR – existing plant
Process emissions
Stage 1 control
Stage 2 control
Stage 3 control
Industrial boilers and furnaces
CM - Solid Fuels
CM – Oil & Gas
CM+SCR Solid Fuels
CM+SCR Oil &Gas
CM+ Selective non-catalytic reduction
(SNCR) Solid Fuels
CM+SNCR Oil &Gas
Residential and Commercial
CM Heavy Fuel Oil - Commercial
CM Medium Distillates and Light Fractions
(MD&LF)-Commercial
CM Gas - Commercial
CM MD&LF-Commercial and Residential
CM Gas - Commercial and Residential
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 43
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
3.3.2.2.
SUMMA
Comparison of abatement costs
Table 3-19 presents the ranges of marginal NOX abatement costs for road transport and for
13
other sectors in the EU15 countries plus 8 future member states . The range of abatement
costs is based on marginal abatement cost curves given by Cofala and Syri (1998). As in the
case of PM10, three values are used to characterise the cost curve: the “low” value (cheapest
measure on top of CLE) the “central” value (costs of measure with which 50% of total
reduction in the sector on top of CLE is reached), and the “high” value (cost of measure with
which 98% of total amount abatable in a sector on top of CLE is achieved).
In all countries considered, the cheapest control option available on top of CLE (low value) is
more expensive in the road transport sector than in other sectors. In other words, there are
cheaper measures in other sectors to start with when reducing NOX emissions.
When looking at the central value, which is more appropriate for comparisons, this picture
changes. For Austria, France, Germany, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands control costs in
other sectors are a factor of 1,5 to 3,3 greater than in road transport. This reflects the high
level of NOX reduction measures implemented already in these countries. In consequence,
additional reduction measures should be implemented in the road transport sector first. In the
remaining 18 countries abatement costs in road transport are greater than in other sectors.
However, with a factor of 1 to 1,6 differences between sectors are low in Belgium, Finland,
Italy, Sweden, the UK, Czech Republic, and Slovenia. Considerable cost differences (factors
of 2 to 5,3) can be observed for Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia. In these countries reduction measures
should be implemented in other sectors first in any case.
At the high end of the cost curves, only for Denmark, Germany and the UK high values are
lower in road transport than in other sectors. So for Germany, reduction in other sectors is
always the best option. For Denmark and the UK, measures in the road transport sector
become cost efficient at a certain point, when high reductions have to be achieved. For all
other countries, control options in road transport only become relevant when no more options
are available in other sectors.
13
More detailed information is included in extended tables in the Annex.
Page 44
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Table 3-19: RAINS NOX Abatement cost comparison with other sectors (€/t)
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxemburg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UK
Czech Rep.
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithouania
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia
Road Transport
Low
Central
High
975
2,049
18,294
1,114
2,637
17,774
2,404
2,404
18,294
2,216
2,216
16,298
2,047
2,047
24,152
1,754
3,146
17,349
2,560
3,772
21,066
1,738
4,019
16,043
793
1,746
35,711
1,424
3,371
19,601
1,203
2,138
19,837
4,255
6,268
41,962
1,088
2,374
35,328
2,355
2,355
16,684
2,976
2,976
16,396
2,927
3,424
40,570
1,806
3,179
27,047
1,925
3,709
38,380
1,945
3,424
27,047
1,945
3,424
27,047
4,520
6,087
37,190
5,091
5,955
40,570
2,543
3,424
27,047
Other Sectors
Low
Central
303
3,593
168
2,581
216
1,217
133
1,553
216
3,088
267
5,506
119
1,000
103
1,519
119
1,105
263
7,000
388
1,193
114
1,193
80
1,000
216
2,043
173
2,831
567
2,623
99
1,000
137
1,238
98
649
98
1,000
388
1,286
388
2,863
242
2,651
High
15,079
11,976
22,014
11,000
17,976
20,939
11,000
11,153
11,153
11,976
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,768
18,575
11,153
14,043
17,375
15,079
15,079
11,000
15,079
11,976
For the other sectors high discrepancies between countries can be observed for the central
value: a factor of 11 lies between Latvia and the Netherlands. For cost efficient emission
reduction such differences have to be taken into account in designing emission reduction
policies. However, it is remarkable that differences in control costs between EU15 and future
member countries are much lower for NOX than for PM10
3.3.3.
VOC abatement
Klimont et al. (2000) identify control options for the main activity groups: solvent use; chemical
industry; liquid fuel extraction, processing and distribution; and combustion. The unit cost
ranges identified varies dramatically between control options and countries. There are
measures that reduce VOC emissions at virtually no costs (e.g. the use of solvent free ink in
offset printing). At the top end of the cost curve costs may reach up to 10000 €/t VOC abated
for the use of catalysts in residential combustion (see Table 9 in Klimont et al., 2000, page
48). With 50 to 900 €/t VOC the abatement costs for the road transport control options small
carbon canister and oxidation catalysts for two-stroke engines lie in the same order of
magnitude as most of the other sector options.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 45
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
3.4. SUMMARY DISCUSSION OF REDUCING TRANSPORT AIR POLLUTION
Technical measures for reducing pollutant emissions offer high reduction potentials and are
therefore important elements in designing reduction strategies. However, the analysis in e.g.
RAINS reports has shown that there are significant differences in specific abatement costs
between sectors and countries.
In section 3.1 the costs of technological options to reduce air pollution were compared across
sectors. The RAINS calculations indicated that cost-effective reduction strategies need to take
into account that the reduction of PM10/PM2.5 emissions should be addressed with
measures in other sectors than road transport, because associated costs are at least a factor
of 3 lower. Of course the picture may change if the associated benefits (above all reduced
health effects) are taken into account. Due to the proximity of the emission sources to the
receptors the benefits from measures taken in the road transport sector may be much higher
than in other sectors. Lower abatement costs estimates for transport in Germany e.g. are
around € 70/kg PM while industry abatement costs for PM are € 25/kg. This is in general true
for all countries, and may serve as an indication that European environmental legislation in
transport has been advancing at a higher pace than in other sectors, leaving only limited
potential for low-cost PM emission reduction in transport. However, if very high PM reductions
need to be achieved, measures in the road transport sector may become cost-efficient at a
certain point, either because the control options in other sectors become extremely expensive
(e.g. general switching to bio fuels in residential heating) or because there is no more
reduction potential in other sectors. This would result in EURO V and EURO VI standards for
HDV and LDV with cost ranges from € 150 to € 300 per kg PM10.
Technological options to reduce NOX emissions however need to consider the transport
sector from some point on. In general the cheapest options are to be found in other sectors
with some values around € 250/ton NOX. When this potential is used, some countries need to
consider cheap NOx reduction options in transport to avoid wasting valuable resources
(€ 1.000-2.000 per ton). In order to reach quite substantial NOX reduction in a cost-effective
way, most countries would need to consider targeting HDV transport with NOX converters
(€ 2.000-3.000 per ton). Moreover, in contrast to PM, NOX emission reduction is not by
definition cheaper in AC countries. Note that the RAINS analysis does not take into account
the effects on VOC, which are reduced simultaneously with NOX.
In section 3.2 it was illustrated that local traffic management and road-pricing policies should
be viewed as contributors to cost-effective urban air pollution abatement in transport. Reports
under survey include Cantique (EC report on non-technical transport measures and
emissions), and local studies for Flanders (VITO) and the Netherlands (TNO). Especially the
EC Cantique report is a useful source of information as it gives an overview of costeffectiveness of measures across European cities, thus reducing the chance of outlying
results. However, it should be noted that Cantique does not correct for differences in costeffectiveness calculations across underlying reports, and this may reduce comparability of
results.
Several of these reports confirmed that in particular traffic control regulations, parking
regulations and road pricing are low cost measures to reduce emissions related to road
transport. Infrastructure investments and major regulations for freight transport are reported to
be much less cost-effective in reducing ambient air quality in major European cities. As
Cantique reports on combined effects when multiple air quality indicators are affected, the risk
of biased results appears to be small. Cost-effective non-technical abatement costs for NOX
ranged from € 3.700 to € 25.500 per ton, and from € 1.500 to € 4.330 for CO (net present
value of all costs). Taking into account the simultaneous reductions in several emissions,
significant net benefits can be found in traffic regulation and parking charges in large urban
areas.
Local reports contributed to the understanding of the importance of driving behaviour for
emission control, though SUMMA experts’ doubts on the effectiveness of measures targeting
Page 46
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
driving behaviour should be noted. Nevertheless, the authors have pointed out the relevance
of cheap emission abatement contributions, even if the potential is rather small, as the
alternative abatement costs may be excessively high.
Summarizing, transport policy measures aiming at reducing air pollution should focus on;
• NOX emissions as they prove to be costly to reduce in other sectors
• reducing PM emissions in urban areas where PM may be most harmful: for general
air quality, PM emission reductions are cheaper in other sectors (however control
options for road transport vehicles in general offer a higher benefit)
• implementation of cheap local traffic management to reduce emissions
• research on the potential to reduce emissions as a result from sportily driving and
speeding
As for the SUMMA project, the abatement costs in section 3.1 may provide guidelines for
comparison with damage estimates for each pollutant.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 47
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Page 48
SUMMA
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
4. REDUCING TRANSPORT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Climate change is a global challenge, and dealing successfully with it will require the efforts of
many nations. The centre of attention for recent international policy discussions has been the
Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement formulated in December 1997. Under the
Protocol, industrialised nations commit themselves to national targets (or ceilings) for their
emissions of greenhouse gases; these targets would need to be reached by the “commitment
period” of 2008-2012.
In order to comply with the Kyoto Protocol, GHG studies for the EU have focused on the costeffectiveness of policy measures across sectors, and have identified low-cost solutions in
each sector. This section will discuss the main findings in the literature under survey. It should
be noted that a global carbon emission permit system with trading opportunities would lead to
14
a permit price of $ 0,3-22/Ton CO2 . These estimates serve as a benchmark for global
carbon emission abatement costs.
The main greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with transport are CO2 emissions that
are a direct result of the combustion of vehicle fuels (petrol, diesel, aviation kerosene etc).
N2O emissions from petrol cars equipped with 3-way catalytic converters are reported to be
higher than emissions from non-catalyst cars, and could constitute a growing source.
The transport sector is responsible for an important share of GHG emissions. In the SUMMA
report “Setting the context for Defining Sustainable Transport and Mobility” (European
Commission 2003), the transport sector was found to be responsible for 26% of 1999 CO2
emissions in EU15.
From this, it would seem that the transport sector could contribute largely to reducing carbon
emissions. However, from an economic point of view this is only true to the extent that the
costs of reducing air pollution are lower in the transport sector than in other sectors – see
section 2.2.2. Moreover, within the transport sector, policy measures with the lowest cost in
reducing emissions should be chosen first.
This section will offer a literature survey on the cost-effectiveness of reducing air pollution
from transport relative to pollution abatement in other sectors. Furthermore it will help to
identify which policy measures in transport may offer cost-effective emission reduction
solutions. An important emphasis will be put on second order effects.
The structure of this section is as follows. Section 4.1 provides an overview of technology
options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in transport, mainly in the area of vehicle and
fuel technology. Primary sources for technological abatement costs are the Auto-Oil II Project
and a bottom-up analysis for the EC. Sections 4.2 and 4.3 discusses non-technology options,
including fiscal measures and transport management. Section 4.4 reviews these findings and
compares abatement costs with those in other sectors.
14
See Eyckmans et al (2001). Prices up to $ 20 per ton CO2 have been reported worldwide in academic
literature and serve as a benchmark for carbon emission reduction policies worldwide.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 49
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
4.1. TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
This section will discuss the technical abatement options to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in the transport sector. Section 4.1.1 indicates costs of road transport vehicle
technology. Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 do the same for rail transport and aviation. Section
4.1.4 focuses on fuel technology – alternative fuels. Finally section 4.1.5 discusses these
findings on technical options and costs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
4.1.1.
Road transport vehicle technology
Road transport vehicle technology has been studied in several reports, including:
•
Bates (2001) report
•
Hendricks (2001) report
•
Capros (2001) report
•
Kleit (2002) report
•
Auto-Oil (2000a) report
These reports will be discussed one by one in this section.
4.1.1.1.
The Bates (2001) report
The Bates (2001) report for EU DG Environment contains a detailed bottom-up analysis,
updated in 2001, on GHG emission reductions in the EU15 transport sector. Details about
the report, the background, scope and baseline can be found in Annex 1.
a)
Passenger transport
The cost-effectiveness calculation of technical measures for petrol passenger cars is
illustrated in Table 4-1:
Table 4-1: CO2 reduction Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for technical measures; Petrol Cars
(Exc. Taxes)
Measure
Engine Efficiency Improvements
Hi-Speed Engine Variable Valve Lift & Timing
Cylinder Deactivation at Idle and Part Load
CVT (Continuously Variable Transmission)
Major Engine Changes
Petrol to Diesel shift
Hybrid Power Train Vehicle
GDI Engine
DISC Engine
Weight Reduction
Lightweight Interior Components
High strength steel body
Aluminium Body
Lightweight Chassis
Aluminium Block
Friction and Drag Reduction
Engine friction reduction
Aerodynamic Drag reduction
Rolling resistance reduction
Zero Brake Drag
Page 50
% Reduction
in CO2/ km
Annualised Emissions
Cost at 4% Reductions
(€/yr)
(t/yr)
CostEffectiveness
(€/t CO2)
6,9%
11,3%
5,1%
22
0
111
0,172
0,282
0,128
127
-1
870
20,0%
32,8%
11,0%
20,0%
42
543
39
46
0,498
0,816
0,274
0,498
84
665
143
93
1,2%
2,4%
6,4%
3,1%
1,2%
0,23
3
33
17
6
0,030
0,060
0,160
0,077
0,030
8
44
206
219
206
0,5%
0,5%
0,9%
1,1%
0,5
2
6,1
5
0,012
0,012
0,022
0,027
41
130
273
190
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
The Cost-effectiveness calculation of technical measures for passenger diesel cars is
illustrated in Table 4-2:
Table 4-2: CO2 reduction Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for technical measures; Diesel Cars
(Excl. Taxes)
Measure
Engine Improvements
CVT (Contin. Variable Transmission)
Major Engine Changes
Hybrid Power Train Vehicle
Weight Reduction
Lightweight Interior Components
High strength steel body
Aluminium Body
Lightweight Chassis
Aluminium Block
Friction and Drag Reduction
Engine friction reduction
Aerodynamic Drag reduction
Rolling resistance reduction (5%)
Zero Brake Drag
CO2
reduction
per km
Annualised
cost at 4%
(€/yr)
Emission
reductions
(ton/yr)
Costeffectiveness
(€/t CO2)
5,1%
114
0,095
1203
32,8%
562
0,606
927
1,2%
2,4%
6,4%
3,1%
1,2%
1
4
37
19
7
0,022
0,045
0,119
0,057
0,022
41
89
308
325
308
0,5%
0,5%
0,9%
1,1%
1
2
7
6
0,009
0,009
0,016
0,020
85
205
398
287
From Table 4-1and Table 4-2 it is clear that a wide range of emission abatement costs exist in
passenger transport, from less than 20 €/TCE up to over 1.200 €/TCE. This indicates some
possibilities of cost-effective CO2 abatement, but clearly points out the risk of taking costineffective measures like passenger car standards that include lightweight car structures, CVT
and Hybrid Power Train Vehicles.
b)
Freight transport
The Cost-effectiveness calculation of technical measures for freight is illustrated in Table 4-3:
Table 4-3: CO2 reduction Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for technical measures; Freight (Excl.
Taxes)
Reduction
in CO2 per
km
Annualised
Cost at 4%
(€/yr)
Emissions
Reductions
(t/yr)
CostEffectiveness
(€ /t CO2)
Engine Improvements
5,7%
-237
3,63
-65
Weight Reduction
0,4%
94,3
0,24
399
Aerodynamic Drag Reduction - Cab Roof Fairing
3,7%
-125
2,37
-53
Aerodynamic Drag Reduction - Cab Roof Deflector
2,4%
-76
1,54
-49
Rolling Resistance Reduction
3,8%
-174,6
2,41
-73
Driver Training – HGV Drivers
5,0%
42
3,21
13
Measure
Freight transport offers in general more cost-effective GHG reduction opportunities, especially
in reducing vehicle aerodynamics. This is in part due to the higher use of freight vehicles, and
to the higher fuel consumption in comparison with passenger vehicles.
c)
Summary and evaluation
Table 4-4 summarises the costs and savings (excluding taxes) from different options,
15
assuming no interaction between measures . The identified emission reduction potential for
improved vehicle technology in the EU15 Transport sector amounts to 116 MTCE per annum,
some of which can be implemented at low or negative cost. Considerable savings at low cost
15
The source report provides cost-effectiveness tables including taxes. Note that, in view of the high EU
fuel taxes, consumers may adopt fuel economising measures that imply cost savings at consumer
prices, though from a social cost-effectiveness perspective net costs involved are substantial.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 51
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
are concentrated in the freight transport sector and in the reduction of mobile air conditioning
leakage.
Table 4-4: GHG emission reduction options and costs in EU transport
Name measure
Sub sector
Rolling Resistance
Engine improvement
Aerodynamics - Cab Roof Fairing
Aerodynamics - Cab Roof Deflector
Mobile air conditioning: leakage red.
Lightweight Interior components - Petrol cars
Variable Valve Lift Timing + Cylinder
Deactivation
Driver Training - Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV)
Drivers
Transport refrigeration: leak reduction
Mobile air conditioning: recovery
Basic package - Diesel cars
Lightweight Interior components - Diesel cars
Petrol to Diesel shift
Advanced Gasoline Direct Injection (advanced:
"DISC")
Basic package - Petrol cars
Lightweight structure - Petrol cars
Lightweight structure - Diesel cars
Freight
Freight
Freight
Freight
Mob Airco
Passenger cars Petrol
EU15 Emission
reduction
potential
kt CO2
10.882
3.733
2.682
1.739
6.627
1.128
Passenger cars Petrol
22.768
19
Specific
costs
€/tCO2
-72
-64
-51
-47
6
8
Freight
10.871
19
Refrigeration
Mob Airco
Passenger cars Diesel
Passenger cars Diesel
Passenger cars Petrol
2.787
3.534
1.603
198
7.803
29
31
41
81
82
Passenger cars Petrol
19.025
92
Passenger cars Petrol
Passenger cars Petrol
Passenger cars Diesel
9.119
9.906
1.736
116
122
217
327
Total technical emission reduction potential (Mt of CO2-eq.)
In this bottom-up study, 73 MTCE of savings in passenger cars, 30 MTCE in freight and 13
MTCE from improvements in mobile air conditioning were identified compared to a “frozen
technology” level. This amounts to 21% of the total CO2 emissions in transport.
For cars, the reductions from the ACEA agreement are larger than the savings identified in
this study. It is therefore assumed that the identified measures, together with others not
identified, will be implemented as part of the agreement. Similarly, the remaining greenhouse
gas reduction potential at low cost in the car segment after the ACEA agreement seems to be
reduced.
For freight, the relatively large potential for fuel efficiency at negative cost is primarily focused
in improving aerodynamics and reducing rolling resistance. In view of the high degree of
competition in the freight road transport sector, the available cost reductions should receive
attention by firms in this sector, and hence these measures may have been implemented
already.
4.1.1.2.
The Hendricks (2001) report
The Hendricks (2001) report contains a detailed bottom-up analysis, updated in 2001, on
GHG emission reductions in the EU15 and covers all sectors. The study draws on the report
of Bates (2001), and has been extended to a new database called GENESIS, to include nonCO2 GHG. Details about the report, the background, scope and baseline can be found in
Annex 1.
An overview of the specific transport emission reduction potential and costs in EU road
transport in 2010 is displayed in the table below, and includes HFC leakages in mobile air
conditioning systems.
Page 52
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Table 4-5: EU Transport emission reduction potential & costs in 2010 by cost bracket
Emission
reduction
Measure
CO2
Rolling Resistance Improvement
Engine improvement
Aerodynamics - Cab Roof Fairing
Aerodynamics - Cab Roof Deflector
Subtotal: Cost range for < 0 €/TCE
Lightweight Interior components - Petrol cars
Variable Valve Lift Timing + Cylinder Deactivation
Driver Training - Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) Drivers
Subtotal: Cost range for 0 < 20 €/TCE
Basic package - Diesel cars
Subtotal: Cost range for 20< 50 €/TCE
Lightweight Interior components - Diesel cars
Petrol to Diesel shift
Advanced Gasoline Direct Injection (advanced: "DISC")
Basic package - Petrol cars
Lightweight structure - Petrol cars
Lightweight structure - Diesel cars
Subtotal: Cost range for > 50 €/TCE
HFC
Mobile air conditioning: leakage red.
Subtotal: Cost range for 0 < 20 €/TCE
Transport refrigeration: leakage reduction
Mobile air conditioning: recovery of HFC
Subtotal: Cost range for 20< 50 €/TCE
CO2 + HFC
Subtotal: Cost range for < 0 €/TCE
Subtotal: Cost range for 0 < 20 €/TCE
Subtotal: Cost range for 20< 50 €/TCE
Subtotal: Cost range for > 50 €/TCE
Total emission reduction
Costs (€/TCE) at discount rate
MTCE
2%
4%
6%
sector
specific
11
4
3
2
19
1
23
11
35
2
2
0,2
8
19
9
10
2
48
-72
-65
-54
-51
-72
-64
-51
-47
-72
-63
-48
-44
-72
-60
-37
-32
-2
8
19
8
19
19
18
30
19
84
105
19
28
41
55
145
63
65
74
100
184
282
81
82
92
122
217
327
100
101
112
145
252
375
228
226
246
303
485
695
5
6
7
13
29
31
29
31
30
32
32
39
7
7
3
4
6
19
41
8
48
116
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 53
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
Table 4-5 indicates that there exist some 116 MTCE emission reductions in the road transport
sector by 2010. Of this, only half can be achieved at costs below 20 €/TCE. Changes in
discount rates from 2% to 6% do not affect the magnitude of the emission abatement costs.
However, at a sector specific discount rate for policy measures, the potential for GHG
reduction in transport is reduced to less than 26 MTCE p.a. for measures below 20 €/TCE.
As is illustrated in the following Figure, at a discount rate of 4% the emission reduction
potential at low cost is limited. Even if the high cost measures would be implemented, the
reduction in the transport sector is limited in comparison to total transport GHG emissions,
especially given the projections for high growth in transport.
Note: 1990/1995 GHG emissions (left), 2010 frozen technology reference & reduction potential by cost
bracket (right)
Figure 4.1: Bottom-up GHG emission reduction in transport by cost bracket
This bottom-up study repeated and extended the results of the bottom-up study for the
transport sector, and highlighted the limited number of cheap GHG reduction opportunities by
vehicle technology in transport.
More importantly, the report indicated that some measures that are cost-effective from a
societal point of view (at a discount rate of 4%), will not take place in the market at sector
specific discount rates.
Furthermore, the report indicates clearly that GHG abatement costs are reduced if non-CO2
GHG abatements are included in the framework.
As the report does not include the ACEA agreement, currently remaining GHG reduction
potential at low costs may be lower than estimated.
4.1.1.3.
The Capros (2001) report
The Capros (2001) report for EC DG Environment contains a detailed top-down analysis,
updated in 2001, on GHG emission reductions in the EU15 and covers all sectors. The report
is based on the PRIMES model to simulate EU energy demand, and includes the ACEA
agreement to reduce CO2 emission levels for new cars. Details about the report, the
background, scope and baseline can be found in Annex 1.
Page 54
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
a)
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Passenger transport
An overview of the specific passenger transport emission reduction potential and costs in the
16
EU in 2010 is displayed in the table below . Reduction potential does not take into account
HFC leakages in mobile air conditioning systems. This table does not include the emission
reduction implied in the ACEA agreement. The report does not contain specific abatement
costs in €/TCE.
Table 4-6: Impact of CO2 emission reduction targets to EU transport sector
Travel per person (km/capita)
Energy intensity (toe/M€90)
Passenger transport –income related
Passenger transport – GDP related
Average efficiency passenger vehicles
toe per Mpkm
toe per Mvkm
Energy demand in transport (Mtoe)
CO2 emissions in transport (MTCE)
CO2 emission reduction target for EU energy system
small
medium
high
% diff. from 2010 baseline
-2%
-4%
-6%
-10%
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
-40%
-9%
-7%
-10%
-10%
-20%
-15%
-25%
-25%
-40%
-45%
-40%
-40%
Mobility is rather rigid, as it is related to the welfare of consumers. However, this fact does not
constrain the achievement of significant emission reductions. For example, a 40% emission
reduction is possible while reducing mobility by only 6%.
Improvement of energy intensity can reach up to 40% for both passenger and freight
transport, over a period of 10 years without major technological breakthroughs or any major
change in habits.
Potential dynamics of passenger transport are quite significant as efficiency improvement of
an average vehicle can reach up to 45% in terms of consumption per vehicle-kilometre
travelled. The corresponding improvement in terms of passenger kilometres travelled can
reach up to 40%. The results indicate that in collective transport modes better management
(higher load factors, further use of information technology etc) is a cost-effective option and
can contribute significantly to the improvement of efficiency in passenger transport. However,
limitations exist and further improvements require additional effort at the level of vehicle
technologies.
b)
Freight transport
An overview of the specific freight transport emission reduction potential and costs in the EU
in 2010 is displayed in the table below. Reduction potential does not take into account HFC
leakages in mobile air conditioning systems. This Table does not include the emission
reduction implied in the ACEA agreement. The report does not contain specific abatement
costs in €/TCE.
Table 4-7: Impact of CO2 emission reduction targets to EU transport sector
Freight/GDP (tkm/000€90)
Average efficiency freight vehicles
toe per Mtkm
toe per Mvkm
Energy demand in transport (Mtoe)
CO2 emissions in transport (MTCE)
CO2 emission reduction target for EU energy system
small
medium
high
% diff. from 2010 baseline
-5%
-9%
-12%
-8%
-1%
-10%
-10%
-20%
-10%
-25%
-25%
-35%
-20%
-40%
-40%
16
“Small” refers to a target of around –8% from 1990 levels, “medium” refers to a target of around –30%
and “high” refers to a target of around –45% (i.e. exploiting sectoral potential)
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 55
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
Activity in freight transport is more responsive to emissions reductions probably because of
the better perception of costs by firms.
According to the PRIMES model results there seems to be a large potential for improving
management of freight transport while the technical potential for vehicle efficiency
improvements seem difficult to approach even in the cases of strict emission reductions.
Consequently, it is much easier and cost-effective to achieve an improvement of efficiency in
terms of ton-kilometres travelled compared to vehicle kilometres travelled.
c)
Summary & conclusions
Changes in terms of energy demand and CO2 emissions in the transport sector follow the
same pattern due to rather limited potential for fuel substitution in the sector. The small
horizon of the study, limits the potential for technological breakthroughs, regarding fuel cell or
electric cars that could lead to the use of less carbon intensive fuels (bio-fuels, natural gas,
etc.).
Table 4-8: Vehicle improvement in EU road transport
CO2 emission reduction target for EU energy system
small
medium
high
% diff. from 2010 baseline
Average efficiency
passenger vehicles (toe per Mpkm)
public road transport
private cars
freight vehicles (toe per Mvkm)
public road transport
private cars
-5%
-2%
-20%
-8%
-30%
-30%
-2%
-1%
-15%
-5%
-25%
-30%
Though explicit CO2 abatement costs have not been indicated in this study, the report does
contain relevant information on the transport sub sectors where relatively cheap CO2
reductions remain possible.
As Table 4-8 indicates, the technical opportunities to reduce carbon emission in passenger
cars are limited after implementation of the ACEA agreement. For technical improvements,
cost-effective opportunities to reduce GHG emissions in passenger transport are
concentrated in train transport and aviation (see paragraphs 4.1.2 and 4.1.3). Only when
target emission reductions are “high”, passenger cars can be replaced by more fuel-efficient
cars –which undoubtedly will reduce average car size and comfort levels.
For the Kyoto Protocol target (the “small” scenario) technical reductions will be accompanied
by modal shifts that improve CO2 reductions. This is clear when comparing the toe per Mpkm
numbers to the toe per Mvkm estimates.
4.1.1.4.
Kleit (2002) report
The report of Kleit (2002) discusses the societal costs of increasing Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) standards by 1 mile per gallon (mpg) in the short run and 3 miles per gallon
in the long run. These standards are only imposed for the average sales of new vehicles and
are enforced with a $ 55/mpg/car fine for car producers that not meet the standard. The
model used incorporates major auto producers as agents and assesses impact of CAFE on
their profits, as part of an economic welfare analysis.
Kleit finds that a 1 mpg short run increase reduces profits in the car manufacturing industry
and reduces consumer welfare because of higher transport costs. In response to this, fewer
new cars are sold, but the remaining stock is more polluting because of increased economic
lifetime. Furthermore, as the price per kilometre of new cars drops because of fuel efficiency,
a rebound effect can be expected to occur resulting in higher car use.
Page 56
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Environmental effects of CAFE short run standards depend on the remaining car stock, which
is heavily polluting. For several emissions, Kleit finds increases in emissions due to a longer
economic lifetime of old vehicles and higher use of fuel-efficient cars. Moreover, the
17
associated costs are important, both for consumers and producers . Abatement costs are
hence extremely high (because of high costs and very little abatement) or not relevant as
emissions are increasing. Kleit compares the $ 4,1/gallon welfare cost to the $ 0,26/gallon
gain in reduced environmental externalities (National Research Council estimates), to
conclude that the short run CAFE is not beneficial.
A long-run CAFE standard would reduce costs required to reach these standards as firms
have more time to find suitable and cost-effective technology to reach fuel efficiency
standards. Costs to producers and consumers are hence relatively low, but as marginal costs
of driving are reduced, the rebound effect increases car use and offsets all emission
abatement effects of increased fuel efficiency. The net effect is an increase in all reported
emissions (air pollutants and greenhouse gases)
Though this report does not specify abatement costs as such, it does offer important
information on secondary effects that may offset initial technological gains up to the point that
the initial goal of reducing fuel consumption and emissions may not be reached at all.
Specifically, the secondary conclusion of Kleit is that in order to lower fuel dependency and
reduce emissions, fuel efficiency standards are neither cost-effective nor cost-beneficial and
could be replaced by efficient instruments as fuel taxes. The report indicates that fuel taxes
that reduce oil dependency and emissions by an equivalent amount as the CAFE standards
may reduce economic costs by a factor 16 to one (short term) or 4 to one (long term).
4.1.1.5.
Auto-Oil (2000a) report
The European Commission (2000a) report contains a social welfare analysis on air pollution
emission reductions in the EU9 transport sector.
The transport sector is modelled using TREMOVE, a European wide simulation model
specifically designed to analyze impacts of policy measures. TREMOVE incorporates
components of various models previously developed and used at European scale (TRENEN,
EUCARS, FOREMOVE, COPERT-II).
The cost and price data included in the road-transport base case are used to calculate
generalised prices (and changes thereof), which is a common used concept in transport
sector analysis. The generalised price is calculated per transport mode as the sum of three
elements, i.e. resource costs (including vehicle purchase, maintenance, insurance and fuel
cost, excluding taxes), taxes or subsidies, and travel time costs (including waiting and walking
time for public transport). Cost data are all presented in constant €(1998).
The report stresses the strong expected growth in base case CO2 emissions until 2010, some
15% over 1995 levels or 25% compared to 1990 levels), even though the base case takes
into account the 1998 ACEA agreement to reduce CO2 emission levels of new cars.
Moreover, the report clearly points out that car manufacturers argue they are unlikely to be
able to hold the ACEA agreement since making gasoline vehicles meet the EURO-IV
standards based on current –improved- technologies may prevent major fuel efficiency
improvements.
As both the ACEA agreement as the European vehicle standards (up to EURO-IV) are
included in the baseline projections, the report investigates primarily reductions that induce
17
Kleit finds that non-US car producers would benefit from CAFE as they produce relatively fuel efficient
cars.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 57
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
faster acceptance of new technology (through scrappage programs, retrofitting programs and
18
EEV incentives )
Since the primary focus of AOP-II was not in GHG emissions, but in other pollutants, the
report does not contain specific calculations for CO2 abatement costs.
The case studies, especially for targeted scrappage and retrofitting of heavy duty vehicles in
Lyon and Athens, indicates that –the early introduction of- selected technology for PM and
NOX and VOC abatement offers little advantage in CO2 emission reductions.
4.1.2.
Rail transport vehicle technology
The Capros (2001) report for EC DG Environment contains a detailed top-down analysis,
updated in 2001, on GHG emission reductions in the EU15 and covers all sectors. Details
about the Capros report, the background, scope and baseline can be found in Annex 1.
Potential dynamics of passenger rail transport are quite significant as efficiency improvement
of an average vehicle can reach up to 45% in terms of consumption per vehicle-kilometre
travelled. The corresponding improvement in terms of passenger kilometres travelled can
reach up to 40%. The results indicate that in collective transport modes better management
(higher load factors, further use of information technology etc) is a cost-effective option and
can contribute significantly to the improvement of efficiency in passenger transport. However,
limitations exist and further improvements require additional effort at the level of vehicle
technologies.
Changes in terms of energy demand and CO2 emissions in the transport sector follow the
same pattern due to rather limited potential for fuel substitution in the sector.
Table 4-9: Vehicle improvement in EU rail transport
Average efficiency
passenger vehicles (toe per Mpkm)
railways
freight vehicles (toe per Mvkm)
railways
CO2 emission reduction target for EU energy system
small
medium
high
% diff. from 2010 baseline
-20%
-30%
-35%
-15%
-30%
-30%
Though explicit CO2 abatement costs have not been indicated in this study, the report does
contain relevant information on the transport sub sectors where relatively cheap CO2
reductions remain possible.
As Table 4-8 and Table 4-9 indicate, the technical opportunities to reduce carbon emission in
passenger cars are limited after implementation of the ACEA agreement. For technical
improvements, cost-effective opportunities to reduce GHG emissions in passenger transport
are concentrated in train transport and aviation.
For the Kyoto Protocol target (the “small” scenario) technical reductions will be accompanied
by modal shifts that improve CO2 reductions.
18
EEV tax incentives are currently in place in Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Luxemburg and Austria (all
related to fuel consumption ~ CO2 emissions)
Page 58
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
4.1.3.
Aviation vehicle technoloy
4.1.3.1.
The Bates (2001) report
In the Bates (2001) report, the baseline projection for aviation demand includes a 27%
improvement in fuel consumption per vehicle kilometre between 1990 and 2010. It is
considered, given the current rate of fleet renewals, that improvements beyond this could not
be achieved by 2010.
Details about the Bates report, the background, scope and baseline can be found in Annex 1.
4.1.3.2.
The Capros (2001) report
The Capros (2001) report for EC DG Environment contains a detailed top-down analysis,
updated in 2001, on GHG emission reductions in the EU15 and covers all sectors. Details
about the Capros report, the background, scope and baseline can be found in Annex 1.
There is a rather small potential for changes in the structure of transport activity because of
issues regarding the reason of travel, existing infrastructure and others. Air travel, which is to
a large extent discretionary (a “luxury” good), is expected to be more affected as mobility
decreases.
Table 4-10: Vehicle improvement in EU air transport
CO2 emission reduction target for EU energy system
small
medium
high
% diff. from 2010 baseline
Average efficiency
passenger vehicles (toe per Mpkm)
aviation
freight vehicles (toe per Mvkm)
aviation
-25%
-40%
-50%
-15%
-23%
-28%
As Table 4-8 and Table 4-10 indicate, the technical opportunities to reduce carbon emission
in passenger cars are limited after implementation of the ACEA agreement. For technical
improvements, cost-effective opportunities to reduce GHG emissions in passenger transport
are concentrated in train transport and aviation.
For the Kyoto Protocol target (the “small” scenario) technical reductions will be accompanied
by modal shifts that improve CO2 reductions. This is clear when comparing the toe per Mpkm
numbers to the toe per Mvkm estimates. For example, higher load factors and better traffic
management to reduce carbon emissions up to 25% accompany technical emission
reductions of -15% in aviation. This indicates that the 116 MTCE potential already includes
nd
“2 order effects” (e.g. modal shifts) and should not be considered as the result of vehicle
technology improvement only.
4.1.4.
Fuel technology
With respect to fuel technology, only road transport is considered in this paragraph.
4.1.4.1.
Auto-Oil II Program
The European Commission (2000b) report on fuel technologies in the Auto-Oil II Program
contains a social welfare analysis of European wide fuel scenarios in the EU9 transport
sector.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 59
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
The transport sector is modelled using TREMOVE and EPEFE and is based on the extensive
“Alternative Fuels” report in AOP-II.
The cost and price data included in the road-transport base case are used to calculate
generalised prices. For these specific fuel scenarios, both European-wide investment costs
for refineries and infrastructure costs for new technologies (like CNG distribution points) were
taken into account. The welfare cost associated with policy measures is the net present value
2005-2020 of total additional costs.
The fuel scenarios implied technical fuel changes for both diesel and gasoline fuels for all
vehicles, however the EURO standards for fuels already decided on were assumed to be
operational in baseline.
Since the primary focus of AOP-II was not in GHG emissions, but in other pollutants, the
report does not contain specific calculations for CO2 abatement costs. However, impacts on
CO2 emissions were calculated for all scenarios. No diesel or gasoline fuel scenario had
significant impact on CO2 emissions.
Alternative fuels reviewed covered CNG, LPG, DME, bio-diesel and bio-ethanol blends. The
report indicates that especially CNG and LPG fuels may technically contribute to CO2
emission reduction by 10% to 20% in comparison with conventional gasoline fuel vehicles and
19
may be available at low extra costs. However, no detailed data were reported .
4.1.4.2.
EC report on fuel efficiency standards by Proost (1997)
Proost (1997) calculates the welfare cost per kg abated CO2-emissions for a fuel efficiency
standard that would reach the EC target of 120g/km. Abatement costs are calculated as the
change in welfare caused for a car driver who is forced to purchase a fuel efficient small car,
divided by the obtained reduction in CO2 emissions. The main cost parameters are displayed
in Table 4-11
Table 4-11: Cost parameters in Proost (1997) EC report
Gasoline price (excl. specific gasoline tax, incl. VAT)
Specific gasoline tax
Transport cost (excl. fuel) for a conventional car in 2005
(discount rate 20%, consumption 6,5l/100 km)
Transport cost (excl. fuel) for a fuel efficient car in 2005
(discount rate 20%, consumption 5l/100 km)
Elasticity of car usage vs. transport costs
0,406 €/litre
0,670 €/litre
0,245 €/km
0,271 €/km
-0,5
The fuel efficiency standard increases transport cost (excl. fuel taxes) by € 0,0138/km,
20
calculated at a ‘social’ discount rate of 5% . In reality however, a car driver will take into
account a discount rate of 20% when deciding on car use. As a consequence the car user
takes into account an increase in transport costs (excl. fuel) of € 0,026/km and a decrease of
21
fuel costs (excl. taxes) of € 0,006/km. He will also pay € 0,010 less fuel taxes , totalling the
increase in transport cost to € 0,010/km. As a consequence, the distance travelled will be
22
downsized by 234 km/year to 15.138 km/year .
19
It should be noted however that the TREMOVE simulations for promotion of LPG in France indicates
no significant decrease in CO2 emissions, significant emission reductions in PM, NOX and SO2, but
emission increases in CO, VOC and CH4. Since many of the vehicle stock changes would come from
abandoning French LDV Diesel vehicles with low CO2 emission per vkm, this should not come as a
surprise.
20
In 2005 the transport cost per km (excl. fuel and taxes) would increase by € 0,0198. Fuel costs (excl.
taxes) would decrease by € 0,0060 per km. The costs would hence increase by € 0,0138 per km
21
Per km 0,015 litre of gasoline is saved, the tax on gasoline is € 0.670/litre
22
[Reduction in car usage (în %) / Increase transport cost (in %)] = Elasticity of car usage w.r.t. transport
costs
Page 60
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
The reduction of the consumer surplus and the fuel taxes paid in the simplified transport
market for 2005 are calculated (as in Figure 2.6) in Table 3-13.
Table 4-12: CO2 Abatement cost of a fuel efficiency standard, without external costs
Changes in the costs of car usage (15.138 km per year)
Increase transport cost (excl. fuel)
Decrease fuel cost
Decrease fuel tax
Decrease consumer surplus (surface p2p1e2c)
Changes through decrease in car usage (-234 km per year)
Decrease consumer surplus (surface e2ce1)
Decrease fuel tax
Welfare cost of the fuel efficiency standard per vehicle
Welfare cost of fuel efficiency standard per tCO2-reduction
€/km
€/year
0,0198
-0,006
-0,010
299,7
-90,8
-151,4
57,5
+1,223
- 10,224
210,1
363 €/tCO2
Assuming that the decrease in government income from fuel taxes is compensated by a
reduction of government expenditures or an increase in taxes on other markets without further
costs, we should not include the decrease in paid fuel taxes in the welfare cost. The welfare
cost of a fuel efficiency standard can then be calculated to be to € 210,1 per year (i.e. 299,7 –
90,8 + 1,2). Using the fuel-efficient car, including the decrease in car usage, will result in a
25
decrease of CO2 emissions by approximately 577,7 kg per year . The welfare cost per ton
abated CO2 emissions is therefore equal to € 363/tCO2.
Car users take into account the reduction in fuel taxes. The cost for the car user is therefore
only € 48,5/year (= 299,7 – 90,8 – 151,4 + 1,2 – 10,2) or € 84/tCOv. The policy measure thus
seems to be less costly to a consumer than it is in reality, because the consumer takes into
account that he saves tax payments. For society however this savings are no advantage as
the decrease in government revenues must be compensated by cuts in government
expenditures or increased taxation in other sectors.
4.1.4.3.
Report by Van Herbruggen (2002)
Van Herbruggen et al (2002) repeat the comparison of fuel efficiency standards and fuel taxes
of Proost (1997) (see section 4.1.4.2) to include the beneficial side-effects of these measures
(air pollution, accidents, noise and congestion).
As such, this requires some estimate of these costs to take into account when calculating
abatement costs, as is developed in the framework in sections 2.2 and 2.3. For € values of
these benefits, values from Mayeres and Van Dender (2001) are used, as in Table 4-13. Note
that congestion costs reported here represent the majority of external damages, especially in
urban areas
Table 4-13: External costs of transport excluding CO2
26
Marginal external cost of (€/km)
Air pollution (excl. CO2)
Accidents and noise
Congestion
Urban
0,005
0,043
0,558
Non-urban
0,001
0,057
0,123
Table 4-14 shows the extended calculation of carbon abatement costs of a fuel efficiency
standard, including external effects. Next to the € 210/year welfare costs established in Table
4-12 the reduction in car use offers € 159/year benefits in reduced external effects in urban
23
Surface e2ce1 = ½ * 234 km * 0,0077 €/km = 1,2
Decrease fuel tax (234 km) = fuel consumption/km * #km/year * tax/litre = 0,065 * 234 * 0,670 = € 10,2
25
Fuel consumption drops by 227,07 litre (= 0,015 * 15.138) with a fuel-efficient car and by 15,21 litre (=
0,065 * 234) because of decrease in car usage. Per litre of gasoline 2,384 kg CO2 is emitted. The
emissions avoided are equal to (227,07 + 15,21) * 2,384 kg CO2 = 577,7 kg CO2.
26
The external costs for urban areas are derived from calculations for Brussels. The assumptions for
areas out of conurbations are based on calculations for Belgium
24
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 61
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
areas (€46/year in non-urban areas). Reduction in congestion costs takes the bulk of the
external benefits of reduced car use.
Table 4-14: CO2 Abatement cost of fuel efficiency standard including external costs
Fuel Efficiency standard (15.138 km/ year)
27
Decrease of air pollution costs
Reduction in car usage (-234 km/year)
Reduction of air pollution costs
Reduction of costs of accidents and noise
Reduction of congestion costs
Total reduction of external costs
Effect on welfare (without external costs)
Effect on welfare (incl. external costs)
Welfare cost of fuel efficiency standard per tCO2 reduction
Urban
€/year
Non-Urban
€/year
17,4
3,5
1,2
10,1
130,6
159,3
0,2
13,3
28,8
45,8
-210,1
-50,8
88 €/tCO2
-210,1
-164,3
284 €/tCO2
The net costs of a fuel efficiency standard then drop from € 210 per vehicle year to € 51 in
large conurbations and to € 164 in non-urban areas. Abatement costs per ton of CO2 drop
from € 363 to € 88 (urban) or € 284 (non-urban). As a consequence of including external
effects of the fuel efficiency measure, the numbers for urban and non-urban are different
(larger welfare gains in urban areas in other pollutants due to better fuel efficiency). If 15% of
car use happens in conurbations, the fuel efficiency standard causes a welfare loss of €
28
147/year or € 255/tCO2.
Note that this simple model abstracts from transport mode shifts that may occur as a
consequence of the increased car costs. Therefore the obtained reduction of CO2 emissions
and other external effects will, in reality, be below the numbers calculated. Moreover these
calculations do not take into account the “rebound” effect of decreased car use via
congestion; as trip time decreases because congestion drops, car use may become more
attractive again, leading to a compensating move in external costs and carbon emissions
abated. This would again have incremental effects on abatement costs per ton CO2.
29
A report from Proost and Van Dender (2001) uses the TRENEN model to incorporate both
these effects. Assuming the fuel efficiency standard increases car ownership costs by 19,5%
for gasoline cars and 17% for diesel cars, the welfare level of the Brussels inhabitants and
commuters, expressed in monetary terms, would decrease by €15,4 per capita in 2005.
4.1.5.
Summary discussion of technology options to reduce transport GHG
emissions
This section has provided an overview of technical options to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in transport. Sections 4.1.1 to 4.1.3 discussed several EC reports on improved
vehicle technology.
Bottom-up reports indicated some 116 MTCE emission reduction potential in EU15 road
transport, some of which at a negative cost. Considerable savings at low cost are concentrated in the freight transport sector and in reducing mobile air conditioning leakage. However,
as the ACEA agreement was included in this potential, the remaining options at costs lower
than € 20/TCE seem limited.
A top-down analysis using the PRIMES model indicated that in order to reach the targets in
the Kyoto Protocol, most technical improvements would be required in train transport and
27
As fuel use drops by 0,015 litre/km (23%), emissions are assumed to decline by 23% too.
0.15 * € 50.8 + 0.85 * € 164.3
29
TRENEN is a static partial equilibrium model for the transport sector, developed under the Transport
Research Program of the European Commission.
28
Page 62
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
aviation, and this would require modal shifts – or technical improvements – in both freight and
passenger transport.
A US report (Kleit, 2002) discusses the rebound effects of fuel efficiency standards. Though
new cars show lower emissions per mile, they may be driven more, compensating for the
technically acquired emission reduction. Moreover, as new vehicles get more expensive, the
economic lifetime of old non fuel efficient vehicles is prolonged, so that in the short run
emissions may be increased by the fuel efficiency standard, opposite to the policy intentions.
Moreover the authors indicate that GHG emission reductions may be achieved more
effectively and at far lower costs by using fuel taxes.
In fuel technologies, CNG and LPG vehicles may be able to offer some 10% to 20% carbon
emission reductions compared to conventional gasoline fuel vehicles at low costs, though no
specific potential was reported. Compared to diesel vehicles, these alternative fuels offer
much lower advantages in carbon emissions.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 63
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
4.2. PRICING MEASURES
Fiscal measures to reduce greenhouse gas emission reductions include:
• Circulations and registration taxes
• Subsidising vehicle scrappage
• Fuel taxes
• Kilometre charging or road charging
A last section is devoted to integrated pricing.
Finally, the results are discussed.
4.2.1.
Circulation and registration taxes
The COWI report for DG Environment (European Commission 2002) assesses the extent to
which vehicle related taxes (mainly acquisition taxes and ownership taxes) are effective
means to reduce CO2 emissions from new cars. More specifically, the model calculations
assess the ability of vehicle taxes to support the target to reduce average CO2 emissions from
30
new cars down to a level of 120 g/km .
The extended COWI Car Choice Model is used for the model-based calculations. This model
simulates the changes in car demand in response to changes in existing car tax systems. It
does so for nine selected European countries, and assumes no influence of taxes on country
car sales, limited substitution to diesel cars or small fuel-efficient cars, and budget neutrality
for new cars between registration tax, circulation tax and fuel tax. As such, the model does
not allow for second order effects.
The scenarios contain different mixtures of “carbonisation” of new vehicle taxes (registration
tax and circulation tax). As there is a budget neutrality constraint available, there is no
resource cost for the available CO2 emission reduction potential.
As there are no abatement costs in the redesign of a tax scheme, the following observations
in the report should be noted:
•
•
•
•
Current fiscal legislation does provide for some tax incentive to reduce average
CO2/km for new cars
Improving differentiation in registration tax or circulation taxes to reflect carbon
efficiency reduces CO2/km emissions of new cars
If national car tax structures are significantly modified to reflect carbon efficiency per
km, new cars could achieve an average efficiency 5% closer to the 120 g/km target.
An equivalent fuel efficiency improvement is required to reach the 120 g/km target.
This needs to be handled with vehicle size reduction and increased gasoline to diesel
switching.
Fuel taxes do not affect the average carbon efficiency of new cars (in g CO2/km)
substantially. They may however be effective means to control total CO2 emissions of
31
transport.
30
This is the agreed target of the Community Strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars.
Note that ACEA has agreed to the target of 120 g/km, but has not committed to it as it did to the
140 g/km target.
31
Note that car substitution in the COWI model is limited by diesel switch constraints and downsizing
constraints. Moreover, fuel taxes are likely to affect car use and car renewal more than average new car
choice if new cars do not show important differences in fuel efficiency. This effect is not taken up in the
COWI model.
Page 64
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
4.2.2.
Subsidising vehicle scrappage
As an alternative to imposing new standards for cars, subsidy schemes for scrappage of old
vehicles are often proposed to tackle emission problems in problem areas. Such a subsidy
can be considered as a subsidy related to the purchase of a new car that is purchased to
replace a scrapped car. Thus the scrappage scheme would, on average, result in a lower cost
of car transport to transport users, which might lead to an increase in car traffic.
This idea is affirmed by a TREMOVE report in the Auto-Oil II Program (Part IV, Annex 4), in
which the effect of a € 1.021 subsidy for the replacement of cars older than 10 years was
simulated for Athens. These subsidies result in a lower use of public transport and higher car
usage in 2010, with consequently 0,4% higher CO2-emissions. This subsidised scrappage
scheme is shown to have important welfare costs (€ 34,1 per capita in 2010), due to higher
congestion and accident costs.
4.2.3.
Fuel taxes
This section discusses the effects of a fuel taxes on transport market equilibrium, including
second order effects. It does so by comparison with a fuel-efficiency standard (see section
4.1.4.2). The cost evaluation is made using the welfare economic framework developed in
section 2.3.
Proost (1997) calculates the welfare cost per kg abated CO2-emissions for a fuel efficiency
standard that would reach the EC target of 120g/km. Abatement costs are calculated as the
change in welfare caused for a car driver who is forced to purchase a fuel efficient small car,
divided by the obtained reduction in CO2 emissions.
The reduction of the consumer surplus and the fuel taxes paid in the simplified transport
market for 2005 are calculated in Table 4-12 on page 61.
a)
Increase of fuel taxes in a simplified transport market
As an alternative to a fuel-efficiency standard, the increase of fuel taxes might incite car
drivers to reduce carbon emissions. Van Herbruggen et al (2002) calculates the welfare cost
of a €1 tax increase in 2005 – doubling pump fuel prices- as Proost (1997) indicated that a tax
increase of this order of magnitude would be needed to incite producers and consumers to
produce and use 5 l/100km fuel efficient cars – the equivalent of the fuel efficiency standard in
section 4.1.4.2.
As already noted, the usage of such a car leads to an increase in transport costs (excl. taxes)
32
by € 0,0138/km. Fuel taxes hereby increase by € 0,040/km . The total transport cost
therefore increase by € 0,054/km. A car driver that takes into account a discount rate of 20%
33
when making decisions will however observe an increase in transport cost by € 0,060 . This
will incite him to reduce driving to 13.912 km/year, a decrease by 1.460 km/year.
The resulting abatement costs of a € 1 increase in fuel taxes in the simplified transport market
have been calculated in Table 4-15. Note that even when total costs are higher than with a
fuel efficiency standard for cars, the increased incentive to car users to drive less produces a
34
higher CO2 emission reduction; 724 kg . As a consequence, abatement costs per ton CO2
are lower.
32
Original fuel tax/km = consumption/km*tax /litre = 0,065*0,670 = € 0,044/km
New fuel tax/km = consumption/km*tax/litre = 0,050*1,670 = € 0,084/km
33
Increase in transport cost = 0,026 (excl. fuel) – 0,006 (decrease fuel cost) + 0,040 (increase fuel tax)
34
Fuel consumption drops by 208,68 litre (= 0,015 * 13.912) because of using a more fuel-efficient car
and by 94.90 litre (= 0,065 * 1.460) because of the decrease in car usage. Per litre of gasoline 2,384 kg
CO2 is emitted, hence emissions avoided are (208,68 + 94,90) * 2,384 kg CO2 = 723,7 kg CO2.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 65
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
Table 4-15: CO2 Abatement cost of a €1 fuel tax increase, without external costs
Changes in the costs of car usage (13.912 km/year)
Increase transport cost (excl. fuel)
Decrease fuel cost
Increase fuel tax
Decrease consumer surplus (surface p2p1e2c)
Changes through decrease in car usage (-1.460 km/year
Decrease consumer surplus (surface e2ce1)
Decrease fuel tax
Welfare cost of €1 fuel tax
Welfare cost of €1 fuel tax per tCO2-reduction
€/km
€/year
0,0198
-0,006
0,040
275,5
-83,5
556,5
748,5
35
+43,8
36
- 63,6
235,8
326 €/tCO2
At the level of car users, however, the cost of the policy measure includes fuel taxes paid and
rises up to € 729/year (i.e. 275,5 – 83,5 + 556,5 + 43,8 – 63,6) or € 1.006/tCO2.
b)
Extended evaluation, including external costs
Integrated transport pricing policies take into account all costs (air pollution, carbon
emissions, congestion) of transport to calculate the charge required to bring the user price of
transport closer to societal costs. This section reviews the CO2 abatement cost estimates of
previous sections, taking into account external costs of Table 4-13, to compare with the
abatement costs of road charges, discussing the overall effects of fuel taxes.
Table 4-16 shows the extended calculation of carbon abatement costs of a € 1 increase in
fuel tax, including external effects.
Next to the € 236/year welfare costs established in Table 4-15, the reduction in car use offers
€ 901/year benefits in reduced external effects in urban areas (€ 267/year in non-urban
areas). Reductions in congestion costs take the bulk of the external benefits of reduced car
use.
Table 4-16: CO2 Abatement cost of €1 fuel tax increase, including external costs
Urban
€/year
Non-Urban
€/year
€1 increase in fuel tax (13.912 km per year)
Decrease of air pollution costs
Reduction in car usage (-1.460 km per year)
Reduction of air pollution costs
Reduction of costs of accidents and noise
Reduction of congestion costs
Total reduction of external costs
16,0
3,2
7,3
62,8
814,7
900,8
1,5
83,2
179,6
267,5
Effect on welfare (without external costs)
Effect on welfare (incl. External costs)
Welfare gain of €1 fuel tax increase per tCO2 reduction
-235,8
+665,0
€ 919
235,8
+31,7
€ 44
The net costs of a € 1 fuel tax increase drop from € 236 per vehicle year to a welfare benefit
of € 665 in large conurbations and to € 32 in non-urban areas. Abatement costs per ton of
CO2 drop from € 326 to abatement gains of € 919 (urban) and € 44 (non-urban). As a
consequence of including external effects of the fuel efficiency measure, the numbers for
urban and non-urban are different (larger welfare gains in urban areas in other pollutants due
to better fuel efficiency). If 15% of car use happens in conurbations, the fuel tax increase
causes a welfare gain of approximately € 127/year or € 175/tCO2.
35
36
Surface e2ce1 = ½ * 1.460 km * €0,060km = 43,8
Reduced fuel tax (1.460 km) = litre/km * km /yr *tax/litre= 0,065 * 1.460 * € 0,670 = € 63,6
Page 66
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Again this result has to be considered cautiously as several side-effects (modal shifts and
rebound) are not taken into consideration. However, more elaborate calculations confirm that
increasing fuel taxes may lead to welfare gains in urban areas with significant congestion
problems.
The report from Proost and Van Dender (2001) using the TRENEN model to incorporate
these effects finds an increase of € 4,7 per capita for Brussels commuters and inhabitants in
2005. Similar conclusions have been drawn from simulations with increased fuel taxes in the
37
Auto Oil II Program of the European Commission, using TREMOVE model .
With respect to fuel taxes we can therefore conclude that urban areas with significant
congestion problems are benefiting more from a significant fuel tax increase than an
equivalent fuel efficiency standard, as the fuel tax will induce stronger incentives to reduce car
use. As a result the costs of accidents, noise, pollution and most importantly congestion are
significantly reduced. Note that at the high fuel tax levels in the EU a significant fuel tax
increase will drive consumers to extra investments in new technologies reducing fuel
consumption. This is cost-inefficient as in most cases the saved fuel costs and external costs
do not compensate the additional costs of these technologies. Road pricing may avoid these
inefficiencies while remaining effective in CO2 emission abatement.
4.2.4.
Kilometre charging or road charging
An extra € 1/litre fuel tax increases transport costs by € 0,065/km for car users with a
conventional car. The consequence is that they will shift to more fuel efficient, but also more
expensive cars, and will drive fewer kilometres. An equivalent road charge of € 0,065/km will
not incite car users to shift to a more fuel-efficient car, but will still lead to 1.589 km lower car
use.
Calculations were done in an intergraded pricing scheme, taking into account all costs (air
pollution, carbon emissions, congestion) of transport to calculate the charge required to bring
the user price of transport closer to societal costs (see Table 4-13).
The changes in consumer surplus, fuel taxes paid and external costs as a result of this road
charge shown in Table 4-17 and Table 4-18.
Table 4-17: CO2 Abatement cost of equivalent road pricing excluding external costs
Changes in costs of car usage (13.783 km/year)
Kilometre charge
Decrease consumer surplus (surface p2p1e2c)
Decrease in car usage (-1.589 km/year)
38
Decrease consumer surplus (surface e2ce1)
39
Decrease fuel tax
Welfare cost of road charge
Welfare cost of road charge per tCO2-reduction
€/km
€/year
0,065
895,9
895,9
51,6
- 69,2
51,6
€ 210/tCO2
37
TREMOVE is a model based on TRENEN that, unlike TRENEN, includes modules that enable to
calculate the composition of the vehicle stock, fuel consumption and emissions per pollutant in detail.
TREMOVE has been developed during the Auto-Oil II Program of the European Commission.
38
Surface e2ce1 = ½ * 1.589 km * € 0,065/km= € 51,6
39
Drop in fuel tax (1.589 km) = fuel use * km/year * tax/litre = 0,065 * 1.589 * € 0,670 =€ 69,2
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 67
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
Table 4-18: CO2 Abatement cost of equivalent road pricing including external costs
Urban
€/year
Reduction in car usage (-1.589 km/year)
Reduction in air pollution costs
Reduction in costs of accidents and noise
Reduction in congestion costs
Total reduction of external costs
Effect on welfare (without external costs)
Welfare gain (incl. External costs)
Welfare gain of road charge per tCO2-reduction
Non-Urban
€/year
7,9
68,3
886,7
962,9
1,6
90,6
195,4
287,6
-51,6
+911,3
€ 3.700
-51,6
+236,0
€ 958
As fuel taxes and road taxes are considered to be pure transfers of wealth, changes in either
are not considered to be a welfare cost. The introduction of the road charge thus leads to a
welfare gain of € 911/year in urban areas (€ 236 in non-urban areas). If 15% of car use
happens in conurbations the average welfare gain would be € 337 per vehicle per year. As
40
lower car use will reduce CO2 emissions by 246 kg/year , welfare gains per kg CO2abatement amount to € 1.370/tCO2, which makes kilometre charging more than seven times
as cost-effective as an equivalent fuel tax for CO2 abatement. The reason for this is that fuel
taxes will incite consumers to purchase more fuel-efficient cars, which is too expensive given
the level of fuel taxes in the EU. Road pricing will induce similar reductions in emissions and
external costs without the extra costs of expensive fuel-efficient cars, and will reduce vehicle
use and emission slightly more.
Similar conclusions on peak road pricing have been drawn from simulations with increased
fuel taxes in the Auto Oil II Program of the European Commission (2000c), using the
TREMOVE model where considerable side effects are taken into account, and where the
ACEA agreement is taken up in the baseline calculations. Specifically in the Annex discussing
Non-Technical Measures the results of differentiated kilometre charges in Lyon and Athens
have been simulated. The charge would amount up to € 0,31/km for cars and LDV in peak
periods and would be € 0,05/km in off-peak hours. HDV road charges would be € 0,62/km
and € 0,10/km respectively.
Implementation costs of peak road pricing would amount to € 83,7 per vehicle and yearly
operational cost (including enforcement) would be € 24,5 per vehicle, but are expected to be
partly offset by revenues from fines. TREMOVE forecasts for Lyon indicate a 2% decrease in
the number of passenger kilometres, being the net effect of a decrease in car usage (-14%)
and an increase in the usage of other modes, i.e. public transport (+6%) and motorcycles
(+0,5%). HDV freight transport would decrease (-5,5%), whereas no significant decrease in
LDV freight transport is expected. Inhabitants and commuters would experience welfare gains
of € 44,3 per capita in 2005, mainly through a reduction in congestion costs. An 8% reduction
in CO2-emissions is expected. Note that by charging higher amounts in peak hours and lower
amounts in off-peak hours, in which congestion problems are limited, attainable welfare gains
per unit of CO2 reduction are even higher than with undifferentiated kilometre charges.
4.2.5.
Integrated transport pricing
In principle the governments have the option of introducing kilometre charges for all transport
modes, replacing existing taxes and subsidy systems. De Borger and Proost (2001) assess
such optimal transport charging policy in Brussels.
Optimal pricing targets the government to make sure that the transport prices (incl. taxes) that
are paid for each trip are equal to the costs caused by it. This way the trip price is sure to
include –marginal- external costs of congestion, noise, pollution and accidents. Note that
40
Fuel use drops by 103,3 litre (= 0.065l/km * 1.589km) because lower car use. At 2,384kg CO2/litre
emissions abatement equals 103,3l * 2,384 kg CO2 = 246,3kg CO2
Page 68
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
optimal pricing policies require the ability to price a single vehicle according to peak and offpeak hours, emission levels … It is clear that the implementation of such a pricing policy
requires a sophisticated charging mechanism, but the availability of such technology is
assumed.
In such optimal pricing policy, De Borger and Proost (2001) assess that Brussels transport
charges in 2005 would rise for all transport modes, with the largest increases for car transport
in peak hours and a replacement of subsidies to public transport in off-peak hours by charges.
The transport costs per km (incl. charges and congestion costs) increase less and even
decrease for public transport in peak hours as the congestion costs drop significantly. Table
4-19 shows by way of illustration the changes in costs for transport by small gasoline cars and
by bus.
Table 4-19: Integrated optimal pricing policy for Brussels, 2005
Car peak
Car off-peak
Bus peak
Bus off-peak
Inhabitants
+39%
+18%
-15%
+53%
Commuters
+39%
+17%
-17%
+62%
The introduction of optimal charges results in an increase of the Brussels welfare level of
1.3% or €90 per capita. As a consequence of higher transport costs, total transport demand
drops by 9.1%, primarily in peak. Moreover, there is a shift from car transport to public
transport modes. For the transport sector, the decrease in congestion costs and costs of
pollution, accidents and noise (-13,4% for the three latter effects) do not suffice to off-set the
increase in taxations. The total welfare level over all sectors however increases as the extra
government revenues from transport charges can be used for investments or expenses in
other sectors. Simultaneously a 12% reduction in air pollution is obtained, mainly through a
significant reduction in the car traffic.
Proost and Van Regemorter (1999) assess the impacts of integrated optimal pricing for
Belgium as a whole in 2005. Table 4-20 indicates the changes in transport volumes that
would be caused by this charging policy.
Table 4-20: Effects on transport volumes with optimal charges in Belgium, 2005
Passenger transport
Cars (short distance)
-0,7%
Cars (long distance)
-6,0%
Bus
+12,2%
Rail
+3,6%
Freight transport
Trucks
-3,1%
Rail
+8,6%
Waterways
+26,3%
The reduction of CO2-emissions that can be expected from this change in transport pricing
policy is rather limited (-2,5 % relative to the emissions in 2005 without the measure). The low
effects on carbon emissions are due to the low effect of these charges on total transport
volume as they rather affect the distribution over peak and off-peak hours. Indeed, the
congestion costs are reported to be the most important external costs and determine to a
large extent the level of the optimal charges. The small emission reduction comes however
together with a maximal welfare increase that cannot be obtained by other changes in
transport taxation.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 69
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
4.2.6.
SUMMA
Summary discussion of pricing measures to reduce transport GHG
emissions
Fiscal measures may target greenhouse gases by changing circulation or registration taxes of
vehicles, or by imposing extra fuel taxes. As registration taxes only influence new car choice,
and not car use, there seems to be only a limited potential in comparison to fuel taxes that
directly influence vehicle use. This explains too why fuel taxes are found to be more costeffective in reducing carbon emissions than equivalent vehicle fuel efficiency standards.
Integrated transport pricing policies take into account all external costs (air pollution, noise,
carbon emissions, and congestion). In doing so, cost estimates for CO2 abatement are
rewarded for their impact on other external effects. A road charge will show important effects
on car use, and hence on emissions and congestion. Taking into account these effects, road
charges have been reported to offer net benefits while reducing carbon emissions as well.
Moreover road charges have been reported to be superior compared to fuel efficiency
standards or fuel taxes because they achieve more at lower costs. These results are strongly
influenced by the relevance of congestion costs in total travel costs.
Page 70
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
4.3. OTHER NON-TECHNICAL OPTIONS
This section provides an overview of reports that consider non-technical options to reduce
greenhouse gases, and that allow comparing technical policy options to non-technical policy
measures, including
• Improving driving behaviour
• Improving public transport
• Freight logistics policy
4.3.1.
Improving driving behaviour
4.3.1.1.
Background, scope and baseline
Belgian regional governments have some decentralised responsibilities in reducing the
greenhouse gas emissions, such as setting up an emission inventory and policy
implementation. The VITO (1999) report is the update of several reports that contain a
selection of policy measures with high priority, based on the expected qualitative emission
reductions and the difficulty of implementation. The report (known as VLIETbis report) offers a
literature survey of policy measures with emission reduction potential and required investment
costs to achieve emission abatements, including several solutions to influence fuel
consumption via driving behaviour.
Cost factors in this report use a 5% discount rate for investments in vehicle technology.
Investment analysis was set up both at a social level (excluding taxes) and at the user level
(including taxes) using 1999 prices and assuming a technical lifetime of investments of 10
years. Cost-effectiveness of emission abatement is displayed as annuities for investments in
€/TCE.
Baseline scenarios do not account for the ACEA agreement on fuel efficiency and hence may
overstate currently available benefits of fuel efficiency investments. According to the report,
the ACEA agreement may contribute to 11,3% lower CO2 emissions by 2010 at a cost of
€ 111/TCE for diesel cars and € 263 /TCE for gasoline cars.
The report discusses abatement costs for;
• speed limiters
• cruise control
• econometers
• board computers
• economic driving training courses
4.3.1.2.
Speed delimiters
Speed delimiters are expected to reduce fuel consumption by 2% for cars and by 6,2% for
LDV, offering carbon reduction potential of 164 kTCE when introduced at all new vehicles in
Flanders.
The investment analysis for retrofitting at an investment cost of € 595 indicates a social cost
of € 1550/TCE for gasoline cars, € 920/TCE for diesel cars and € 123/TCE for LDV, clearly
indicating that retrofitting old vehicles may not be a cost-effective option, unless for LDV.
However, as the extra cost of speed delimiters for new vehicles amounts to no more than
€99, this option may be much more attractive.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 71
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
Table 4-21: VLIETbis speed delimiter abatement costs
Retrofit
Investment
Value of energy savings
CO2 reduction
Payback period
Annuity (lifetime of 10 years
41
EYCF
Cost-effectiveness
New vehicles
Investment:
Value of energy savings:
CO2 reduction:
Payback period:
Annuity (lifetime of 10 years):
EYCF:
Cost-effectiveness:
4.3.1.3.
PC-petrol
595
6,37
0,046
93,5
77,05
-70,67
1550,15
PC-petrol
99,16
6,37
0,046
15,6
12,84
-6,47
142,09
PC-diesel
595
6,67
0,077
89,3
77,05
-70,38
918,99
PC-diesel
99,16
6,67
0,077
14,9
12,84
-6,17
80,64
LDV
595
31,88
0,366
18,7
77,05
-45,17
123,20
LDV
99,16
31,88
0,366
3,1
12,84
19,04
-51,98
€
€/year
TCE/year
year
€/year
€/year
€/TCE
€
€/year
TCE/year
year
€/year
€/year
€/TCE
Cruise control
Cruise control instruments are reported to reduce fuel consumption by 7% for cars and LDV,
offering carbon reduction potential of 445 kTCE when introduced at all new vehicles.
The investment analysis for retrofitting at an investment cost of € 496 indicates a social cost
of €263/TCE for gasoline cars, € 152/TCE for diesel cars and € 68/TCE for LDV.
New vehicles are reported to show lower abatement costs, especially for LDV.
Table 4-22: VLIETbis cruise control abatement costs
Retrofit
Investment
Value of energy savings
CO2 reduction
Payback period
Annuity (lifetime of 10 years)
EYCF
Cost-effectiveness
New vehicles
Investment
Value of energy savings
CO2 reduction
Payback period
Annuity (lifetime of 10 years)
EYCF
Cost-effectiveness
4.3.1.4.
PC-petrol
495,78
22,24
0,159
22,3
64,20
-41,97
263,49
PC-petrol
371,84
22,24
0,159
16,7
48,17
-25,93
162,74
PC-diesel
495,78
23,33
0,268
21,2
64,20
-40,88
152,45
PC-diesel
371,84
23,33
0,268
15,9
48,17
-24,81
92,59
LDV
495,78
36,02
0,414
13,8
64,20
-28,19
68,12
LDV
371,84
36,02
0,414
10,3
48,17
-12,15
29,33
€
€/year
TCE/year
year
€/year
€/year
€/TCE
€
€/year
TCE/year
year
€/year
€/year
€/TCE
Board computer
Board computers are reported to reduce fuel consumption by 10% for diesel cars and 5% for
LDV, offering carbon reduction potential of 425 kTCE when introduced at all new vehicles.
The investment analysis for retrofitting at an investment cost of € 496 indicates a social cost
of € 81/TCE for diesel cars and € 130/TCE for LDV.
New vehicles are reported to show lower abatement costs, especially for diesel cars where
negative abatement costs could be obtained.
41
Equivalent Yearly Cash Flow: annuity for net investments.
Page 72
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Table 4-23: VLIETbis board computer abatement costs
Retrofit
Investment:
Value of energy savings:
CO2 reduction:
Payback period:
Annuity (lifetime of 10 years):
EYCF:
Cost-effectiveness:
New vehicles
Investment:
Value of energy savings:
CO2 reduction:
Payback period:
Annuity (lifetime of 10 years):
EYCF:
Cost-effectiveness:
4.3.1.5.
PC-diesel
495,79
33,29
0,383
14,9
64,20
-30,91
80,74
PC-diesel
247,89
33,29
0,383
7,4
32,10
1,19
-3,12
LDV
495,79
25,71
0,296
19,3
64,20
-38,50
130,24
LDV
247,89
25,71
0,296
9,6
32,10
-6,40
21,62
€
€/year
TCE/year
year
€/year
€/year
€/TCE
€
€/year
ton CO2/year
year
€/year
€/year
€/TCE
Econometers
Econometers are reported to reduce fuel consumption by 7.5% for gasoline and LPG cars,
offering carbon reduction potential of 187 kTCE when introduced to 20% of vehicles.
The investment analysis for retrofitting and new vehicles at an investment cost of € 74
indicates a social benefit of € 83/TCE.
New vehicles are reported to show lower abatement costs, especially for diesel cars where
negative abatement costs could be obtained.
Table 4-24: VLIETbis econometers abatement costs
Retrofit & New vehicles
Investment:
Value of energy savings:
CO2 reduction:
Payback period:
Annuity (lifetime of 10 years):
EYCF:
Cost-effectiveness:
4.3.1.6.
PC
74,37
23,82
0,171
3,1
9,64
14,18
-83,09
€
€/year
TCE/year
year
€/year
€/year
€/TCE
Economic driving training course
The training courses are reported to reduce fuel consumption by 10% for cars and LDV, and
8% for HDV-freight, offering carbon reduction potential of 280 kTCE when introduced at 20%
of vehicle users.
The investment analysis at an investment cost of € 74 (per year per person) indicates a social
benefit of € 97/TCE for gasoline cars, € 62/TCE for diesel cars, € 71/TCE for LDV and
82 €/TCE for HDV-freight.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 73
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
Table 4-25: VLIETbis eco-driver training abatement costs
Investment:
Value of energy savings:
CO2 reduction:
Payback period:
Annuity (lifetime of 10 years):
EYCF:
Cost-effectiveness:
Investment:
Energy savings:
Value of energy savings:
CO2 reduction:
Payback period:
Annuity (lifetime of 10 years):
EYCF:
Cost-effectiveness:
4.3.1.7.
PC-petrol
74,37
31,80
0,228
2,3
9,64
22,19
-97,27
LDV
74,37
7,98
51,44
0,591
1,4
9,64
41,79
-70,72
PC-diesel
74,37
33,32
0,383
2,2
9,64
23,70
-61,87
Freight transport
74,37
28,1
181,11
2,081
0,4
9,64
171,47
-82,40
€
€/year
TCE/year
year
€/year
€/year
€/TCE
€
GJ/year
€/year
TCE/year
year
€/year
€/year
€/TCE
Evaluation
Several of these findings have been confirmed in other studies, like the 2003 ECODRIVER
report of VITO. In that report a 2% fuel reduction is reported for combined eco-driving training
and on board computers. Taking into account other cost reductions (maintenance cost,
insurance cost and accident costs) initial investments would have payback times ranging from
1,7 to 7 years, offering some emission reduction potential al low to negative cost.
Experts in the March 2003 SUMMA workshop in Brussels have expressed serious doubts on
the actual driving effects of on-board vehicle equipment that would influence driving
behaviour, and specifically on the long-term effects of driver training. However, as the
VLIETbis report suggests, some of the potential may be captured by information campaigns
at relatively low cost, hence driving down emission levels with benefits on social, private and
environmental levels.
If the doubts of consulted experts are taken into account, total emission reduction potential of
these measures should not be overstated. On the other hand, even if some reduction can be
established at low cost, both to vehicle users as to society as a whole, these opportunities
offer a great advantage over expensive reduction measures, such as the ACEA agreement,
which is reported to show implicit carbon emission abatement costs of € 111-263/TCE.
4.3.2.
Improving public transport
Public transport is in general considered as an environmental friendly alternative for car
transport. Policy measures that increase the share of public transport in total passenger
transport and decrease the share of car transport are therefore to result in lower CO2
emissions. The attractiveness of public transport services can be increased by improving
service quality and by a stimulating pricing policy.
As to improving public transport quality a wide range of measures that increase frequency,
speed and the punctuality of the services exist. Infrastructure investments in cities as the
delineation of dedicated bus or tram lanes, or priority rules favouring public transport could
contribute to these goals. Several sources indicate that potential increases of bus and trams
speeds of 10% up to 20% and even higher increases in reliability are possible in European
42
cities .
42
London Transport Buses, the London Bus Priority Network, 1997; and DITS, TTR, Public transport
prioritization, Transport Research APAS, Urban Transport, vol. 25, Luxembourg 1996
Page 74
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
This kind of infrastructure policies will however have important side effects as a drop in
average speed of cars and trucks as fewer driving lanes are left for private transport. As a
consequence, congestion costs for users of these modes will increase. These side effects can
lead to significant welfare costs as an important share of car drivers and almost all freight
transport in cities can not switch to public transport.
The Auto-Oil II Part IV Annex 4 reports that average bus speed of in Athens could be
increased by 15% by delineating dedicated bus lanes and giving buses unconditional priority
at intersections. These measures would imply infrastructure investment costs of € 71.417.000
and an annual operational cost of € 9.189.000. In 2005 the improved infrastructure could lead
to an increase in bus transport by 5,1%. Car transport (-1,1%) and truck transport (-0,1%)
would decrease. The measure would result in a rather limited reduction in CO2 emissions of
road transport in Athens (-0,3%) and a welfare cost of € 3,28 per capita in 2005. The
decrease in pollution and accidents as well as the time savings for buses do not compensate
the increase in congestion costs for cars and trucks and the infrastructure costs. Moreover the
welfare cost of the measure increases over the years (e.g. € 9,63 per capita in 2010) as a
positive trend in car and truck transport is forecasted and consequently the effect of
increasing congestion costs gains importance.
Next to improving public transport quality, pricing policies could make public transport more
attractive. Such measures would reduce environmental issues and congestion costs, but
require increased public transport subsidies. The simulations in Auto Oil II, Part IV, Annex 4
for Athens analyze a decrease of bus- and metro tariffs by 30% in 2005, resulting in a
decrease of car transport by 3% and an increase in public transport usage by 15,3% for bus
and 13,2% for metro. Total passenger-kilometres would increase 2,1% and transport CO2
emissions would drop by 1,2%. The reduction in fares and lowered congestion costs for
passenger and freight transport would lead to an advantage for consumers sufficiently large
to compensate the increase in public transport subsidies. This policy measure is reported to
result in a welfare gain of € 23,23 per capita in 2005.
However, on increasing public transport subsidies readers should be pointed out the
following. Currently the European transport sector shows a cost advantage in favour of private
transport relative to public transport modes as car drivers do not pay for the external cost of
congestion, air pollution, noise and accidents they cause. From an economic point of view tax
increases on car transport would better reflect resource and external costs of private
transport. Lowering public transport fares may correct the relative cost advantage for cars, but
will lead to public transport prices that are significantly below its real cost. Note that such
subsidies will make public transport cheaper for certain population groups that, at this
moment will not or seldom make use of cars and thus may create inefficient incentives for
these people to start using public transport- giving rise to overextended use.
4.3.3.
Freight logistics policy
HDV and LDV trucks are major contributors to total transport emissions. Measures that lead
to a decrease of truck transport therefore can have an important effect on the emissions of
the transport sector. Truck vehicle kilometres could be reduced by improvements in the
logistics of freight transport and by increasing the attractiveness of freight transport by train or
ship.
Logistic improving should focus at reducing the number of kilometres that are driven with
empty or half-filled trucks. Some studies indicate that these reduction possibilities are very
limited, as transport firms are already managed very efficiently in an increasingly efficient
common market. Other studies however do see opportunities in improved collaborations
between firms or investments in city terminals and distribution centres.
The Auto-Oil II Program, Part IV, Annex 4 analyses on a 10% increased average load factor
of trucks traffic in Athens with TREMOVE simulations. Initially required investments amount to
€ 67.386.000, and annual operating expenses are € 51.105.000. This improved efficiency
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 75
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
would lead to a 2% increase in freight transport (expressed in ton-kilometres) and a 7%
decrease of truck-kilometres. As a result congestion costs for all road traffic are reduced,
leading to a 0,3% increase in car transport. Such policy measure reduces transport CO2
emissions by 2,6% and increases welfare by € 169 per capita in 2005. If comparable
improvements in freight logistics are possible they may result in important cost reductions for
freight companies, and in emission and congestion reductions.
4.3.4.
Summary discussion of other non-technical options to reduce GHG
emissions
This section has provided an overview of reports that consider non-technical measures to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, excluding pricing measures.
A first option is to influence driving behaviour, where some opportunities may exist to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions or fuel consumption at low to negative cost. This may offer some
cheap abatement potential, compared to expensive emission reduction measures, though this
potential should not be overstated.
Measures to improve public transport differ significantly in cost-effectiveness. Simulations with
TREMOVE in the context of the Auto Oil II Program have illustrated that modal shift potential
for peak road pricing and increasing public transport rides in e.g. Lyon could achieve an 8%
reduction in CO2 emissions with a net benefit for inhabitants and commuters as congestion
drops significantly. Other local traffic measures, like public transport prioritizing, are shown to
offer less carbon reduction, and at a net cost to the city of Athens.
Page 76
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
4.4. COMPARISON WITH OTHER SECTORS
The primary aim of comparing abatement costs across sectors is to introduce economy wide
cost-efficiency. This section provides an overview of reports that consider economy-wide
cost-effective greenhouse gas abatement strategies and provide insight to which extent the
transport sector can contribute to the Kyoto target.
The section includes
• Bottom-up analysis
• Top-down analysis with PRIMES
• Top-down analysis with MARKAL
4.4.1.
Bottom-up analysis
4.4.1.1.
Background, scope and baseline
As discussed in section 4.1.1, the Hendricks (2001) report provides information on the costs
and potential of measures to abate greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector as
well as the other relevant sectors. Table 4-4 indicated that there exists some 116 MTCE
emission reduction potential in the road transport sector by 2010. Of this, only half can be
achieved at costs below 20 €/TCE at a 4% discount rate.
4.4.1.2.
Abatement costs
Next to the transport sector, also the energy supply, industry and the household sectors are
major contributors to the overall GHG emissions. In 2010, replacing (and adding) energy
production capacity by renewables may contribute to an emission reduction of 229 MTCE, of
which 144 MTCE can be achieved at costs below 20 €/TCE at 4% discount rate. Even more
important emission reductions can be achieved by measures, which do not imply the use of
renewables. 639 MTCE, of which 521 Mton at costs below 20 €/TCE, can be reduced by such
measures. The major share of this important reduction potential can be achieved by replacing
new capacity (to compensate for growth in production and decommissioned capacity) by
efficient natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants (NGCC) and/or by combined heat
power installations (CHP).
The report also indicates the reduction potentials in all other sectors. Table 4-26 summarises
the identified reduction potential for all sectors. It is important to note once again that a
significant share of the transport reduction potential will already be implemented as a
consequence of the ACEA agreement and proposed measures with respect to freight
transport may have been implemented already.
Table 4-26: Sectoral emission reduction potentials for all sectors
Sector
Energy
Industry
Households
Services
Transport
Waste
Agriculture
Fossil
fuel
extraction,
transport and distribution
Total
Total emission reduction
potential [in MTCE]
868
533
190
126
116
67
21
Potential at cost below
20€/TCE [in MTCE]
631
493
145
80
60
26
26
34
9
1.955
1.470
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 77
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
From the figures in Table 4-26 we can conclude that, when policy makers intend to reduce
GHG emissions in a cost-effective way, they should primarily take measures in the energy,
industry, household and services sectors, as there is a much larger potential at lower costs.
There is a potential to reduce GHG emissions from the transport sector cost-effectively but
this potential is very limited.
4.4.1.3.
Evaluation
The researchers working on the ‘bottom-up’ report affirmed the latter conclusion. The final
objective of the ‘bottom-up’ study was to identify a least-cost-allocation of objectives for
different sectors and GHG so that the EU would meet its Kyoto target of –8% in 2008-2012
compared with 1990.
The researchers started from a 2000 frozen technology reference level (FTRL) in which no
additional development to reduce emissions from 2000 onwards were included. Taking into
account the FTRL they calculated that 2010 GHG emissions in the EU would be 4672
43
MTCE . To reach the 8% Kyoto target in 2010, a 1480 MTCE reduction in GHG emissions
would be needed compared to the 2010 FTRL level. The results of the study show that the
Kyoto target can be realised by a set of options with specific costs up to 20 €/TCE. The leastcost-allocation of reduction objectives for different sectors, as identified by the report, is
shown in Table 4-27.
Table 4-27 Cost-effective sectoral contribution to Kyoto target
44
Emissions
2010
FTRL
Emissions
2010
Kyoto target
Change from
2010
FTRL
Direct emissions
Energy supply - CO2 fuel related
1.551
1.298
-16%
Direct and indirect emissions
Energy supply - other emissions
Fossil fuel emissions
Industry
Transport
Households
Services
Agriculture
Waste
Total
42
43
1.623
1.114
759
560
407
124
4.672
42
51
1.113
1.069
567
434
382
144
3.801
0%
18%
-31%
-4%
-25%
-23%
-6%
16%
-19%
Emission breakdown per sector MTCE
The total GHG emission reduction in the scenario shown in Table 4-27 would be 871 MTCE
compared to the 2010 FTRL emission level. Measures in the transport sector would contribute
only 45 MTCE, whereas options in energy supply, industry, households and services sectors
would each be responsible for a significantly larger share of the total emission reduction.
The report also indicates that options implemented between 1990 and 1998/2000 have
already led to a 20 MTCE reduction in the transport sector. Moreover, one needs to take into
account that a significant share of the 45 MTCE transport reduction potential will certainly be
implemented as a consequence of the ACEA agreement and proposed options with respect
to freight transport may have been implemented already. These results tend to affirm our
earlier conclusion, i.e. there is a potential to reduce GHG emissions from the transport sector
cost-effectively but this potential is limited, especially after implementation of the ACEA
agreement.
43
Note that this emission figure in the 2010 FTRL technology reference is not a forecast of 2010
emissions but indicate the amounts of GHG that would be emitted in 2010 if 1990 technologies would
still be used in that year.
44
All options with specific costs of less than 20 €/TCE are taken into account.
Page 78
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
4.4.2.
Top-down analysis with PRIMES
4.4.2.1.
Background, scope and baseline
In view of a preliminary agreement upon the Kyoto protocol, the European Commission
started a research program focusing on emission reduction options that show the lowest costs
per unit of greenhouse gas avoided, disregarding the country, sector or the type of GHG. The
Commission opted to study the issue from different points of view. Therefore, simultaneously
with the bottom-up study a top-down study was performed (Capros, 2001). Thus two
approaches were used:
• An engineering-economic analysis of individual emission reduction options, based
on sector studies performed by ECOFYS and AEA technology (i.e. the ‘bottom-up
approach’ discussed in section 4.1)
• An integrated modelling analysis of the energy system and the associated CO2 emissions with the PRIMES model developed by NTU Athens (i.e. the ’top-down
approach’ discussed in this section).
The PRIMES model is a modelling system that simulates a market equilibrium solution for
energy supply and demand in the European Union member states. The model determines the
equilibrium by finding the prices of each energy form such that the quantity producers find
best to supply match the quantities consumers wish to use. The equilibrium is static (within
each time period) but repeated in a time-forward path, under dynamic relationships.
As the PRIMES model is only capable of modelling CO2 emissions, and not other GHG, in the
‘top-down’ study, the results obtained from PRIMES on CO2 have been combined with the
results obtained from the ‘bottom-up’ analysis for the non-CO2 GHG.
The bottom-up study used a 2010 FTRL technology scenario as a reference in which it is
assumed that 1990 technologies would still be used in 2010. The top-down study uses a
different 2010 reference. A 2010 “business as usual” emission forecast was constructed, in
which the effects of the policies and measures that were in place at the end of 1997 and also
the effects of the ACEA agreement where taken into account. Note however that both
references (i.e. 2010 FTRL and 2010 business as usual) are consistent as they are based on
the same assumptions of activity growth for each of the sectors.
Next to the difference in baseline assumptions, there are a number of significant differences
between the ’bottom-up’ and the ‘top-down’ approaches that may lead to different outcomes.
These differences include:
• There are modest differences in the definition of the sectors between both
studies.
• PRIMES is a full energy-economic model explicitly modelling interactions (thus
second order effects) in the energy systems, whereas in the ‘bottom up’ approach
these interactions are accounted for on an ad hoc basis.
• The ‘bottom-up’ approach’ focuses on options that are generally considered as
climate change response options (i.e. energy efficiency improvement, fuel shift,
renewable energy, etc.), whereas PRIMES also allows other reactions of the
energy-economic system, such as structural changes and substitutions.
• The technology data differ between the two approaches. In general, the ‘bottomup’ approach is more detailed in emission reduction options, especially in the
area of end-use energy efficiency, but is less detailed in the energy supply
sectors. PRIMES also comprises technology information, but it is particularly
detailed in the power and steam sector, but less detailed in the energy demand
sectors.
• In the ‘bottom-up’ approach – as a default – social discount rates (i.e. 4 % per
year) are used whereas PRIMES simulated the behaviour of actors by using
sector specific discount rates that reflect time preferences of these actors.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 79
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
•
SUMMA
Whereas the ‘bottom-up’ approach only included emission reduction options for
road and air transport, the ‘top-down’ approach also considers opportunities wrt
rail and inland waterway transport.
4.4.2.2.
Abatement costs
Despite these important differences between the ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ studies, the
outcomes were generally consistent when it comes to the cost-effective GHG reduction
potential in the transport sector vs. the other sectors. Indeed, as is indicated in Table 4-28,
the contribution of the transport sector in the total GHG emission reduction effort needed to
reach the Kyoto Protocol target is limited if one would select the emission reduction options
that show the lowest costs per unit of greenhouse gas avoided. Thus the bottom-up study
confirms the conclusion reported in the top-down study: when policy makers intend to reduce
GHG emissions in a cost-effective way, they should primarily take measures with respect to
the industry, household and services sectors, and the related energy production capacity.
There is a potential to reduce GHG emissions from the transport sector cost-effectively but
this potential is limited.
Table 4-28: PRIMES top-down cost-effective Kyoto compliance
Emissions (MTCE)
Energy supply
Fossil fuel extraction,
transport and distribution
Industry
Transport
2010
2010
Change
% change
Emissions
Emissions
from
from
Baseline
Kyoto target 2010 baseline 2010 baseline
Direct and indirect emissions
45
43
-3
-5,6%
61
51
-10
-16,0%
1.282
1.019
1.125
975
-157
-44
-12,3%
-4,3%
Households
Services
748
500
684
428
-64
-72
-8,6%
-14,4%
Agriculture
Waste
TOTAL
398
137
4.190
382
120
3.807
-16
-18
-383
-3,9%
-13,0%
4.4.3.
Top-down analysis with MARKAL
4.4.3.1.
Background, scope and baseline
The 1999 report of Proost and Van Regemorter assesses the cost-effective CO2 emission
abatement options of new vehicle technologies and fuel types in the Belgian transport sector,
taking into account the technological possibilities in the other sectors. The study offers
substantial indication that, if the market inefficiencies on the Belgian transport market would
be corrected by an optimal taxation policy (i.e. marginal social cost pricing), introductions of
new technologies and fuel types in the transport sector are not cost-effective compared to
technological improvements in other sectors.
The researchers first estimate CO2 emission reduction potential of an optimal marginal social
cost pricing policy that should optimise transport flows with current technologies. Using the
45
TRENEN model they show that such an optimal taxation policy would result in a reduction in
CO2 emissions of the transport sector by 2,5%.
45
TRENEN is a partial equilibrium model for the transport sector developed by a consortium coordinated by the Catholic University of Leuven for the EU-Joule programme.
Page 80
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
In a second phase, the authors assess whether on top of an optimal taxation policy further
cost-effective CO2 emission reductions would be possible in the transport sector. To this
46
purpose the MARKAL model was re-established . MARKAL represents all demand- and
supply processes for energy products (as PRIMES). All available and future technologies for
all sectors in Belgium are represented in this model.
4.4.3.2.
Abatement costs
The authors identified which technologies would need to be introduced to reach different CO2
emission reduction goals by 2030. The report indicates that even if one would need to reduce
CO2 emissions by 40% in 2030, an introduction of new technologies in the transport sector is
not cost-effective. Reducing transport demand and introducing more efficient technologies in
other sectors, primarily in the energy supply and industry sectors, would reach this goal most
cost-effectively.
The report displays different scenarios relative to a ‘business as usual’ scenario for the period
1990 – 2030. Table 4-29 shows the study outcomes for three of these scenarios. In each of
these scenario’s it is assumed that the total CO2 emissions in 2000 would be limited to the
1990 level minus 5%. From there on, three future emission reduction objectives are
calculated: a stabilization of CO2 emissions at their 2000 level up to 2030; a 20% reduction to
be reached in 2030; a 60% reduction to be reached in 2030. Note that the two latter
objectives are significantly more stringent than the Kyoto protocol. The first two columns in
Table 4-29 show the share of different sectors in total CO2 emissions when no emission limit
is imposed on the energy system (i.e. in the business as usual scenario). The next columns
give the reduction in CO2 emission per sector compared to the reference scenario for each of
the three scenarios.
Table 4-29: MARKAL cost effective emission reduction scenarios
BAU
Share in %
Electricity
Industry
Transport
Domestic
2000
18,3
33,1
20,1
25,0
2030
21,4
34,4
22,9
17,7
Stabilization
20% reduction
60% reduction
Emission reduction
(%BAU)
2000
2030
-39
-39
-13
-9
-1
-1
-4
-8
Emission reduction
(%BAU)
2000
2030
-39
-69
-14
-35
-1
-2
-5
-13
Emission reduction
(%BAU)
2000
2030
-33
-89
-14
-77
-1
-25
-8
-76
From the table (and other reported scenario outcomes, not shown in this table) it is clear that
the relative contribution of the transport sector to a cost-effective CO2 emission reduction
policy is very limited. Up to a 40% reduction scenario there is no switch to more efficient
technologies or technologies using less CO2 intensive fuels. The CO2 reductions in the
transport sector are achieved by a reduction in transport demand rather than by a shift to new
transport technologies. Only when a stringent 60% reduction is imposed, changes in
47
technology are cost-effective. Methanol cars and trucks, diesel cumulo buses and electric
battery buses would then be introduced at the end of the horizon, i.e. after 2025.
4.4.3.3.
Evaluation
This study, although limited in scope to CO2 emissions, confirms conclusions from previous
reports with different approaches (among which technical bottom-up reports). Cost-effective
policy measures to reduce CO2-emissions in the transport have a limited potential. The
46
MARKAL is an energy optimisation model developed within ETSAP, an IEA implementing agreement.
It was implemented for Belgium with support of the Belgian Science Policy Office, under the impulse
program ‘Global Change’.
47
Diesel Cumulo Buses are buses that store energy from braking.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 81
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-effective way is much larger in some
other sectors as energy supply and industry.
4.4.4.
Summary discussion of the comparison with other sectors
Both the bottom-up and the top-down EC reports on greenhouse gas emission reduction
possibilities in transport point to limited cost-effective potential in technological innovation, as
carbon emission abatement in other sectors is much cheaper than in transport.
The bottom-up report indicated a 4% cost-effective reduction potential (compared to 31% in
industry for example), before the ACEA agreement. This leaves little room for extra costeffective measures as from now.
The top-down reports both indicated similar results (4% to 1% cost-effective emission
reduction potential, compared to 13% in industry and 39% in electricity generation). To the
extent that there is some cost-effective emission abatement potential remaining, it is relatively
small. The environmental policy focus in the transport sector should therefore not focus on
greenhouse gas emission reduction.
Page 82
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
4.5. SUMMARY DISCUSSION OF REDUCING TRANSPORT GHG EMISSIONS
Greenhouse gas emission abatement options are to be found in vehicle technology, fuel
technology, and traffic management and road pricing options. Reports under survey include
cost-effectiveness reports of the Auto-Oil II Program and EC Bottom-up and Top-down
studies focusing on technological options and fuel switching, and EC and local reports on
traffic management systems and fiscal measures stimulating the sales of fuel-efficient
vehicles.
The survey of these reports indicates some limited technical potential in transport to reduce
CO2 emissions, but stresses that other sectors may provide these CO2 reductions at far lower
costs. Moreover, as the baseline scenarios in these reports often do not take into account
new legislation decided upon, and the voluntary ACEA agreement to reduce average fuel
consumption of new cars, it is unclear whether technological vehicle innovation as such offers
more unexploited potential to reduce carbon emissions below € 20/TCE.
However, as an internal EC report and a US report point out, technological greenhouse gas
abatement measures may not be cost-effective as they entail second-order effects that may
annihilate emission abatement efforts, while still resulting in high extra costs. Moreover,
similar abatement results can be obtained at much lower cost by using non-technical policy
measures like increasing fuel taxes or exploiting road pricing options.
The advantages of non-technical policies were elaborated further in sections 4.2 and 4.3.
Reports of Proost (1997, 2001) indicate that a fuel-efficiency standard may represent social
costs of € 363/TCE, while equivalent fuel taxes reduce the costs to € 326/TCE. Taking into
account other external effects (reduced congestion and air pollution), the costs of a fuel
efficiency standard would drop significantly to € 255/TCE, while a € 1 increase in fuel taxation
may offer € 175/TCE net benefits while reducing CO2 as well. Equivalent road pricing would
increase total benefits per carbon abatement four-fold compared to fuel taxes, as the
reduction in congestion costs entails major societal benefits. Similar Auto Oil II reports confirm
these suggestions in simulations for Athens and Lyon.
Specific schemes that subsidise old vehicle scrappage and specific infrastructure investments
for public transport are reported to show less favourable results. Vehicle scrappage may
result in higher use of the replacement vehicles, annihilating primary emission reductions.
Specific infrastructure for public transport, such as dedicated bus lanes, entail only limited
CO2 emission reduction, show high infrastructure costs and may result in higher congestion
for car users as less car infrastructure remains.
Local reports offer some support for incentives toward eco-driving (driver training and onboard equipment) as some reductions may be available at zero or negative cost. The doubts
of SUMMA experts on the potential of voluntary measures influencing driving behaviour
should be noted. Also, carbonising registration or circulation taxes may increase incentives to
choose fuel-efficient vehicles, but the net impact is restricted, as it does not influence vehicle
kilometres.
On the methodological level, some of the reports in this section include cost estimates that
correct for the benefits of CO2 reducing policy measures in other fields like air pollution and
congestion. As these secondary benefits may contribute significantly to the net cost of carbon
emission reduction, they offer policy makers an integrated view of the effects of policy
measures and should hence be preferred to single point cost-effectiveness estimations.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 83
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
A summarising table with all the discussed options and abatement costs can be found below.
Table 4-30: Summary: abatement costs for greenhouse gasses in the transport sector
Reports
Bates,
Hendricks
Options
road vehicle technology (passenger cars): mostly
engine improvements, lightweight body and block
Bates
road vehicle technology (freight): most cost
effective measures are aerodynamics, weight
reduction
road transport, limited technical opportunities
Capros PRIMES
Kleit
Auto-Oil II
road transport
ACEA agreement
Capros PRIMES
Bates
rail transport, cost-effective options exist
Capros
aviation, options in load factors and traffic
managment
fuel-technology, emission reduction options to 1020%
fuel-efficiency standard, without taking into
account other external costs
fuel efficiency standard, including welfare effects
of other external costs
car choice - circulation and registration taxes, 5%
close to the 120 g/km target
subsidising vehicle scrappage, leads to higher
amount of CO2 due to increased traffic
fuel-efficiency standard, including external costs
flat road charging
Auto-Oil II
Proost
Van
Herbruggen
COWI
Auto-Oil II
Proost
Proost and
Van Dender
VLIETbis
aviation, no options on the short run exists
Auto-Oil II
less fuel consumption by improved driving
behaviour (not taking into account ACEA
agreement), total emission reduction not very
large
improving public transport
Auto-Oil II
freight logistics improvement
Page 84
Abatement costs
from 20 to 1.200 €/ton
CO2
most lay in the range
200-400
from –100 to 400 €/ton
CO2
no abatement costs
calculated
“extremely high”
no abatement costs
calculated
no abatement costs
calculated
no abatement costs
calculated
no abatement costs
calculated
no abatement costs
calculated
369 €/ton CO2
88 to 284 €/ton CO2
no abatement costs
calculated
no abatement costs
calculated
44 to 919 €/ton CO2
958 to 3.700 €/ton CO2
-50 to 160 €/ton CO2
no abatement costs
reported, welfare gain
in cities
no abatement costs
reported, welfare gain
in cities
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
5. REDUCING TRANSPORT NOISE ANNOYANCE
Noise annoyance reduction is “subjective” and therefore difficult to assess without properly
defined tools. Reducing noise levels results in a reduction of noise annoyance, but this
parameter is quite difficult to translate into “real” figures or values as the relationship between
noise annoyance and noise may not be linear. However, within the scope of this task, the
authors confined to “noise parameters” as dB(A), as the literature does not provide solid
grounds to assess “noise annoyance parameters”.
When aiming to reduce the effects of transport-originated noise on people, three levels of
noise can be targeted:
•
Noise source
The most common source of environmental noise is road traffic. Road traffic noise accounts
for more than 90% of unacceptable noise levels (daytime LAeq> 65 dB(A)) in Europe.
According to the European Environmental Agency (EEC, 2000) about 30% of the EU
population are exposed to road traffic noise levels above 55 dB(A). The two main noise
sources emitted by a road vehicle running at a constant speed are mechanically originated
noise (engine, exhaust system) and rolling noise (tire-road noise). Acceleration increases
noise annoyance from mechanical (motor) sources.
Other sources of transportation noise such as train and aircraft noise constitute far more local
problems but can still cause annoyance to many people.
Other outdoor noise sources are industry, construction sites, concerts, exhibitions and sports
arenas.
Reduction of noise at the source is usually the most effective control, but may be costineffective.
•
Transmission path
Outdoor noise levels usually decrease with increasing distance from the source because of
geometrical spreading of the noise energy over a bigger surface and absorption of the noise
by the atmosphere and by the ground. Barriers can achieve additional reduction of noise
levels.
•
Buildings
Sound insulation of buildings may prove to be the final barrier to the potentially intruding
effects of environmental noise, but do not improve outdoor noise annoyance.
It remains true however that transport noise is one of the least regulated external costs of
transport, with the notable exception of air transport near large agglomerations. Incorporating
these effects into the costs of transport may contribute largely to sustainable (i.e. balanced)
transport growth.
Many of the reports under survey do not display noise abatement costs as such. Moreover,
most of the reports consider only noise reduction measures for road transport. However, as
each study identifies to some extent possible noise reduction measures, with some indication
of effectiveness, abatement potential or cost, all relevant results are displayed.
Moreover, the reports under survey that do offer some indications on abatement costs often
fail to take into account all relevant costs. Projects for government institutions do not attribute
costs to more silent tires, and it is not clear that this reflects a true zero cost to society or
more specifically reflects the assumption that will not influence investment costs paid by
government institutions. Moreover, none of the reports under survey take into account that
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 85
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
public spending on noise reduction or vehicle noise standards may reduce existing levels of
noise abatement expenditures by local residents. As a consequence, they may overstate the
total costs to reduce noise annoyance from transport.
The remainder of section discusses
• Technology options
• Non-technical options
5.1. TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
Since 1966 automotive manufacturers have considerably contributed towering the noise
burden on people. Thanks to the application of efficient traffic noise measurement procedures
it has been possible to clearly reduce the contributions made by such partial driving-noise
sources as the engine, the drive train as well as the exhaust and intake systems.
Technologies that were used include multi-damper systems, optimised combustion
conditions, precise tuning of running clearances, stiffness optimisation, reduction of noiseradiating surfaces, noise-damping material combinations, encapsulations etc.
This noise reduction is particularly beneficial at high engine loads and speeds.
Figure 5.1: Range of Variation of the Noise Sources with Future Trends
48
The automotive industry will continue refining the noise reducing technologies, partly triggered
by noise limits (external noise) and certainly inspired by consumer comfort wishes (interior
noise). It should be kept in mind that the acoustic performances of the complete drive train
system are not so much dictated by legislation but rather by the customers’ own demands
and available technology.
To lower the exterior noise of a car to the current legal limit of 74 dB(A), more than 20 partial
noise sources with levels ranging between 55 and 70 dB(A) need optimisation. One of the
main contributing partial noise sources are tires - with a standard road surface according to
ISO 10844 and under full-load pass-by conditions acc. to ISO 362, as indicated in Figure 5.1.
As far as intake and exhaust systems are concerned, the noise-emission levels have reached
extremely low levels already so that efforts for further reduction would not have great impact.
48
VDA (Verband der Automobielindustrie) memo March 17, 1999, VDA UAG Ad Hoc working group.
Page 86
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
The rolling noise, in contrast, tends to increase, as is shown in Figure 5.1. This is due to the
use of wider tires required to comply with the standard road surface according to ISO 10844,
and to the sub-optimisation of tires to external noise effects.
Figure 5.2: Noise source distribution of a 74 dB(A) vehicle in pass-by test
Policy measure may focus on
• Tire width
• Body noise - commercial vehicles
• Motor technology
5.1.1.
Tire width
Current generation car tires are much wider than when noise emissions were first measured
30 years ago. A study of tires fitted to cars in the UK in the past 15 years showed the average
rate of increase to be about 2 mm per year.
Generally speaking wider tires are noisier tires. Recent studies have established that car tire
noise levels increase by between 0,2 and 0,4 dB(A) for each 10 mm increase in section width
on a wide range of road surfaces.
However, car tire width is regulated for safety reasons, indication possible trade-offs between
noise and safety.
5.1.2.
Body noise - commercial vehicles
Body noise is primarily a problem associated with commercial vehicles and relates to noise
generated by contact between various parts of the vehicle body, chassis and suspension. The
forces in the vehicle structure causing these impacts occur principally when these vehicles
travel on uneven road surfaces.
Typical sources of body noise are: different suspension systems, movement of de-mountable
containers, rattles caused by poorly fitting doors and locking mechanisms, lifting gear and
hydraulic equipment, loose fittings and fastenings and unsecured chains and equipment and
vibrating body panels.
There are no sources indicating costs of lowering these noise annoyances.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 87
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
5.1.3.
SUMMA
Motor technology
The "pass-by" noise-rating limits have been reduced over the past 20 - 30 years by
approximately 8 dB(A) for cars and 15 dB(A) for lorries.
Costs for these noise reductions have not been found in the literature.
5.2. NON-TECHNICAL OPTIONS
Non-technical options include
• Traffic management
• Infrastructure
5.2.1.
Traffic management
5.2.1.1.
Reducing traffic volumes
To reduce the road traffic noise caused by an arterial road from 73 dB(A) to the alarm level of
70 dB(A), the volume of traffic has to be halved.
To comply with the impact threshold of 60 dB(A), the level of traffic would have to be cut by
no less than 95 percent.
Traffic volume reduction has only limited potential to reduce noise annoyance as such drastic
traffic reduction entails important economic effects.
5.2.1.2.
Traffic calming and speed reduction
An alternative is traffic-calming measures, i.e. reducing noise emissions by means of lower
speeds (lowering speed limits).
A 1999 study by Lelong and Michelet shows that the effect of small accelerations (i.e. lowsized engine load) on the noise emitted by a vehicle is negligible in comparison to the noise
levels measured when the same vehicle is running at constant speed.
On a test track in France, Lelong and Michelet performed measurements of acceleration
pass-by noise from different types of vehicle, speed and used gear. For strong accelerations
the noise increase reached 5 db(A) in the case of a passenger car and 7 db(A) for a
commercial vehicle.
Reducing the average speed of traffic should therefore be a more desirable area to reduce
vehicle source noise. Traffic calming techniques, such as the installation of road humps and
cushions in urban areas, were shown to be effective in reducing the speeds at which drivers
choose to travel. The UK Department (DETR) commissioned studies into some possible
causes of negative effects.
These studies have shown that after the installation of road humps and speed cushions the
maximum noise levels from cars are reduced. The overall traffic noise level is also reduced if
the traffic stream is mostly cars. Typically the reductions achieved in an urban setting are in
the range 4 – 7 dB(A).
However, road humps and speed cushions have a more complex effect on noise from
commercial vehicles. The net effect on overall traffic noise depends on the proportion of large
49
commercial vehicles in the traffic stream and on the type of road hump installed .
49
See Phillips and Abbott (2001) for this.
Page 88
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
5.2.2.
Infrastructure
5.2.2.1.
Road surface
Low-noise road surfacing materials (porous asphalt) is a relatively new technique allowing for
reductions in noise.
Porous asphalt and the newer "thin noise-reduced surfaces" have shown reductions of 2 –
6 dB(A). The UK Highways Agency claims to use low noise surfaces which typically reduce
noise levels by 6 dB(A).
5.2.2.2.
Barriers
Where noise cannot be prevented at source, it can be controlled along the dispersal route
with noise attenuation barriers.
Noise wall materials include earth, concrete, steel and wood.
Earthen walls are most effective in noise reduction and are reported to be least expensive.
However the lack of available right-of-way usually makes other noise wall the most practical
solution.
Noise walls are generally designed to provide noise reductions of 8 dB(A) or more. However,
a minimum reduction of at least 5 dB(A) is required in order for the noise wall to be
considered minimally effective. The goal is usually a 10 dB(A) reduction in the average traffic
noise levels for the majority of the first row of residences located directly behind the wall.
Barrier heights for road traffic noise reduction are typically between 3 and 7 m with an
average of 4 metre.
Current construction costs are averaging 200 euro per square metre or 800.000 euro per
50
kilometre .
5.2.2.3.
Sound insulation of buildings
Alternative measures such as sound-insulating windows provide in-house noise reduction
only. However, these measures are currently undertaken by inhabitants and are not reported.
Note that as transport policy measures may reduce overall noise levels, these expenditures
may be reduced as a consequence. Hence, the reduction in the noise reduction costs born by
inhabitants should be deducted from costs born by car users or infrastructure budgets to
reflect total abatement costs in net terms.
5.2.2.4.
Rail traffic noise
Railway noise can be reduced by the use of welded rail track laid on a concrete bed with
elastic/resilient pads or mats.
5.2.3.
Integrated Policy Package
The National Institute of Public Health and the Environment in the Netherlands reports noise
abatement cost estimates of a package of policy measures directed at reducing road and
railway noise for urban and non-urban areas countrywide. These measures would be
implemented in the period 2010-2030.
50
Calculated based on the costs of barriers in 6 USA States in 1995 (California, New Jersey, Virginia,
Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania). Source: US DOT.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 89
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
The report is based on an acoustic model encompassing noise emissions from all roads,
railways and major airports. The baseline scenario includes increased traffic flows in urban
and non-urban areas.
Cost-effectiveness is calculated as net present values in 2000 prices at a 4% discount rate to
achieve a significant reduction of problem areas. These areas are defined as areas where
noise levels are higher than threshold values. For living areas a threshold value of 55 dB(A)
during 12 hours is used. Other areas (space areas, silent areas, nature) are defined with
lower noise levels.
Figure 5.3 illustrates the reduction in problem areas in the Netherlands in 2030 as a
consequence of the proposed RIVM policy measures. The left pane illustrates problem areas
as red and orange dots without policy measures. The right pane illustrates the situation with
new policy measures, limiting red and orange dotted areas to some specific locations with
high traffic volumes. Policy measures would thus reduce noise problems by 80% in urban
areas and up to 55% in non-urban areas.
Figure 5.3: RIVM effect of measures on noise problem areas in the Netherlands
The policy measures for road traffic include noise reducing asphalt on all roads with intensive
use, refurbishing existing roads with new asphalt, silent tires, and local traffic management
interventions. Total effects of these measures on ambient noise levels in 2030 are indicated in
Table 5-1 in dB(A). Note that silent tires are reported to be effective in all areas.
Table 5-1: Noise reduction effectiveness in 2030 in dB(A)
Silent asphalt
Road refurbishment
Silent tires
Local traffic management
Page 90
Highways
-3
-5
-4
Regional roads
-2
-4
-4
-12
-10
Urban area
-3
-2
-5
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
For rail transport different measures are achievable, including silent passenger trains
(-5 dB(A)), silent freight trains (-10 dB(A)), and silent rail infrastructure (-3 dB(A)). Air transport
is regulated in baseline for noise annoyance according to a 1995 law.
Costs estimates in net present value (2000) are € 6.900 million to € 9.500 million for the
whole package of policy measures. Note that these estimates do not include costs for silent
tires, though the report indicates that silent tires are important noise reducing instruments. A
reduction in noise abatement expenditures by residents is not included as secondary impact
reducing overall costs.
Table 5-2: Cost estimates of noise annoyance reducing package in Netherlands
Highways
Regional Roads
Urban area
Rail transport
low estimate
1.760
990
1.342
2.794
6.886
high estimate
2.926
1.628
1.342
2.794
9.548
5.3. SUMMARY DISCUSSION OF REDUCING TRANSPORT NOISE ANNOYANCE
Noise reduction is a somewhat specific area of research as it entails more than emission
abatement, but aims specifically at reducing multi-source noise annoyance in local areas. As
such, no specific costs to reduce noise annoyance have been found in the survey, except for
a report for the Netherlands indicating a total cost in net present value of € 7.000 to € 9.500
million to reduce country-wide problem areas by 80% in all cities and up to 55% in other
remaining areas.
As further research will be required in this field, some relevant abatement options haven been
identified. With respect to road vehicles, the influence of tire width needs to be addressed as
this may contribute largely to noise abatement. For infrastructure, road maintenance may be
required to consider putting silent modes of road cover in place. For new roads in densely
populated areas, noise assessment reports may help local authorities to decide upon noise
reduction infrastructure. This is one of the objectives addressed by the Directive on
51
environmental noise , which requires competent authorities in Member States to produce
strategic noise maps on the basis of harmonised indicators, to inform the public about noise
exposure and its effects, and to draw up action plans to address noise issues.
51
DIRECTIVE 2002/49/EC of the European parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to
the assessment and management of environmental noise
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 91
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Page 92
SUMMA
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
6. ABATEMENT OF ROAD ACCIDENTS
Road safety refers to a reduction in road risk and crash costs. There are various ways to
improve road safety:
• Reduce total vehicle mileage;
• Reduce per mile crash rates (more caution drivers, safer roads);
• Use of day running lights;
• Reduce traffic speeds;
• Infrastructure investment;
• Improved vehicle occupant protection (energy absorbing vehicle designs, seat belt use,
helmet use, air bags);
• Improve emergency response and trauma care;
• Use of collision warning and cruise control systems;
• Reduction of blood alcohol levels while driving;
• Αwareness of the effects of drugs or medicines on driving;
• Improve long-term medical treatment and rehabilitation for traffic victims;
• Reduce vehicle repair costs;
• Etc.
There have been some studies with an overall assessment of a policy package of safety
measures:
• The SWOV study: a cost-effectiveness analysis of the roads safety measures in the Dutch
national transport plan.
• The study by Vahidnia and Walsh, UC Berkeley investigates the cost-effectiveness of
traffic safety interventions in the United States.
6.1. SWOV STUDY
In 2002, the Dutch SWOV has calculated the effects of the NVVP (national transport plan)
measures, to be able to judge the achievability of the road safety targets in the Netherlands
The NVVP aims about 300 fewer deaths in 2010 and a decrease in the number of in-patients
by 4.600.
The study consists of two parts (SWOV Reports D-2000-09-I and D-2000-09-II). In the first
part, the effect of each measure separately was totalled to calculate their combined effect on
the national casualty reduction. The second part examined the costs and cost-effectiveness of
each measure. These were calculated to examine the costs of the total package of measures.
The calculated cost-effectiveness gives for very measure insight in the costs needed to
reduce the number of victims by 1. The aim was to rank the measures by efficiency, and by
that to help the government choosing the right road safety policies.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 93
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
Table 6-1: Cost-effectiveness of the Dutch NVVP measures, SWOV, 2000
measure
1. Redesign of 48.000 km urban
roads into zone 30 and similar
profiles
2. Redesign of 8.500 km urban
roads into local arterials,
including bicycle roads and
roundabouts
3. Reformation of 47.000 rural
roads into speed reducing
profiles, mostly with road
markings
4. Reformation of 7.300 rural
roads into local arterials
5. Measures on 2.600 km of
main 2x1 roads, e.g. building
central reservation, changing
intersections
10 Enforcement and education,
e.g. speed control, seatbelts,
alcohol.
12 Improved diving licence
procdures
13 Safety culture in 70.000
freight transport companies
16 Introduction of a driving
licence for mopeds
17 Obligation for day running
lights
20 Bicycle reflector
23b Introduction of blind angle
mirror for LDV’s
30 Closed side protection of
26.000 HDV’s
31 Open side protection of
26.000 HDV’s
37 Electronic tachograph / board
computer in 550.000 LDV’s
- 37 Electronic tachograph /
board computer in 130.000
HDV’s
Page 94
investment
per year
(million
euro)
reduction in
victims in one
year
(# deads and
in-patients)
58
duration
total
corrected
reduction in
victims
cost per
victim
(million
euro)
37
30
671
0,09
57
37
30
672
0,09
7
21
30
376
0,02
82
34
30
604
0,14
202
8
30
148
1,36
77
961
1
961
0,08
43
201
3
580
0,07
25
55
1
55
0,46
18
113
3
326
0,05
25
99
1
99
0,25
2
4
10
30
0,05
125
12
10
101
1,24
51
27
10
228
0,22
11
25
10
211
0,05
500
260
351
193
4,55
5
2961
1628
0,37
0,07
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
6.2. VAHIDNIA AND WALSH STUDY
Vahidnia and Walsh (2002) conducted a comprehensive review of the literature on the results
of all available studies on cost-effectiveness and traffic safety in the US. The relevant
literature has been identified through the use of electronic databases, hand searching of
journals, scanning reference lists, and consultation with corresponding authors and experts.
In thee study, a detailed description of each intervention, the CE ratio, and their source was
presented in a large table. CE ratio for identified traffic safety interventions has a wide range,
varying between less than $0 to more than $8 million per for side door strength standard in
light trucks to minimize back seat intrusion, or $450,000 per quality-adjusted life-year saved
for shoulder belts in rear seat of passenger vehicles. Many of the interventions will save lives
and prevent injuries at cost of less than $50,000 per life-year saved.
In the study, Vahidnia and Walsh summarized a number of cost-saving interventions as the
first priority for decision makers, see Table 6-2: First Priority.
Table 6-2: First Priority
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 95
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Page 96
SUMMA
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
7. CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER STEPS
The current report has contributed to the SUMMA project in reviewing the potential and costs
of different options to bring European mobility back in line with sustainable mobility, focusing
on two main policy questions.
• Should environmental problems be tackled in the transport sector or are there
solutions in other sectors that provide cost advantages to do so?
• Within the transport sector, what policies could support sustainable transport at low
costs?
In section 3 abatement options in air pollution have been tackled. The cross-sector
comparison revealed that for PM, the technological abatement options for air pollution from
transport are relatively expensive, especially if one takes into account the cheap PM reduction
options in accessing countries. This is not the case for NOX, where the transport sector may
be required to take technological options (DeNOX catalysts) to assist in reducing NOX
emissions from some point on. However, the survey on non-technical measures to reduce air
pollution indicated that these efforts may need to take place in local urban traffic management
with parking charges and traffic control regulations as these strategies combined relatively
low costs to high reduction potential of overall air pollution and congestion.
Section 4 considered greenhouse gas abatement options for the transport sector. As to
technological options, most reports indicated that CO2 abatement is achieved with less costs
in industry and in power generation than in transport. Some low-cost potential may be
achieved if policy measures are able to influence driving behaviour strongly. Non-technical
policies including fuel taxes, peak road pricing and local traffic management have been
reported to offer favourable emission reductions while at the same time reducing congestion
costs by that much that it more than compensates for the extra costs born by transport users.
Moreover, these policies can be optimised to introduce modal shifts, favouring public
transport in urban areas.
Section 5 considered noise abatement costs in transport. The survey pointed to some general
options to reduce noise annoyance, especially in tire width and motor noise. However,
specific research on noise annoyance abatement costs needs to be established.
Section 6 considered abatement costs for road safety.
The survey in this report revealed some important headlines for policy measures on a
European level.
A first headline points to the availability of non-technical measures such as road pricing and
local traffic management interventions that may avoid using expensive vehicle or fuel
technology standards. In particular, road pricing and local parking and traffic management
regulations may contribute cost-effectively to the reduction of transport emissions. Taking into
account reductions in congestion costs, these policy measures allow policy makers to reduce
emissions without net costs to society. Increased fuel taxes do allow for market-based
emission control as well, but have less impact on congestions and hence offer only a secondbest solution to an integrated transport policy.
A second headline points to the availability of low-cost reduction potential in other sectors.
Especially in greenhouse gas emission reduction and PM10 abatement the economical
potential to switch technologies (not including non-technical measures) in transport is limited
when compared to the potential in other sectors (mainly the energy sector and industry). This
may be somewhat less the case for specific pollutants like NOX and VOC, where the
contribution of transport to total emissions is important, and end-pipe technology for vehicles
may become cost-effective if major reductions in these emissions need to be established.
However, insisting on increasingly high technical standards in transport while not using low-
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 97
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
cost opportunities in other sectors should be considered as a waste of valuable resources.
Some available EC reports have pointed this out clearly.
A third headline points to the scarcely available information on cost-effectiveness for
measures that affect multiple sources of pollutions. Though technical estimates for vehicle
and fuel improvement are becoming widely available, and indications of costs are becoming
more reliable, only few reports consider the integrated cost-effectiveness of policy measures
that tackle multiple emission sources. Currently such an approach is developed in the
MERLIN project funded by the European Commission. As integrated reports become more
available, policy maker may find that some policy measures may seem expensive with
respect to single pollutant abatements, but prove to be least-cost alternatives in view of the
many pollutants it may target.
This leads us to a final headline on sustainability in transport. If sustainability is to be defined
as relating the cost of scarce resources –including effects on others- to the use of these
resources, optimal pricing policies may provide market-based solutions that combine costeffectiveness and sustainable development. Pricing policy frameworks can be developed by
European institutions, to be filled in by national-, regional and local authorities to develop a
level playing field. However, reports on such pricing mechanisms and effective
implementation reports are scarce and scattered, and deserve more attention in future
research programs.
Further research should be aiming at providing decision makers with tools to support their
decisions on emission abatement programs and transport restructuring efforts. As indicated in
this report, comparability across currently available reports is limited due to different baseline
assumptions, different calculation methodology, and different basic parametres and
approaches (such as the single pollutant approach versus integrated abatement approaches).
A general framework providing generally accepted estimates on external damages (such as
ExternE) could provide a first step forward towards integrated policy assessment. These
estimates could be used in cost-benefit assessments as well as in multi-point cost
effectiveness assessments. As such efforts will be done later during the SUMMA project, this
could offer major improvements in both methodology and results of integrated resource
planning.
Page 98
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
REFERENCES
Bates, J. et al (2001), Economic Evaluation of Emissions Reductions in the Transport
Sector of the EU - Bottom-up Analysis, Final Report from AEA Technology Environment for
European Commission's Directorate-General for Environment
Bovenberg, L and Goulder L. (2001), Environmental taxation and regulation, Working
Paper 8458, NBER Working Paper Series
Cantique (2000a), List of most Cost-Efficient Non-Technical Measures, Project funded by
th
EC under Transport RTD Program, 4 framework Program
Cantique (2000b), Guidelines for the Selection and implementation of Non-Technical
th
Measures, Project funded by EC under Transport RTD Program, 4 framework Program
Cantique (2000c), CANTIQUE D6- Final Report, Project funded by EC under Transport RTD
th
Program, 4 framework Program
Capros, P. et al (2001), Economic Evaluation of Sectoral Emission Reduction Objectives
for Climate Change – Top-down Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction
Possibilities in the EU, Final Report from NTU Athens for European Commission's
Directorate-General for Environment
Cofala J. and Syri S. (1998a), Nitrogen oxides emissions, abatement technologies and
related costs for Europe in the RAINS model database, IIASA, Interim Report IR-9888/October.
Cofala J. and Syri S. (1998b) Sulphur emissions, abatement technologies and related
costs for Europe in the RAINS model database, IIASA, Interim Report IR-98-88/October.
De Borger B., Proost S. (2001), Reforming transport pricing in the European Union – A
modeling approach, Edward Elgar
de La Chesnaye, F. et al (2000), The Cost-effective Emission Reduction Potential of NonCarbon Dioxide Greenhouse Gases within the US and Abroad, Appendix E-6, Ancilliary
Studies, IEA
DRI-WEFA and Arthur D. Little (2001), Future Powertrain Technologies: The Next
Generation, Final Report
EEA (2000), European Environmental Agency, Traffic Noise: Exposure and Annoyance,
EEA.
Ehinger, P. (2001), Noise Reduction Potential of Passenger Cars, VDA, September 2001
European Commission (1999), Auto Oil II Programme Cost-effectiveness Study, Part III:
Transport Base Case
European Commission (2000a), Auto Oil II Programme Cost-effectiveness Study, Part IV:
Simulation of policy measures, Annex 2: Technology Measures
European Commission (2000b), Auto Oil II Programme Cost-effectiveness Study, Part IV:
Simulation of policy measures, Annex 3: Fuels
European Commission (2000c), Auto Oil II Programme Cost-effectiveness Study, Part IV:
Simulation of policy measures, Annex 4: Non-Technical Measures
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 99
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
European Commission (2000d), Auto Oil II Programme Technical study on Fuels
Technology, Volume II, Alternative Fuels
European Commission (2000e), Green Paper of the European Commission, Towards a
European strategy for the security of energy supply, COM(2000) 769, November 2000.
European Commission (2001), Second annual report of the implementation of the
community strategy to reduce CO-emissions from cars
European Commission (2002), Fiscal Measures to Reduce CO2 Emissions from New
Passenger Cars, Final Report for DG Environment by COWI
European Commission (2003), SUMMA - Setting the context for Defining Sustainable
Transport and Mobility, Report for DG Energy and Transport
Eyckmans J., Van Regemorter, D. and van Steenberghe, V. (2001), Is Kyoto fatally flawed?
An analysis with MacGEM, CES-ETE Working Paper
Gale J., de La Chesnaye F., Vianio M. (2002), The non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases Network,
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Program
Hendriks, C, et al (2001), Economic Evaluation of Sectoral Emission Reduction
Objectives for Climate Change – Bottom-up Analysis of Emission Reduction Potentails
and Costs for Greenhouse Gases in the EU, Summary Report from ECOFYS Energy and
Environment for European Commission's Directorate-General for Environment
Hutcheson, R. (1995), Alternative Fuels in the Automotive Market, Prepared for the
CONCAWE Automotive Emissions Management Group
IEA / AFIS (1999), Automotive Fuels for the Future – The Search for Alternatives
IIASA (2003), RAINS PM Web, Version: 2.00, http://www.iiasa.ac.at/~rains/cgi-bin/rains_pm,
Retrieved in April 2003.
Kleit, A. (2002) Short- and Long Range Impacts of increases in the Corporate Average
Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard, Pennsylvania State University
Klimont, Z., Amann, M., Cofala, J. (2000) Estimating Costs for Controlling Emissions of
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) from Stationary Sources in Europe. Interim Report
IR-00-51, IIASA
Klimont Z., Cofala J., Bertok I., Amann M., Heyes Chr., Gyarfas F. (2002) Modelling
Particulate Emissions in Europe – A Framework to Estimate Reduction Potential and
Control Costs, Interim Report IR-02-076, IIASA
Lawrence H. Goulder, Ian W.H. Parry, Roberton C. Williams, Dallas Burtraw (1998), The
cost-effectiveness of alternative instruments for environmental protection in a secondbest setting, Journal of Public Economics 72 (1999) 329-360
Lawrence H. Goulder, Brian M. Nadreau (2001), International Approaches to Reducing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Lelong J., Michelet R. (1999), Effect of acceleration on vehicle noise emission, Proc. of
Forum Acustica (Joint ASA/EAA Meeting), Berlin, Germany
Ninzel R. (2002), Construction Noise Effects and Opportunities, University of Washington
Nijland, H. (2001), Noise reduction is beneficial: Are the Dutch stingy for wrong
reasons? workshop at Inter-noise, The Hague, Netherlands
Page 100
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Nijland, H. et al (2001), Geluidmaatregelen: kosten en baten, National Institute of Public
Health and the Environment (RIVM), Netherlands
Phillips, S. and Kinsey, P. (2001), Aspects of vehicle and traffic noise control, UBA
Workshop - Further noise reduction for motorised road vehicles, Berlin 2001.
Phillips, S. and Abbott P. (2001), Factors affecting statistical pass-by methods,
Proceedings of Internoise 2001. The Hague, Netherlands
Proost, S. (1997), Economic evaluation of community options to limit CO2, SO2 and NOX
emissions at the horizon 2005 and 2010 – Transport sector, Report for the European
Commission, internal document
Proost, S. and Van Dender, K. (2001), The welfare impacts of alternative policies to
address atmospheric pollution in urban road transport, Regional Science and Urban
Economics 31, 383-411
Proost S., Van Regemorter D. (1999), Are there cost-efficient CO2-reduction possibilities
in the transport sector? – combining two modeling approaches, International Journal of
Pollution Control, Vol. 11 n° 2/3.
Proost S, Van Regemorter D. (2000), How to Achieve the Kyoto Target in Belgium –
Modelling Methodology and Some Results Climneg/Climbel Working Paper n°41
Réveillé J. (2002), Progress in Automotive NVH Field, Renault, Proceedings of ISMA2002
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures: 1999, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration
Vahidnia, Farnaz and Walsh, Julia (2002), Cost-Effectiveness of Traffc Safety
Interventions in the United States, UC Berkeley
Van den Brink R., Van Wee B. (2001), Why has car-fleet specific fuel consumption not
shown any decrease since 1990? Quantitative analysis of Dutch passenger car fleet
specific fuel consumption, Transportation Research Part D n°6
Van Herbruggen, B and Proost, S (2002), Welvaartskosten van maatregelen ter reductie
van CO2 emissies in de transportsector, PBO98/KUL23 (Dutch only)
VITO (1999), Analyse van de maatregelen voorzien in het vlaamse CO2/reg-beleidsplan,
Final VLIETbis report from VITO for Flemish Government, department ANRE
VITO (2003), ECO-DRIVING in a company fleet, Final Report Belgian Pilot, Final report
from VITO, ECO-DRIVING Europe, 2003
VUB (2002), Invloed van het rijgedrag op de verkeersemissies: kwantificatie en
maatregelen - Final report from VUB-etec & TNO-wt for the Flemish Government,
Department LIN, AMINAL
Wesemann, P. (2000), Verkeersveiligheidsanalyse van het concept-NVVP, Deel 1:
Effectiviteit van maatregelen, SWOV, Nedrland
Wesemann, P. (2000), Verkeersveiligheidsanalyse van het concept-NVVP, Deel 2:
Kosten en kosteneffectiviteit, SWOV, Nederland
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 101
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Page 102
SUMMA
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
GLOSSARY
additive
ambient noise
background noise
bio diesel
catalyst
CNG
CO
CO2
compression ignition
engine
cost-effectiveness
crude; crude oil
dB (decibel)
db(A)
diesel
diesel engine
Additives are added to the fuel in small amounts to improve the
properties of the fuel. For instance, anti-sludge additives prevent the
deposits of carbon and tar on the inlet valves and other engine
parts.
The total of all noise in the environment, other than the noise from
the source of interest. This term is used interchangeably with
background noise.
The total of all noise in a system or situation, independent of the
presence of the desired signal. In acoustical measurements, strictly
speaking, the term "background noise" means electrical noise in the
measurement system. However, in popular usage the term
"background noise" is often used to mean the noise in the
environment, other than the noise from the source of interest.
Automotive fuel consisting of etherified vegetable oils like rapeseed
methyl ester and soybean methyl ester.
1. Substance that influences the speed and direction of a chemical
reaction without itself undergoing any significant change.
2. Catalytic reactor which reduces the emission of harmful exhaust
gasses from combustion engines.
Compressed Natural Gas.
Carbon monoxide.
Carbon dioxide.
Internal combustion engine with an ignition caused by the heating of
the fuel-air mixture in the cylinder by means of compression. This
compression causes a rise in temperature and pressure, which
make possible the spontaneous reaction between fuel and oxygen.
Also called a diesel engine.
The extent to which a policy achieves a given target at low cost.
Crude mineral oil. Naturally occurring hydrocarbon fluid containing
small amounts of nitrogen, sulfur, oxygen and other materials.
Crude oils from different areas can vary enormously.
A unit of sound pressure level, abbreviated dB.
Unit of sound level. The weighted sound pressure level by the use
of the A metreing characteristic and weighting specified in ANSI
Specifications for Sound Level Metre, S1.4-1983. db(A) is used as a
measure of human response to sound.
Diesel is the most widely used off-grid electricity generation and
water pumping fuel source in the world. Diesel gensets are found all
over the developing world, and serve as back-ups in most urban
and grid-connected settings for essential services (such as hospital
operating theatres, important telecommunications complexes, etc.).
1. Combustion engine running on diesel oil;
2. The gasoline-engine (Otto-engine) wasn't very efficient, that is
why 1892 Rudolf Diesel had developed the engine with great
efficiency named after him. Diesel's goal was to create an engine
that could compress air to temperatures high enough that selfignition would occur. This goal was not practical, but his design
created an engine for which the choice of fuel is less demanding
than that of the Otto engine. In the Diesel cycle, combustion occurs
at constant pressure (as opposed to constant volume in the Otto
cycle). A gasoline engine intakes a mixture of gas and air,
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 103
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
compresses it and ignites the mixture with a spark. A diesel engine
takes in just air, compresses it and then injects fuel into the
compressed air. The heat of the compressed air lights the fuel
spontaneously.
diesel (oil)
dual-fuel vehicle
EEA
EEV
emission permit
engine
EU
EUROSTAT
ExternE
evaporative emission
fuel cell
gasoline, gas
Page 104
1. A mixture of different hydrocarbons with a boiling range between
250° and 350° C;
2. A fuel for compression ignition or diesel engines.
Also called bi-fuel vehicle. Vehicle fitted with one engine and two
fuel systems. The engine can operate on both fuels. An example is
an LPG/Gasoline dual-fuel vehicle.
European Environmental Agency
Enhanced Environmentally Friendly Vehicle: permissive concept
that allows Member States to promote EEV introduction through Tax
Incentive Schemes based on Directive 1999/96/EC
A document entitling the owner to emit one unit of pollution (where a
unit is defined by the permit). From an economic and legal
perspective, a permit assigns a property right—the right to emit a
specified amount of pollution—to the owner of the permit.
The main engines used for vehicles are the diesel engine and the
gasoline engine (= Otto engine). Both gasoline and diesel
automotive engines are classified as four-stroke reciprocating
internal-combustion engines. Besides the diesel engine and the
Otto engine, there is a third type of engine, known as a two-stroke
engine. The engine in the Mazda Millennia uses a modification of
the Otto cycle called the Miller cycle. Gas turbine engines use the
Brayton cycle. Wankel rotary engines use the Otto cycle, but they
do it in a very different way than four-stroke piston engines.
European Union
Statistical Office of the European Union
Externalities of Energy; series of projects initiated and supported by
the European Commission
Emission of hydrocarbons of a vehicle from sources other than the
exhaust pipe. Important sources are the venting of the fuel tank and
the carburetor. Evaporative losses are subdivided into:
– running losses
– diurnal losses
– hot soak losses
An apparatus in which electricity is generated by a reaction between
hydrogen and oxygen forming water. Water and electricity are
produced after hydrogen and oxygen ions are exchanged via an
electrolyte.
1. American name for petrol.
2.A mixture of more than 100 different hydrocarbons with a boiling
range between 25o and 220o Celsius;
3. A fuel for ignition-compression or Otto engines.
4. A mixture of the lighter liquid hydrocarbons, used chiefly as a fuel
for internal-combustion engines. It is produced by the fractional
distillation of petroleum; by condensation or adsorption from natural
gas; by thermal or catalytic decomposition of petroleum or its
fractions; by the hydrogenation of producer gas or coal; or by the
polymerization of hydrocarbons of lower molecular weight. Gasoline
(petrol or benzene [not the chemical benzine, but the petroleum
fraction benzene]) is widely used for small (less than 3 kVA)
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
generators, or gensets to produce electricity for commercial
establishments, institutions and households.
gasoline engine
See Otto engine.
GJ
Gigajoule; unit of energy; 1 GJ = 1.109 Joule.
HC
Hydrocarbon(s).
HDV
Heavy-Duty Vehicle
hydride
Hydrogen chemically bound to a metallic material.
IEA
International Energy Agency.
international emissions trading system
A regulatory system that issues property rights
(generally called permits) to national governments
or firms and allows owners of permits to trade those
permits in an international market.
kerosene
A light fraction petroleum product refined from the raw petroleum.
Kerosene is one of the lighter "distillates" in a petroleum refinery,
lighter than gasoil/diesel, and often in the same mix with jet fuel
(e.g., Jet A1). It has been used for lighting, cooling and refrigeration
for one hundred years. Kerosene is found throughout the world, and
is one of the most common lighting fuels in the developing world. It
is also often used for cooking, primarily in urban areas in the
developing world.
LDV
Light-Duty Vehicle
Leq (equivalent A-weighted sound level)
The constant sound level that, in a given time
period, would convey the same sound energy as
the actual time-varying A-weighted sound level.
LNG
Liquefied Natural Gas; natural gas in a liquid state (only possible at
temperatures below –161oC).
LPG
Liquefied petroleum gas which consists mainly of propane (C3H8)
and/or butane(C4H10) and which can be stored as a liquid under
relatively low pressure for use as a fuel.
MC
marginal cost of emissions reduction, or marginal cost of
abatement. The cost incurred by a firm, individual or society to
reduce (or abate) its current pollution level by one additional unit
methanol
MJ
monetization
noise annoyance
noise barrier
noise level
NOX
Alcohol; CH3OH; very toxic; highly inflammable.
6
MegaJoule; unit of energy; 1 MJ = 1.10 joule.
Process of expressing in monetary values what is the cost (in case
of adverse effects) or benefit (in case of positive effects) of an
impact to create a basis for weighing different indicators.
A term used to describe negative feelings about noise. Since noise
annoyance can mean different things to different people at different
times, it is not meaningful to define annoyance any more precisely.
Reported annoyance is normally understood to mean annoyance
reported using a particular scale and therefore has a precise
meaning in terms of that scale.
Any feature which blocks, prevents or diminishes the transmission
of noise. An earth wall could serve this purpose. A large building
could serve as a noise barrier to shield receptors further from the
noise source. A dense growth of vegetation, if it were wide enough
and dense enough, would be a noise barrier
Unless specified to the contrary, it is the A-weighted sound level.
1. Collective noun for the nitrogen oxides NO and NO2 (N2O or
nitrous oxide is not considered an NOX compound);
2. Description for a mixture of NO and NO2;
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 105
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
NVH
OECD
octane number
Otto engine
PAH
petrol
PM
sound
sound level
sound power
sound wall
tailpipe emissions
TCE
TERM
Page 106
SUMMA
3. Noxious exhaust component of combustion engines; formed
under the influence of a high temperature of combustion by a direct
reaction of oxygen and nitrogen present in the air. Part of the NO is
further oxidised to NO2 in the exhaust flow.
Noise, Vibration and Harshness. NVH is one of the main
engineering and design attributes to be addressed in the course of
developing new vehicle models. High standards of NVH
performance are now expected or demanded by the consumer not
only for luxury cars, but also large production volume models. Passby standards impose an exterior noise requirement on all road
vehicle manufacturers.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
A measure for the tendency of a fuel to detonate when combusted
in the cylinder of a combustion engine. The higher the octane
number, the lower the tendency to detonate and the better the
quality of the fuel. According to the definition of octane number, iso
octane (2.2.4-trimethyl-pentane) has an octane number of 100 and
n-heptanes (C7H16) has an octane number of 0
The Otto cycle was invented by Beau de Rochas in 1862 and
applied by Dr. Otto in 1877 in the Otto-Crossley gas engine, the first
commercially successful internal-combustion engine made. The
Otto cycle is also referred to as a spark-ignition engine because a
spark ignites the combustion. An Otto engine needs to avoid selfignition, since the fuel is present in the combustion chamber during
the compression phase. Self-ignition would be premature and give
negative contribution to the engine. Thus, the compression ratio in
an Otto engine has to be so low that self-ignition never occurs. Otto
engines usually run on gasoline, but e.g. bio-ethanol can also be
used.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon(s). Aromatics of which the
molecules contain several, linked benzene rings; in several cases
carcinogenic
See gasoline
Particulate Matter. Particles emitted from the exhaust system of
vehicles
Physical vibrations transmitted through the air which are audible to
people.
The weighted sound pressure level obtained by the use of a sound
level metre and frequency weighting network, such as A, B, or C as
specified in ANSI specifications for sound level metres (ANSI Sl.41971, or the latest approved revision). If the frequency weighting
employed is not indicated, the A-weighting is implied.
The total sound energy radiated by a source per unit time. The unit
of measurement is the Watt (W).
A particular type of noise barrier. It is a wall, which may be
constructed of concrete panels, masonry blocks, wood boards or
panels, or a variety of other materials.
Emissions of a combustion engine after the catalyst (as distinct from
engine-out emissions which are measured before the catalytic
converter)
ton CO2 Equivalent
Transport and Environmental Reporting Mechanism, the concept of
an indicator-based transport and environment reporting mechanism
(TERM) for the EU was initiated in early 1998. TERM is steered
jointly by the European Commission and the EEA. The main output
of TERM is a regular indicator-based report through which the
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
three-way catalyst
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
effectiveness of transport and environment integration strategies is
monitored.
Catalytic reactor for combustion engines which oxidises volatile
organic compounds (VOC) and CO, as well as reduces nitrogen
oxides.
two-stroke engine
Besides the diesel engine and the Otto engine, there is a third type
of engine, known as a two-stroke engine, that is commonly found in
lower-power applications. Some of the devices that might have a
two-stroke engine include: garden equipment, mopeds, jet skis. To
use a two-stroke engine, you have to mix special two-stroke oil in
with the gasoline. Generally, a two-stroke engine produces a lot of
power for its size because there are twice as many combustion
cycles occurring per rotation. However, a two-stroke engine uses
more gasoline and burns lots of oil, so it is far more polluting.
ULEV
vkm
VOC
Ultra Low Emission Vehicle
Vehicle kilometre
Volatile Organic Compound(s). Collective noun for hydrocarbons,
which are emitted in the volatile phase by vehicles. Usually
described as HC-compounds.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 107
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Page 108
SUMMA
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUMMA
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
ANNEX 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
The Bates (2001) report for EU DG Environment
The Bates (2001) report for EU DG Environment contains a detailed bottom-up analysis,
updated in 2001, on GHG emission reductions in the EU15 transport sector. This study
52
serves as input for the broader report of Hendriks (2001) of ECOFYS for DG Environment .
Within this study, baseline projections of energy demand are taken from the PRIMES model
baseline scenario defined for the ‘Shared Analysis’ project 1999, including all policy
developments that were certain up to the end of 1997. It thus excluded the impacts of the
voluntary agreement reached with European car manufacturers (ACEA) in 1999 to reduce the
average CO2 emissions for all new cars to 170 g/km by 2003, and 140 g/km by 2008 (from an
average of about 186 g/km).
Selected operational or technological measures to improve vehicle energy use include:
• Engine efficiency improvements
• Major engine changes
• Weight reduction
• Friction & drag reduction
Engine efficiency improvements include Hi-Speed Engines with variable Valve Lift, Cylinder
deactivation and CVT transmissions.
Major engine changes include Petrol to Diesel shifts, (advanced) GDI engines, Hybrid Power
Train Vehicles, and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles.
It should be noted that the PRIMES baseline already includes endogenous technology
improvements in all sectors and countries. It has no “frozen technology” baseline.
Many of the costs are drawn from work carried out for the Canadian National Climate Change
Process – Transportation Table Subgroup by Austin et al (1999) in the US. Additional
information was obtained from the UK Energy Efficiency Best Practice Program (EEBPP) on
aerodynamics and driver training.
All costs have been converted to €(1990), using a methodology and currency conversion
rates and ‘deflators’ defined for the study as a whole. In general terms the cost-effectiveness
of the measure is calculated by annualizing the capital cost of the measure and annual
savings (from improvements in fuel economy) and any additional annual costs (e.g. from
additional maintenance) to calculate an annualised cost for the measure. The annualised cost
is then divided by annual reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to give the costeffectiveness in €/TCE. A discount rate of 4% is used to calculate the annualised cost.
The Hendricks (2001) report
The Hendricks (2001) report contains a detailed bottom-up analysis, updated in 2001, on
GHG emission reductions in the EU15 and covers all sectors. The study draws on the report
of Bates (2001), and has been extended to a new database called GENESIS, to include nonCO2 GHG.
The report stresses the high growth in transport demand; from 4,6 trillion passenger
kilometres in 1995 to 5,8 trillion in 2010 (+26%). Transport of goods is projected to grow by
over 30% from 1,6 trillion ton-km in 1995 to 2,1 trillion ton-km in 2010. Passenger cars and
road freight vehicles account for over three-quarters of emissions. Rail, inland navigation and
air transport are not extensively researched for abatement opportunities.
52
Bates (2001), Hendriks (2001) and Capros (2001) reports are available at the internet library of EU
DG Environment; http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/enveco/studies2.htm
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 109
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
The voluntary agreements reached with European (ACEA), Japanese (JAMA) and Korean
(KAMA) car manufacturers to reduce the average CO2 emissions for all new cars is not
incorporated in the frozen technology reference level. The full implementation of these
agreements would reduce CO2 emissions by about 75 Mt CO2 in 2010.
This report analyses the abatement costs using sensitivity analysis for the discount rates,
including a sector-specific discount rate.
The Capros (2001) report
The Capros (2001) report for EC DG Environment contains a detailed top-down analysis,
updated in 2001, on GHG emission reductions in the EU15 and covers all sectors.
The report is based on the PRIMES model to simulate EU energy demand, and includes the
ACEA agreement to reduce CO2 emission levels for new cars. The ACEA agreement reduces
CO2 emissions of new sold cars from 186 g/km to 170 g/km in 2003, further down to 140 g/km
by 2008. It is assumed in the baseline that the ACEA agreement would involve no costs for
consumers or manufacturers.
The report stresses the high growth in transport demand, and the deterioration in passenger
transport energy efficiency. The latter is reported to be due to an increase in air transport
market share- which is relatively energy inefficient, and due to increasing car size,
horsepower and comfort standards, overcompensating the significant technological
improvement that occurred in car technologies in the nineties.
Freight transport is reported to show improved energy efficiency due to increased rail
electrification, and improvement of load factors. These improvements are believed to persist
in the future.
As the report recalls, energy demand in the sector seems to be rather insensitive to a number
of policy instruments used in the past including very high taxation on fuels used for private
transportation. However, further changes in the transportation sector may induce travellers to
change driving habits, and purchase smaller and more fuel-efficient cars.
Page 110
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
ANNEX 2: EXTENDED TABLES FOR AIR POLLUTION REDUCTION
The tables included in the annex are the full output tables of RAINS A full explanation on the table setup is provided in section 3.1.
Tables 1 and 2 give an overview of the ranges of marginal PM10 and NOX abatement costs for the road transport sector on one hand and for other sectors on
the other hand. They have been summarized in section 3.1. These tables indicate the control options associated to the cost values and the total amount of
emission that can be abated with all control options on top of measures required by the current legislation (CLE). Estimates cover the EU15 countries plus 8
of 10 future member states (for Cyprus and Malta no cost estimates are available). The range of abatement costs is based on marginal abatement cost
curves given by IIASA (IIASA 2003 and Cofala and Syri 1998a).
The abatement cost ranges are characterised by a low value, giving the cheapest measure on top of CLE. The “central” value gives the marginal costs of the
measure with which 50% of the total reduction achieved in the sector (on top of CLE) is reached. This value provides an indication of the cost of an “average”
abatement option in the respective sector and thus can be used for comparisons. The “high” value does not give the cost of the most expensive control option
available, but gives the cost of the measure with which 98% of total amount abated (on top of CLE) is reached. This procedure is used to cut extreme values,
which occur at the high end of the abatement cost curve.
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 111
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
Table 0-1: Marginal PM10 abatement costs (€1990) in 2010 in road transport and other sectors -IIASA (2003)
Country
Austria
low
central
high
Belgium
low
central
high
Denmark low
central
high
Finland
low
central
high
France
Page 112
low
Road transport
Control option
Motorcycles and mopeds 2stroke, stage 2
EURO V -diesel LDV and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
EURO IV - 2005, heavy
duty diesel vehicles
total abated (kt / a)
Motorcycles and mopeds 2stroke, stage 2
EURO V -diesel LDV and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
EURO V -diesel LDV and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
EURO IV - 2005, heavy
duty diesel vehicles
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
EURO V -diesel LDV and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
EURO V -diesel LDV and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
EURO V -diesel LDV and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
Other sectors
€ / kg Activity
77,88 Derived coal
briquettes)
101,39 No fuel use
Sector
(coke, Industry: Other combustion
121,70 Other
solid-low
S
(biomass, waste, wood)
3,00
77,88 Derived coal (coke,
briquettes)
109,87 No fuel use
324,50 No fuel use
4,90
103,53 Heavy fuel oil
156,51 No fuel use
262,84 Other
solid-low
S
(biomass, waste, wood)
1,30
89,10 No fuel use
89,10 No fuel use
195,61 Other
solid-low
S
(biomass, waste, wood)
1,8
73,31 No fuel use
Control option
€ / kg
Electrostatic precipitator: 2 11,39
fields - ind.comb.
Ind. Process: Small industrial Good practice: ind.process - 30,42
and business facilities – fugitive stage 2 (fugitive)
Residential-Commercial:
Fireplaces, non-catalytic insert 566,73
Fireplaces
4,78
Industry: Other combustion
Electrostatic precipitator: more 15,41
than 2 fields - ind.comb.
Ind. Process: Small industrial Good practice: ind.process - 30,42
and business facilities – fugitive stage 2 (fugitive)
Agriculture: Ploughing, tilling, Low-till farming, alternative 234,08
harvesting
cereal harvesting
4,15
Combustion
in
residential- Good housekeeping: domestic 19,93
commercial sector (liquid fuels)
oil boilers
Agriculture: Livestock - pigs
Feed
modification
(all 28,00
livestock)
Residential-Commercial:
Fireplaces, non-catalytic insert 566,73
Fireplaces
3,63
Ind. Process: Pig iron, blast Electrostatic precipitator: more 15,87
furnace
than 2 fields - ind.process
Ind. Process: Small industrial Good practice: ind.process - 30,42
and business facilities - fugitive
stage 2 (fugitive)
Residential-Commercial:
Fireplaces, non-catalytic insert 566,73
Fireplaces
2,63
Ind. Process: Pig iron, blast Good practice: ind.process 9,41
furnace (fugitive)
stage 2 (fugitive)
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Country
central
high
Germany low
central
high
Greece
low
central
high
Ireland
low
central
high
Italy
low
central
high
Road transport
Control option
EURO V -diesel LDV and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
Motorcycles and mopeds 2stroke, stage 2
EURO V -diesel LDV and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
EURO V -diesel LDV and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
EURO IV - 2005, heavy
duty diesel vehicles
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
EURO V -diesel LDV and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
EURO IV - 2005, heavy
duty diesel vehicles
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
EURO IV - 2005, heavy
duty diesel vehicles
EURO V -diesel LDV and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
Other sectors
€ / kg Activity
73,31 No fuel use
Sector
Ind. Process: Small industrial
and business facilities - fugitive
170,37 Other
solid-low
S Residential-Commercial:
(biomass, waste, wood) Fireplaces
27,10
68,06 No fuel use
Storage and handling: Coal
118,33 No fuel use
211,66 Medium
distillates
(diesel,light fuel oil)
23,40
25,72 No fuel use
199,74 Other
solid-low
S
(biomass, waste, wood)
335,45 No fuel use
1,90
82,04 No fuel use
228,35 No fuel use
383,49 No fuel use
1,90
124,42 Derived coal
briquettes)
126,71 No fuel use
(coke,
208,96 Other
solid-low
S
(biomass, waste, wood)
16,1
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Control option
€ / kg
Good practice: ind.process - 30,42
stage 2 (fugitive)
Fireplaces, non-catalytic insert 566,73
30,79
Good practice: storage and 24,74
handling
Ind. Process: Small industrial Good practice: ind.process - 30,42
and business facilities - fugitive
stage 2 (fugitive)
Combustion
in
residential- Good housekeeping: domestic 540,88
commercial sector (liquid fuels)
oil boilers
22,00
Ind. Process: Lime production
Electrostatic precipitator: 1 field
0,21
- ind.process
Residential-Commercial: Medi- Baghouse for medium (auto2,12
um boilers (<50MW) – automat. matic) boilers in domest. sector
Agriculture: Ploughing, tilling, Low-till farming, alternative 234,08
harvesting
cereal harvesting
13,74
Storage and handling: Coal
Good practice: storage and 24,74
handling
Ind. Process: Small industrial Good practice: ind.process - 30,42
and business facilities - fugitive
stage 2 (fugitive)
Agriculture: Ploughing, tilling, Low-till farming, alternative 234,08
harvesting
cereal harvesting
2,02
Industry: Other combustion
Electrostatic precipitator: more 15,41
than 2 fields - ind.comb.
Ind. Process: Small industrial Good practice: ind.process - 30,42
and business facilities - fugitive
stage 2 (fugitive)
Residential-Commercial:
Fireplaces, non-catalytic insert 566,73
Fireplaces
19,56
Page 113
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Country
Luxembo low
urg
central
high
Netherla
nds
low
central
high
Portugal
low
central
high
Spain
low
central
high
Sweden
low
central
high
Page 114
Road transport
Control option
EURO V -diesel LDV and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
EURO IV - 2005, heavy
duty diesel vehicles
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
EURO V -diesel LDV and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
Motorcycles and mopeds 2stroke, stage 2
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
Motorcycles and mopeds 2stroke, stage 2
EURO IV - 2005, heavy
duty diesel vehicles
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
Motorcycles and mopeds 2stroke, stage 2
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
EURO V -diesel LDV and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
total abated (kt / a)
Motorcycles and mopeds 2stroke, stage 2
EURO IV - 2005, heavy
duty diesel vehicles
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
SUMMA
Other sectors
€ / kg Activity
99,33 No fuel use
Sector
Storage and handling: Other ind.
products (cement, bauxite, coke)
120,32 No fuel use
Ind. Process: Small industrial
and business facilities - fugitive
202,08 Other
solid-low
S Residential-Commercial: Stoves
(biomass, waste, wood)
0,2
82,65 Derived coal (coke, Industry: Other combustion
briquettes)
88,63 No fuel use
Agriculture: Livestock - other
cattle
291,24 Other
solid-low
S Residential-Commercial: Stoves
(biomass, waste, wood)
4,4
77,88 No fuel use
Storage and handling: Iron ore
147,14 No fuel use
247,12 Other
solid-low
S
(biomass, waste, wood)
2,7
52,79 Other solid-high S (incl.
high S waste)
143,40 No fuel use
145,06 Other
solid-low
S
(biomass, waste, wood)
16,5
77,88 Derived coal (coke,
briquettes)
110,05 No fuel use
184,83 Other
solid-low
S
Control option
€ / kg
Good practice: storage and 24,55
handling
Good practice: ind.process - 30,42
stage 2 (fugitive)
New domestic stoves (wood): 138,05
non-catalytic
0,18
Electrostatic precipitator: more 15,41
than 2 fields - ind.comb.
Feed
modification
(all 28,69
livestock)
New domestic stoves (wood): 138,05
non-catalytic
6,94
Good practice: storage and 19,72
handling
Ind. Process: Small industrial Good practice: ind.process - 30,42
and business facilities - fugitive
stage 2 (fugitive)
Residential-Commercial:
Fireplaces, non-catalytic insert 566,73
Fireplaces
3,35
Industry: Combustion in boilers
Electrostatic precipitator: 2
9,14
fields - ind.comb.
Ind. Process: Small industrial Good practice: ind.process - 30,42
and business facilities - fugitive
stage 2 (fugitive)
Residential-Commercial:
Fireplaces, non-catalytic insert 566,73
Fireplaces
15,42
Industry: Other combustion
Electrostatic precipitator: more 15,41
than 2 fields - ind.comb.
Ind. Process: Small industrial Good practice: ind.process - 30,42
and business facilities - fugitive
stage 2 (fugitive)
Residential-Commercial:
Fireplaces, non-catalytic insert 566,73
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Country
UK
low
central
high
Czech
low
Republic
central
high
Estonia
low
central
high
Hungary
low
central
high
Latvia
low
central
Road transport
Control option
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
EURO V -diesel LDV and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
EURO IV - 2005, heavy
duty diesel vehicles
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
Motorcycles and mopeds 2stroke, stage 2
EURO IV - 2005, heavy
duty diesel vehicles
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
Motorcycles and mopeds 2stroke, stage 2
EURO IV - 2005, heavy
duty diesel vehicles
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
Motorcycles and mopeds 2stroke, stage 2
EURO IV - 2005, heavy
duty diesel vehicles
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
Motorcycles and mopeds 2stroke, stage 2
EURO IV - 2005, heavy
Other sectors
€ / kg Activity
Sector
(biomass, waste, wood) Fireplaces
2,0
86,06 Heavy fuel oil
Power & district heat plants:
New
127,24 No fuel use
Ind. Process: Small industrial
and business facilities - fugitive
213,69 Other
solid-low
S Residential-Commercial: Stoves
(biomass, waste, wood)
14,5
77,88 No fuel use
Ind. Process: Basic oxygen
furnace
151,82 No fuel use
Ind. Process: Pig iron, blast
furnace
254,96 Other
solid-low
S Residential-Commercial: Stoves
(biomass, waste, wood)
1,6
77,88 Brown coal/lignite, high Power & district heat plants:
grade
Exist. other, fluidised bed
162,36 Brown coal/lignite, high Power & district heat plants:
grade
Exist. other, grate firing
272,67 Other
solid-low
S Residential-Commercial: Stoves
(biomass, waste, wood)
0,2
77,88 No fuel use
Ind. Process: Agglomeration
plant - sinter
151,82 No fuel use
Ind. Process: Pig iron, blast
furnace (fugitive)
254,96 Other
solid-low
S Residential-Commercial: Stoves
(biomass, waste, wood)
0,9
77,88 No fuel use
Ind. Process: Lime production
162,36 Heavy fuel oil
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Control option
€ / kg
Fabric filters - power plants
3,85
12,14
Good practice: ind.process - 30,42
stage 2 (fugitive)
New domestic stoves (wood): 138,05
non-catalytic
16,65
Electrostatic precipitator: 2
1,30
fields - ind.process
Electrostatic precipitator: 1 field
1,83
- ind.process
New domestic stoves (wood): 92,03
non-catalytic
19,11
Electrostatic precipitator: more
0,10
than 2 fields - power plant
Electrostatic precipitator: 2
0,13
fields - power plants
New domestic stoves (wood): 92,03
non-catalytic
11,56
Electrostatic precipitator: 2
1,07
fields - ind.process
Good practice: ind.process 9,41
stage 2 (fugitive)
New domestic stoves (wood): 92,03
non-catalytic
9,86
Electrostatic precipitator: 1 field
0,21
- ind.process
Power & district heat plants: Fabric filters - power plants
3,63
Page 115
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Country
high
Lithuania low
central
high
Poland
low
central
high
Slovakia
low
central
high
Slovenia low
central
high
Page 116
Road transport
Control option
duty diesel vehicles
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
Motorcycles and mopeds 2stroke, stage 2
EURO IV - 2005, heavy
duty diesel vehicles
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
Motorcycles and mopeds 2stroke, stage 2
EURO IV - 2005, heavy
duty diesel vehicles
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
Motorcycles and mopeds 2stroke, stage 2
EURO IV - 2005, heavy
duty diesel vehicles
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
Motorcycles and mopeds 2stroke, stage 2
EURO IV - 2005, heavy
duty diesel vehicles
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
SUMMA
Other sectors
€ / kg Activity
Sector
Exist. other
272,67 Other
solid-low
S Residential-Commercial:
(biomass, waste, wood) Fireplaces
0,2
77,88 Other
solid-low
S Industry: Other combustion
(biomass, waste, wood)
162,36 No fuel use
Agriculture: Livestock - pigs
272,67 No fuel use
0,5
77,88 Hard coal, high quality
151,82 Other
solid-low
S
(biomass, waste, wood)
254,96 Other
solid-low
S
(biomass, waste, wood)
3,1
77,88 Hard coal, high quality
151,82 No fuel use
254,96 No fuel use
0,9
77,88 No fuel use
183,93 Other
solid-low
S
(biomass, waste, wood)
308,90 Other
solid-low
S
(biomass, waste, wood)
0,6
Control option
Fireplaces, non-catalytic insert
€ / kg
566,73
2,51
Electrostatic precipitator: 1 field
0,24
- ind.comb.
Feed
modification
(all 28,00
livestock)
Agriculture: Ploughing, tilling, Low-till farming, alternative 234,08
harvesting
cereal harvesting
3,35
Industry: Other combustion, Electrostatic precipitator: 2
0,62
grate firing
fields - ind.comb.
Residential-Commercial: Medi- Baghouse for med. (automatic)
2,12
um boilers (<50MW) - automatic boilers in domestic sector
Residential-Commercial:
Fireplaces, non-catalytic insert 566,73
Fireplaces
78,59
Power & district heat plants: Electrostatic precipitator: 2
0,41
Exist. other, grate firing
fields - power plants
Ind. Process: Agglomeration Good practice: ind.process 1,38
plant - sinter (fugitive)
stage 2 (fugitive)
Ind. Process: Small industrial Good practice: ind.process - 30,42
and business facilities - fugitive
stage 2 (fugitive)
15,75
Ind.
Process:
Petroleum Electrostatic precipitator: 1 field
0,24
refineries
- ind.process
Residential-Commercial: Medi- Cyclone for medium boilers in
2,02
um boilers (<50MW) - automatic domestic sectors
Residential-Commercial:
Fireplaces, non-catalytic insert 566,73
Fireplaces
2,71
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Table 0-2: Marginal PM2.5 abatement costs (€1990) in 2010 in road transport and other sectors -IIASA (2003)
Country
France
low
central
high
Germany low
central
high
Greece
low
central
high
Italy
low
central
high
Spain
low
Road transport
Control option
EURO V -diesel l. duty and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
EURO V -diesel l. duty and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
Motorcycles and mopeds 2stroke, stage 2
EURO V -diesel l. duty and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
EURO V -diesel l. duty and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
EURO V -diesel l. duty and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
EURO V -diesel l. duty and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
EURO V -diesel l. duty and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
Motorcycles and mopeds 2stroke, stage 2
Other sectors
€ / kg Activity
88,35 Heavy fuel oil
Sector
Control option
€ / kg
Power & district heat plants: Fabric filters - power plants
14,73
Exist. other
88,35 Other
solid-low
S Residential-Commercial: Stoves New domestic stoves (wood): 142,50
(biomass, waste, wood)
non-catalytic
172,62 Other
solid-low
S Residential-Commercial: Stoves New domestic stoves (wood): 3020,6
(biomass, waste, wood)
catalytic
18,8
13,1
145,64 Heavy fuel oil
Combustion
in
residential- Good housekeeping: domestic 51,81
commercial sector (liquid fuels)
oil boilers
163,72 No fuel use
Ind. Process: Small industrial Good practice: ind.process - 91,27
and business facilities - fugitive
stage 2 (fugitive)
290,14 Other
solid-low
S Residential-Commercial:
Fireplaces, non-catalytic insert 2114,5
(biomass, waste, wood) Fireplaces
13,7
6,8
37,29 Brown coal/lignite, low Power & district heat plants: Electrostatic precipitator: more
0,47
grade
New, fluidized bed
than 2 fields - power plant
37,29 No fuel use
Ind. Process: Lime production
Electrostatic precipitator: 1 field
1,05
- ind.process
396,22 Other
solid-low
S Residential-Commercial:
Fireplaces, non-catalytic insert 585,01
(biomass, waste, wood) Fireplaces
0,8
8,7
133,42 No fuel use
Ind. Process: Pig iron, blast Good practice: ind.process - 15,69
furnace (fugitive)
stage 2 (fugitive)
133,42 Other
solid-low
S Residential-Commercial: Stoves New domestic stoves (wood): 142,50
(biomass, waste, wood)
non-catalytic
224,18 Medium
distillates Combustion
in
residential- Good housekeeping: domestic 665,14
(diesel,light fuel oil)
commercial sector (liquid fuels)
oil boilers
9,4
8,2
89,41 Heavy fuel oil
Power & district heat plants: Fabric filters - power plants
11,37
Exist. other
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Page 117
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Country
central
high
Sweden
low
central
high
UK
low
central
high
Czech
low
Republic
central
high
Hungary
low
central
high
Page 118
Road transport
Control option
EURO V -diesel l. duty and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
EURO V -diesel l. duty and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
total abated (kt / a)
Motorcycles and mopeds 2stroke, stage 2
EURO V -diesel l. duty and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
EURO V -diesel l. duty and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
EURO V -diesel l. duty and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
Motorcycles and mopeds 2stroke, stage 2
EURO V -diesel l. duty and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
Motorcycles and mopeds 2stroke, stage 2
EURO V -diesel l. duty and
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
EURO VI, heavy duty diesel
vehicles, post-2008
total abated (kt / a)
SUMMA
Other sectors
€ / kg Activity
190,58 No fuel use
Sector
Ind. Process: Small industrial
and business facilities - fugitive
190,58 Medium
distillates Combustion
in
residential(diesel,light fuel oil)
commercial sector (liquid fuels)
10,1
105,33 No fuel use
Ind. Process: Pig iron, blast
furnace (fugitive)
125,74 Other
solid-low
S Residential-Commercial: Stoves
(biomass, waste, wood)
209,98 Medium
distillates Combustion
in
residential(diesel,light fuel oil)
commercial sector (liquid fuels)
1,0
124,54 Heavy fuel oil
Power & district heat plants:
Exist. other
124,54 No fuel use
Ind. Process: Small industrial
and business facilities - fugitive
254,17 Medium
distillates Combustion
in
residential(diesel,light fuel oil)
commercial sector (liquid fuels)
7,7
105,33 No fuel use
Ind. Process: Basic oxygen
furnace
132,76 No fuel use
Ind. Process: Agglomeration
plant - sinter
289,71 No fuel use
Storage and handling: Iron ore
0,5
105,33
132,76
289,71
0,3
Control option
€ / kg
Good practice: ind.process - 91,27
stage 2 (fugitive)
Good housekeeping: domestic 665,14
oil boilers
4,8
Good practice: ind.process - 15,69
stage 2 (fugitive)
New domestic stoves (wood): 142,50
non-catalytic
Good housekeeping: domestic 665,14
oil boilers
1,9
Good housekeeping: industrial 23,24
oil boilers
Good practice: ind.process - 91,27
stage 2 (fugitive)
Good housekeeping: domestic 665,14
oil boilers
4,0
Electrostatic precipitator: more
1,87
than 2 fields - ind.process
Electrostatic precipitator: more
2,79
than 2 fields - ind.process
Good practice: storage and 443,75
handling
9,9
1,00
No fuel use
Residential: Meat frying, food Filters in households (kitchen)
preparation, BBQ
2,41
Other
solid-low
S Residential-Commercial: Medi- Baghouse for med. (automatic)
(biomass, waste, wood) um boilers (<50MW) - automatic boilers in domestic sector
No fuel use
Storage
and
handling: Good practice: storage and 526,25
Agricultural products (crops)
handling
5,6
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Country
Poland
low
central
high
Road transport
Other sectors
Control option
€ / kg Activity
Motorcycles and mopeds 2- 105,33 Hard coal, high quality
stroke, stage 2
EURO V -diesel l. duty and 132,76 Hard coal, high quality
pass. cars, post-2005 St.1
solid-low
S
EURO VI, L. Duty, spark ig- 41819 Other
(biomass, waste, wood)
nition engines: 4-stroke, not
DI
total abated (kt / a)
1,0
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Sector
Residential-Commercial: Medium boilers (<50MW) - automatic
Residential-Commercial: Medium boilers (<50MW) - automatic
Residential-Commercial:
Fireplaces
Control option
€ / kg
Baghouse for med. (automatic)
1,40
boilers in domestic sector
Baghouse for med. (automatic)
1,40
boilers in domestic sector
Fireplaces, non-catalytic insert 585,01
68,5
Page 119
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
Table 0-3: RAINS Marginal NOX abatement costs (€1990) in the year 2010 in road transport and other sectors (IIASA 2003)
Country
Austria
low
Road transport
Control option
Gasoline HDV: catalytic converter
central Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
high
Belgium
low
Other sectors
€ / t Activity
Sector
975 Diesel, light
Industry - other combustion
fuel oil
2049 Heavy fuel oil Industry - boilers
Gasoline 4-stroke pass. cars and LDV: Adv. 18294 Natural gas
conv. with maint. schemes - post-2005
total abated (kt / a)
14,2
Gasoline HDV: catalytic converter
1114 Heavy fuel oil
central Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
2637 Natural gas
high
Gasoline 4-stroke pass. cars and LDV: Adv. 17774 Natural gas
conv. with maint. schemes - post-2005
total abated (kt / a)
22,0
Denmark low
Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
2404 Hard coal,
grade 1
central Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
2404 Natural gas
high
Finland
low
France
Page 120
2216 Hard coal,
grade 1
high
Gasoline 4-stroke pass. cars and LDV: Adv. 16928 No fuel use
conv. with maint. schemes - post-2005
total abated (kt / a)
11,5
low
Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
2047 Hard coal,
grade 1
central Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
2047 Natural gas
Power plants - existing
boilers, dry bottom
Domestic
Oil & Gas - Comb. mod. existing plant
Gas - Combustion
modification, Commercial
Fuel prod. & conversion (other Oil & Gas - Comb. mod. +
than PPs) - combustion
sel. cat. red.
Industry - other combustion
Power plants - new boilers
Gasoline 4-stroke pass. cars and LDV: Adv. 18294 Heavy fuel oil
conv. with maint. schemes - post-2005
total abated (kt / a)
6,3
Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
2216 Natural gas
central Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
Power plants - existing
boilers, dry bottom
Control option
Oil & Gas - Combustion
modification
Solid fuels - Comb. mod. +
sel. non-catal. reduction
Oil & Gas - Comb. mod. +
sel. cat. red - existing plant
Power plants - existing
boilers, dry bottom
Power plants - existing
boilers, dry bottom
Industry - other combustion
Industry - process emissions
Solid fuels - Combustion
modification
Oil & Gas - selective catalytic
reduction - new plant
Oil & Gas - Comb. mod. +
sel. cat. red - existing plant
Oil & Gas - Comb. mod. existing plant
Solid fuels - Comb. mod. +
sel. non-catal. reduction
Process emissions - stage 3
control
Fuel prod. & conversion (other Solid fuels - Combustion
than PPs) - combustion
modification
Power plants - new boilers
Oil & Gas - selective catalytic
€/t
303
3593
15079
19,3
168
2581
11976
72,2
216
1217
22014
38,7
133
1553
11000
59,9
216
3088
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Country
Road transport
Control option
Other sectors
€ / t Activity
Sector
high
Gasoline 4-stroke pass. cars and LDV: Adv. 24152 Natural gas
conv. with maint. schemes - post-2005
total abated (kt / a)
95,8
Germany low
Natural gas 4-stroke pass. cars and LDV:
1754 Heavy fuel oil
3-way catalytic converter
central Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
3146 Brown coal/lignite, grade 2
high
Gasoline 4-stroke pass. cars and LDV: Adv. 17349 Natural gas
conv. with maint. schemes - post-2005
total abated (kt / a)
160,1
Greece
low
Diesel HDV: EURO3 - EU2000 standards
2560 Heavy fuel oil
with maint. schemes
central Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
3772 No fuel use
high
Ireland
Italy
Industry - other combustion
Power plants - existing
boilers, dry bottom
Industry - boilers
Power plants - existing
boilers, dry bottom
Industry - process emissions
Gasoline 4-stroke pass. cars and LDV: Adv. 21066 No fuel use
conv. with maint. schemes - post-2005
total abated (kt / a)
55,9
low
Gasoline HDV: catalytic converter
1738 Hard coal,
grade 1
central Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
4019 Heavy fuel oil
Power plants - existing
boilers, dry bottom
Power plants - new boilers
high
Domestic
low
Gasoline 4-stroke pass. cars and LDV: Adv. 16043 Natural gas
conv. with maint. schemes - post-2005
total abated (kt / a)
6,5
Gasoline HDV: catalytic converter
793 Heavy fuel oil
central Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
high
Luxem-
Domestic
low
1746 Heavy fuel oil
Gasoline 4-stroke pass. cars and LDV: Adv. 35711 Natural gas
conv. with maint. schemes - post-2005
total abated (kt / a)
72,0
Gasoline HDV: catalytic converter
1424 Heavy fuel oil
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Industry - process emissions
Power plants - existing
boilers, dry bottom
Power plants - new boilers
Domestic
Industry - other combustion
Control option
reduction - new plant
Gas - Comb. mod.,
Commercial and Residential
Oil & Gas - Combustion
modification
Brown coal - Comb. mod. +
sel. cat. red. - existing plant
Oil & Gas - Comb. mod. +
sel. cat. red.
Oil & Gas - Comb. mod. existing plant
Process emissions - stage 1
control
Process emissions - stage 3
control
Hard coal - Comb. mod. existing plant
Oil & Gas - selective catalytic
reduction - new plant
Gas - Comb. mod.,
Commercial and Residential
Oil & Gas - Comb. mod. existing plant
Oil & Gas - selective catalytic
reduction - new plant
Gas - Comb. mod.,
Commercial and Residential
Oil & Gas - Combustion
€/t
17976
194,1
267
5506
20939
255,4
119
1000
11000
146,1
103
1519
11153
33,8
119
1105
11153
363,7
263
Page 121
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Country
Road transport
Control option
SUMMA
Other sectors
€ / t Activity
Sector
bourg
central Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
3371 No fuel use
Industry - process emissions
high
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Page 122
Gasoline 4-stroke pass. cars and LDV: Adv. 19601 Natural gas
conv. with maint. schemes - post-2005
total abated (kt / a)
1,0
low
Gasoline HDV: catalytic converter
1203 Other solid low S
central Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
2138 Natural gas
Industry - other combustion
Industry - boilers
high
Gasoline 4-stroke pass. cars and LDV: Adv. 19837 Natural gas
conv. with maint. schemes - post-2005
total abated (kt / a)
42,1
low
Diesel HDV: EURO3 - EU2000 standards
4255 Hard coal,
with maint. schemes
grade 1
central Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
6268 Heavy fuel oil
Industry - boilers
high
Industry - process emissions
Industry - other combustion
Power plants - existing
boilers, dry bottom
Power plants - new boilers
Gasoline 4-stroke pass. cars and LDV: Adv. 41962 No fuel use
conv. with maint. schemes - post-2005
total abated (kt / a)
36,3
low
Gasoline HDV: catalytic converter
1088 Hard coal,
grade 1
central Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
2374 No fuel use
Power plants - existing
boilers, dry bottom
Industry - process emissions
high
Industry - process emissions
Gasoline 4-stroke pass. cars and LDV: Adv. 35328 No fuel use
conv. with maint. schemes - post-2005
total abated (kt / a)
47,4
low
Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
2355 Hard coal,
grade 1
central Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
2355 Hard coal,
grade 1
high
Gasoline 4-stroke pass. cars and LDV: Adv. 16684 Other solid conv. with maint. schemes - post-2005
high S
Control option
modification
Process emissions - stage 2
control
Oil & Gas - Comb. mod. +
sel. cat. red.
Solid fuels - Combustion
modification
Oil & Gas - Comb. mod. +
sel. non-cat. red.
Oil & Gas - Comb. mod. +
sel. cat. red.
Hard coal - Comb. mod. existing plant
Oil & Gas - selective catalytic
reduction - new plant
Process emissions - stage 3
control
Hard coal - Comb. mod. existing plant
Process emissions - stage 1
control
Process emissions - stage 3
control
Fuel prod. & conversion (other Solid fuels - Combustion
than PPs) - combustion
modification
Industry - other combustion
Solid fuels - Comb. mod. +
sel. non-catal. reduction
Industry - other combustion
Solid fuels - Comb. mod. +
sel. cat. red.
€/t
7000
11976
4,1
388
7106
18468
72,7
114
1193
11000
58,4
80
1000
11000
309,9
216
2043
11768
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
Country
Road transport
Control option
total abated (kt / a)
Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
Other sectors
€ / t Activity
11,5
UK
low
2976 Hard coal,
grade 1
central Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
2976 Hard coal,
grade 1
high
Gasoline 4-stroke pass. cars and LDV: Adv. 16396 Natural gas
conv. with maint. schemes - post-2005
total abated (kt / a)
130,3
Czech
low
Diesel HDV: EURO3 - EU2000 standards
2927 Diesel, light
Republic
with maint. schemes
fuel oil
central Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
3424 Hard coal,
grade 1
high
Gasoline 4-stroke pass. cars and LDV: Adv. 40570 Natural gas
conv. with maint. schemes - post-2005
total abated (kt / a)
17,1
Estonia
low
Diesel HDV: EURO1 - 1993 standards
1806 Heavy fuel oil
central Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
3179 No fuel use
high
Hungary
Latvia
Gasoline 4-stroke pass. cars and LDV: Adv. 27047 Brown coal/ligconv. with maint. schemes - post-2005
nite, grade 1
total abated (kt / a)
21,3
low
Gasoline HDV: catalytic converter
1925 Hard coal,
grade 1
central Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
3709 Hard coal,
grade 1
high
Gasoline 4-stroke pass. cars and LDV: Adv. 38380 Natural gas
conv. with maint. schemes - post-2005
total abated (kt / a)
26,4
low
Diesel HDV: EURO1 - 1993 standards
1945 Hard coal,
grade 1
central Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
3424 Natural gas
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003
Sector
Control option
Power plants - existing
boilers, dry bottom
Industry - boilers
Hard coal - Comb. mod. existing plant
Solid fuels - Comb. mod. +
sel. non-catal. reduction
Oil & Gas - Comb. mod. +
sel. cat. red.
Industry - boilers
Industry - other combustion
Power plants - existing
boilers, dry bottom
Domestic
Power plants - existing
boilers, dry bottom
Industry - process emissions
Power plants - existing
boilers, dry bottom
Power plants - existing
boilers, dry bottom
Power plants - new boilers
Power plants - existing
boilers, dry bottom
Power plants - existing
boilers, dry bottom
Industry - other combustion
Oil & Gas - Combustion
modification
Hard coal - Comb. mod. +
sel. cat. red. - existing plant
Gas - Comb. mod.,
Commercial and Residential
Oil & Gas - Comb. mod. existing plant
Process emissions - stage 1
control
Brown coal - Comb. mod. +
sel. cat. red. - existing plant
Hard coal - Comb. mod. existing plant
Hard coal - sel. cat. red. new plant
Oil & Gas - Comb. mod. +
sel. cat. red - existing plant
Hard coal - Comb. mod. existing plant
Oil & Gas - Combustion
modification
€/t
46,4
173
2831
18575
494,2
567
2623
11153
77,5
99
1000
14043
23,5
137
1238
17375
60,6
98
649
Page 123
SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures and Assessment
SUMMA
Country
Road transport
Other sectors
Control option
€ / t Activity
high
Gasoline 4-stroke pass. cars and LDV: Adv. 27047 Natural gas
conv. with maint. schemes - post-2005
total abated (kt / a)
30,2
Lithuania low
Diesel HDV: EURO1 - 1993 standards
1945 Hard coal,
grade 1
central Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
3424 No fuel use
high
Poland
Slovakia
Gasoline 4-stroke pass. cars and LDV: Adv. 27047 Natural gas
conv. with maint. schemes - post-2005
total abated (kt / a)
37,9
low
Diesel HDV: EURO2 - 1996 standards
4520 Other solid low S
central Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
6087 Hard coal,
grade 1
high
Gasoline 4-stroke pass. cars and LDV: Adv. 37190 No fuel use
conv. with maint. schemes - post-2005
total abated (kt / a)
70,4
low
Diesel HDV: EURO3 - EU2000 standards
5091 Other solid with maint. schemes
low S
central Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
5955 Natural gas
high
Control option
Oil & Gas - Comb. mod. +
sel. cat. red - existing plant
Power plants - existing
boilers, dry bottom
Industry - process emissions
Hard coal - Comb. mod. existing plant
Process emissions - stage 1
control
Oil & Gas - Comb. mod. +
sel. cat. red - existing plant
Power plants - existing
boilers, dry bottom
Industry - other combustion
Power plants - new boilers
Industry - process emissions
Industry - other combustion
Solid fuels - Combustion
modification
Hard coal - sel. cat. red. new plant
Process emissions - stage 3
control
Power plants - existing
boilers, dry bottom
Solid fuels - Combustion
modification
Oil & Gas - selective catalytic
reduction - new plant
Oil & Gas - Comb. mod. +
sel. cat. red - existing plant
Power plants - existing
boilers, dry bottom
Brown coal - Comb. mod. existing plant
Power plants - new boilers
Brown coal - sel. cat. red. new plant
Oil & Gas - Comb. mod. +
sel. cat. red.
Power plants - new boilers
Gasoline 4-stroke pass. cars and LDV: Adv. 40570 Natural gas
conv. with maint. schemes - post-2005
total abated (kt / a)
11,3
Slovenia low
Diesel HDV: EURO2 - 1996 standards
2543 Brown
coal/lignite,
grade 1
central Diesel HDV: EURO4 (NOX converter)
3424 Brown coal/lignite, grade 1
high
Gasoline 4-stroke pass. cars and LDV: Adv. 27047 Natural gas
conv. with maint. schemes - post-2005
total abated (kt / a)
5,7
Page 124
Sector
Power plants - existing
boilers, dry bottom
Industry - other combustion
€/t
15079
21,6
98
1000
15079
30,5
388
1286
11000
290,1
388
2863
15079
23,4
242
2651
11976
9,9
Marginal Costs of Abatement for Environmental Problems Caused by Transport
Deliverable D9, version 3.0  July 2003