Alternative Fuels Strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Alternative fuels
strategy for the
Liverpool City
Region
Final report
for
Sefton Council
25th January 2016
Element Energy Limited
Terrington House
13-15 Hills Road
Cambridge CB2 1NL
Tel: 01223 852499
1
Alternative Fuels Strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Executive summary
Background
In the context of rising concern around the health impacts of air pollution, the European
Commission announced in 2014 that it will be pursuing legal action against the UK
government for failing to meet agreed health limits for nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The Liverpool
City Region (LCR) has declared twelve Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) where
national air quality objectives and European limits for NO2 and/or particulate matter (PM10)
are currently being exceeded, and Air Quality Action Plans have been put in place to reduce
levels of these pollutants.
Emissions from heavy goods vehicles with a gross weight of over 3.5 tonnes (HGVs) have
been shown to make a significant contribution to these pollution levels, particularly in Sefton,
where key access routes to the Port of Liverpool currently experience high volumes of HGV
traffic. HGV traffic to and from the port also contributes to pollution levels on routes through
the rest of the LCR, and Liverpool City Council has declared the whole city an AQMA.
The port is undergoing a major expansion which will bring increased HGV traffic in the
AQMAs to and from the port. This is likely to lead to significant adverse impacts on air quality
over the next 5-15 years. Significant reductions to emissions from HGVs operating in the
LCR will be required to mitigate this, and to ensure that compliance with European limits can
be achieved.
The reduction of emissions from HGVs will depend largely on the uptake of lower emission
HGVs, including alternative fuel vehicles such as gas, electric and hydrogen vehicles.
Amongst other enabling factors, alternative fuel vehicles require dedicated refuelling
infrastructure. As the lead authority for the 2014/15 Air Quality Grant fund bid application for
the Liverpool City Region, Sefton Council has commissioned Element Energy to conduct a
feasibility study for gas refuelling infrastructure in the LCR, identifying the potential demand
and setting out a business case. The council has also commissioned the development of an
Alternative Fuels Strategy that looks at longer term opportunities for adoption of alternative
vehicle technologies, to bring reduced HGV emissions levels in Sefton and across the LCR.
Approach
This study considers the possible uptake and emissions impacts of a range of alternative
HGV technologies, including gas vehicles, retrofit technology, cleaner fuels, and zero
emission vehicles such as electric and hydrogen HGVs. The potential uptake and impacts
of alternative fuel buses are also assessed, as buses make a significant contribution to air
pollution in some areas within the Liverpool City Region. Potential demand and key barriers
to uptake of these technologies were identified through consultation with local fleet operators
and other key stakeholders in the area, including Peel Ports, the operator of the port of
Liverpool. The demand consultation also informed a detailed siting exercise for future
refuelling infrastructure, enabling the assessment of the business case for gas refuelling
stations in the Liverpool City Region.
Based on this analysis, this report provides a series of recommendations for the Liverpool
City Region, outlining the actions needed to support uptake of alternative fuel HGVs and
buses and deliver emissions savings in key areas of the region. These recommendations
form the basis for an Alternative Fuels Strategy for HGVs and buses (referred to together
as Heavy Duty Vehicles, or HDVs).
ii
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Uptake of lower emission Heavy Duty Vehicles
New HGVs and buses have much lower NOx and PM emissions compared to the
existing fleet
In 2013, the Euro VI emissions standard for heavy duty diesel and gas vehicles was
introduced, replacing the previous standard, Euro V. Euro VI has much lower limits for NOx
and PM emissions, compared to Euro V, and applies to all new HGVs. As a result, new Euro
VI compliant diesel HGVs and buses already bring significant reductions to NO 2 and PM10,
compared to the older diesel vehicles they replace. As well as being proven in lab tests, NO x
and PM savings have been demonstrated on the road at a range of speeds, and initial results
suggest that emissions levels from Euro VI diesel HGVs are consistently low. This indicates
that significant reductions to HDV NOx and PM10 emissions levels will be achieved over the
next 5-15 years through fleet renewal alone 1.
Alternative HDV technologies have lower emissions than new diesel HDVs, and can
reduce emissions from existing fleets
There are a number of alternative technologies available for HGVs and buses that could
provide further reductions to NOx and PM emissions levels, both in the short term and in the
long term. These technologies also have the potential to bring reductions in CO2 emissions
from the HDV fleet. The options considered in this study are summarised in Table 1, which
describes the emissions benefits and cost premiums of different technologies, compared to
new diesel vehicles, and indicates their current level of availability and uptake in the UK.
1
The Air Quality Directive (2008/EC/50) sets limits for levels of PM10, defined by the EU as fine
particles with a diameter of 10 μm or less. Vehicle regulations (i.e. Euro standards) and tests currently
limit and measure levels of particulate matter (PM) without distinguishing the particle size. However,
reductions to vehicle “PM” emissions are expected to lead to reductions to the measured levels of
PM10 attributed to these vehicles. http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/emissions-ofprimary-particles-and-5/assessment-3;
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32005L0055
iii
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Table 1 Alternative technologies for HGVs and buses (comparison with Euro VI
diesel)2
Gas
Technology
Sparkignition
engine
running on
methane
NOX: similar
to diesel
Emissions
benefits
over diesel3
PM: similar
to diesel
CO2: up to
80% WTW
reduction
(biomethane)
Retrofit
Cleaner
fuels
Electric
Hydrogen
(fuel cell
based)
Improves
emissions of
existing preEuro VI
fleet.
Cleanburning
diesel;
drop-in fuel
suitable for
depotbased
fleets
100% battery
powered;
charged in
depot
Hydrogen
fuel cell
and electric
motor
DPF and
SCR
technologies
can be
combined to
bring Euro
III-V diesel
close to
Euro VI
standard for
NOx and
PM
NOX: up to
10%
reduction
(Gas to
Liquid fuel)
PM: up to
40%
reduction
(Used
Cooking
Oil)
CO2: up to
80% WTW
reduction
(Used
Cooking
Oil)
NOX: 100%
reduction
NOX: 100%
reduction
PM: 100%
reduction
PM: 100%
reduction
CO2: up to
100% WTW
reduction
(renewable
electricity)
CO2: up to
100%
WTW
reduction
(e.g.
electrolysis
using
renewable
electricity)
+50%-200%
+At least
300%
Converted
trucks <18t in
a few UK
fleets; trials
of purpose-
None yet in
the UK –
trials in a
HGVs
Cost
premium
over diesel
Current
deployment
and
availability
+30%
c.1,000 in
the UK –
available in
weight
categories
+10-20% of
capex
GTL: up to
10p/l
UCO: +6%
Few cases
due to lack
of funding
A few fleets
are using
UCO in the
UK
2
Andy Eastlake, LowCVP. Establishing the evidence base to support the strategy, NGV day 2015; Ricardo-AEA,
Opportunities to overcome the barriers to uptake of low emission technologies for each commercial vehicle duty
cycle, 2015; TfL, Safety, Accessibility and Sustainability Panel, July 2015; LowCVP, Defining and supporting the
2015 Low Emission Bus scheme, April 2015; CE Delft, Zero emission trucks: An overview of state-of-the-art
technologies and their potential, July 2013; California EPA Air Resources Board, Draft Technology Assessment:
Medium- and heavy—duty battery electric trucks and buses, 2015
3
WTW: Well-to-wheel. WTW CO2 emissions account for the emissions during fuel production and transport as well
as during the operation of the vehicle
iv
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
up to 40
GVW
built models
in Europe
few
countries
Buses
Cost
premium
over diesel
+20-30%
Current UK
deployment
c.100 single
deckers
10-20% of
capex
GTL: up to
10p/l
+60-100%
At least
400%
1,000s
Available
but no UK
deployment
c.100 single
deckers and
midi buses
18 single
deckers
This study considers the possible emissions impacts of these technologies in the Liverpool
City Region, using ambitious uptake scenarios as summarised in Table 2 below. These
scenarios assume that there is continued support for uptake from UK government, and that
increased availability and reduced cost premiums are achieved, particularly for electric and
hydrogen vehicles (referred to as Zero-emission vehicles in the table).
Table 2 Projected share of HDV technologies in LCR fleet
Retrofit
GTL
Gas
Zero-emission
vehicles
2020
8% buses
2% HGVs
20% buses
and HGVs
3% buses
2% HGVs
3% buses
0% HGVs
2030
3% buses
0% HGVs
30% buses
and HGVs
6% buses
12% HGVs
6% buses
2% HGVs
TECHNOLOGY
Potential impacts of lower emission Heavy Duty Vehicles
Emissions from HGVs and buses could be significantly reduced through normal fleet
replacement with new diesel vehicles, even after accounting for increased HGV traffic
Figure 1 shows the reductions to HDV NOx and PM contributions that can be achieved by
2030 through uptake of Euro VI diesel (and gas) vehicles, as part of the normal fleet renewal
process.
The graphs take into account the predicted possible increase in HGV traffic, due to the
expansion of the port. The arrows show the predicted change in gNOx (and gPM) from HDVs
between 2015 and 2030, calculated by multiplying the weight averaged emission factors of
the current fleet (gNOx/km, DEFRA emission factors at 12 km/h) by the projected increase
in traffic (+28% by 2020 and +88% by 2030)4. Emissions factors for diesel and gas vehicles
are based on COPERT 4 equations 5, calculated at 12km/h to reflect the emissions
contribution from HGVs and buses in urban areas (within the LCR, most of the areas where
NO2 and PM10 levels currently exceed national and European limits are classified as urban
4
Atkins, Access to the Port of Liverpool Feasibility Study, November 2014
COPERT is a model supported by the European Environment Agency that can be used to calculate
emissions from different vehicle types operating at different speeds. This model is used by Defra and
local authorities when accounting for emissions from road transport
5
v
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
areas, and traffic speeds tend to be low due to congestion). According to these assumptions,
the transition to Euro VI vehicles will reduce the urban NOx emissions from HDVs by almost
60% by 2030, and PM emissions by over 90% by 2030, despite the increase in HGV traffic.
If emissions factors are taken at 60km/h, the estimated reductions by 2030 are greater for
NOx (86%) and lower for PM (88%), implying that the relative improvements from Euro V to
Euro VI are greater at higher speeds for NOx, and at lower speeds for PM. In either case,
fleet renewal is predicted to deliver significant emissions reductions.
Figure 1 Baseline reductions in NOx and PM emissions from HGV and bus fleets in
the Liverpool City Region
Uptake of alternative HDV technologies could bring small additional reductions to
HGV and buses emissions in 2020 and 2030
In the short term, technologies which are already widely available, such as Euro VI gas,
retrofit and cleaner burning fuels (including Gas-to-liquid diesel) could provide small
reductions to fleet emissions level, with retrofit and cleaner fuels offering the potential to
bring older vehicles closer to Euro VI standards before they are due for replacement. It is
currently unclear whether Euro VI gas will bring additional emissions benefits over Euro VI
diesel. A new programme of real-world testing of Euro VI gas HGVs, commissioned by DfT
and managed by the LowCVP, will help to clarify the future role of gas in reducing emissions
of NOx and PM10. One key area relates to stop-start operations, for which it is not confirmed
empirically that Euro VI diesel always meets the necessary standard. However, even if gas
HDVs offer no additional benefits from an air quality perspective, uptake may be encouraged
due to the potential reductions of Well-to-Wheel CO2, and of noise.
In the longer term, uptake of zero-emission technologies could bring further reductions and
could have a significant impact on pollution in key areas of concern if these vehicles are
allocated to appropriate routes (that match their range and payload capabilities). However,
emissions savings will be strongly dependent on the successful market penetration of these
technologies, and as such are likely to rely on strong incentives, locally as well as nationally.
Siting opportunities for gas refuelling infrastructure
As part of the consultation with locally operating HGV and bus fleets, several fleets with
potential demand for gas vehicles were identified. Possible locations for gas refuelling
infrastructure were considered in terms of their convenience for these fleets, should they
choose to adopt gas vehicles. Fleet operators were asked to identify their preferred locations
for public infrastructure, among the major junctions in the region. They were also asked to
indicate whether they would prefer to use infrastructure in (or close to) their own depot. As
a result of this consultation, several “clusters” of potential demand in and around the LCR
were located. These are shown in Figure 2 (alongside the existing gas stations in the LCR).
vi
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Figure 2 Existing gas stations in the LCR and potential locations for future stations
Both the business case for a gas station and the appropriate station design depend on the
level of demand for gas in different forms: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and/or Compressed
Natural Gas (CNG). Figure 3 summarises the potential demand for CNG and/or LNG at each
of the locations in 2017 and 2020, based on the potential demand for gas vehicles reported
by the fleets included in the consultation. The different fleets are represented in Figure 3 by
letters A-L. Figure 3 also highlights any specific siting opportunities and (where relevant)
high-level details on access to the gas grid in the area, which could be used to supply high
pressure gas to a CNG station.
Figure 3 Potential demand for LNG and CNG refuelling at different locations (each
letter corresponds to a different fleet)
vii
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Demand estimates include contributions from potential gas fleets with depots in or close to
the specified locations, and from those fleets who stated preferences for public refuelling in
those locations.
Fleet A had potential interest in two different refuelling sites, but may require only one
station. It should also be noted that a station at any one of the sites in Figure 2 could
potentially be used by the fleets based at other demand “clusters”, especially in the case of
the latter three sites, which are quite close together. This means that it is unlikely that there
will be sufficient demand to make stations at all four sites economically viable by 2020. Of
the four potential sites, a station at OMEGA Warrington is most likely, as there is potential
demand from at least four different fleets, amounting to high levels of demand for both LNG
and CNG even if not all of these fleets adopt gas vehicles.
Many fleets would only use stations based in their own depot, or very close by, and it is likely
that more than one station will be needed to meet future demand in the different locations.
There are different options for gas stations, depending on the total level of demand, and it
is likely that future infrastructure will consist of a mix of small and large, depot-based and
open-access stations. Future siting activities should also take account of further potential
opportunities in new developments in the area, and across the North West. Such
opportunities could enable refuelling to be co-located with other large clusters of fleet
depots, or even with freight consolidation centres.
Given the current level of uncertainty around the air quality and GHG emissions benefits of
new gas vehicles, compared to diesel equivalents, the recommended approach for the LCR
is to wait until clear evidence on these issues becomes available before taking specific
actions to support infrastructure deployment. The details and release of the OLEV funding
will also depend on this evidence, which should result from ongoing work including the
DfT/LowCVP’s HGV testing programme, and Element Energy’s study of Well-to-Wheel
emissions from methane vehicles for the ETI. As such, the LCR should seek to bid (or
contribute to a bid) for OLEV funding for gas infrastructure, as and when this funding is
released (likely to be within the first half of 2016).
Conclusions and recommendations for the LCR
The emerging evidence on the real-world emissions performance of new Euro VI diesel HDV
engines implies that on a 2030 timescale, the biggest reductions to fleet NOx and PM will
be achieved through the normal fleet renewal process. An acceleration of this process could
bring these reductions into effect more rapidly, as could the uptake of retrofit technologies
in the pre-Euro VI fleet. The move beyond Euro VI diesel, towards alternative and zeroemission powertrains, has the potential to bring greater reductions, especially post-2030,
and these will also be required to achieve reductions in carbon emissions from HGVs and
buses across the LCR and nationally.
However, purchase premiums and low availability of alternative technologies in HGV and
bus markets present significant barriers to their uptake, and improvements to air quality are
not yet valued by fleets or their customers. Interventions will be required both nationally and
within the LCR in order to deliver the additional emissions savings that alternative
technologies can bring.
Recommended priority actions
This report has provided a large number of potential actions for the authorities of the LCR
to consider taking to reduce the emissions contributions from HGVs and buses. Taking into
account the current pressure on local authorities to reduce costs, and the limited resources
viii
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
that are available to address air quality, the report highlights which of the recommended
actions should be prioritised. The following priority actions have been ranked in the order in
which they could be expected to start (although several actions can be undertaken in
parallel).
1. Set up a working group to review air quality for the LCR and develop
and oversee overarching action plan(s) if required
In order to ensure that future and ongoing air quality measures can be coordinated and
prioritised across the city region, a working group should be set up to bring together the air
quality and transport teams from each of the local authorities within the LCR, along with
Merseytravel and the Local Enterprise Partnership for the LCR. This group would be
responsible for managing progress in terms of air quality improvement in the region.
As well as overseeing progress, the members of the group could coordinate applications for
funding for low emission HDV technologies (such as future rounds of the Clean Bus
Technology Fund, or funding for low emission buses/HGVs), and could engage with fleet
operators, infrastructure providers and other local stakeholders for input to ensure that this
funding is used to maximise the overall air quality benefits for the LCR. The group would
ensure that funding applications highlight the most promising cases for air quality
improvement, accounting for private and public sector fleets where relevant. Coordination
by the LEP, Merseytravel or the FTA could enable opportunities across a range of
stakeholders to be prioritised. Where national fleet operators are involved, the presence of
a clear and targeted emissions reduction strategy could strengthen the case for choosing
the Liverpool City Region for deployment of alternative vehicles.
The working group should consider and discuss the recommendations made throughout this
report. However, the following recommended actions should be the top priorities to be
addressed by the group.
2. Utilise the Merseyside Atmospheric Emissions Inventory to model
future emission levels in the city region, to inform the need for
mitigating actions
To gain an understanding of the need for specific actions to avoid future exceedances of air
quality objectives, the working group should prioritise the modelling of overall NO2 and PM10
emissions levels in 2020 and beyond under a “business as usual” scenario, accounting for
possible changes in traffic and other contributing sources in the AQMAs. This modelling
should use tools such as the Merseyside Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (MAEI): for
example, an ongoing study is using the MAEI to establish the extent of exceedances, due
to the port expansion, on the A5036 (one of the key port access routes).
Future modelling should be designed enable the identification of areas where emissions
savings from HGVs and/or buses can deliver the greatest benefits in terms of air quality,
and should take account of projected emissions from all sources to provide the full context
in terms of possible exceedances. This is needed to inform decisions within the LCR on
what further actions are appropriate to ensure that air quality objectives can be achieved.
This detailed modelling will inform progress on air quality in the city region, and it is important
that resources are made available, both in terms of personnel and funding.
Some of the previous recommendations made in the report (such as an assessment for a
Clean Air Zone) could be politically challenging and demanding in terms of resources, so a
clear idea of what pollution levels might be (relative to objectives) over the next 5 years will
be essential in deciding whether to proceed with such recommendations. Similarly, the
ix
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
modelling could be a key tool in identifying the best opportunities for national funding for
lower emission vehicle technologies, or in engaging with local politicians on the health
benefits of improving air quality.
The results of the modelling would inform the need for specific measures to reduce future
emissions from transport. These measures could include either of the following actions.
3. Conduct a feasibility study for a Clean Air Zone (if evidence from
emissions modelling suggests that accelerated uptake of Euro VI
HDVs is required in the LCR)
If the MAEI modelling results indicate that continued exceedances of emissions limits in
2020 are likely under a baseline scenario (i.e. with no additional measures taken to reduce
emissions from transport), the working group should consider the options to accelerate the
uptake of Euro VI HDVs operating within the relevant area(s), and thereby avoid
exceedances. A feasibility study for a Clean Air Zone (CAZ) should be conducted to
determine the costs and benefits of implementing such a zone, which would be one of the
main options to achieve accelerated fleet renewal (as outlined in Section 6.2.1).
Such a feasibility study would be informed by evidence of the relative emissions of diesel
and gas Euro VI vehicles, such as test results that will become available from DfT and the
LowCVP’s HGV testing programme. If these results show Euro VI gas does not provide
emissions reductions compared to Euro VI diesel, supporting the uptake of Euro VI vehicles
will still be the priority but without specific emphasis on gas vehicles.
4. Apply for OLEV gas refuelling infrastructure funding (when it is
released)
If the MAEI modelling results indicate that continued exceedances of emissions limits are
likely under a baseline scenario (i.e. with no additional measures taken to reduce emissions
from transport), the working group should consider the options to increase the uptake of
lower emission HDVs. If and when OLEV releases funding for gas refuelling infrastructure,
this will be a result of clear evidence of the air quality benefits that adoption of gas vehicles
could bring. Given that a significant level of potential demand for gas vehicles operating in
the LCR has been identified, the LCR should seek to bid (or contribute to a bid) for OLEV
funding for gas infrastructure, as and when this funding is released (likely to be within the
first half of 2016). Any specifications set out by OLEV should be taken into careful
consideration to ensure that the air quality and/or GHG emissions benefits are maximised.
Bids should be informed by the siting exercise presented in this report.
For either of the two recommended actions above, and other possible interventions included
in the recommendations in this report, implementation could take a number of years and
would potentially have significant implications in terms of funding and resources for the
relevant local authorities. As such, the benefits and costs of such interventions should be
assessed against the likelihood of significant emission reductions over time from normal
fleet renewal, as well as the negative health impacts associated with delaying the reductions
to emissions.
Figure 4 shows an indicative timescale for the priority actions, and illustrates the
dependencies between these actions and various pending government announcements.
x
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Figure 4 Indicative timescales for recommendations
xi
Alternative Fuels Strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Contents
Executive summary ............................................................................................................. ii
1
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Background and objectives .................................................................................. 5
1.2 Scope .................................................................................................................. 7
1.3 Approach ............................................................................................................. 8
1.4 Stakeholder consultation ................................................................................... 10
1.5 Structure of the report ........................................................................................ 11
2
Alternative fuel HDVs ................................................................................................ 12
2.1 Current market offer for lower emission HGVs ................................................... 13
2.1.1
Gas and diesel HGVs – the transition to Euro VI ........................................ 13
2.1.2
Zero-emission capable HGVs .................................................................... 18
2.2 Current market offer for lower emission buses ................................................... 20
2.2.1
Gas buses................................................................................................. 20
2.2.2
Zero-emission capable buses .................................................................... 22
2.3 Retrofit and cleaner burning fuels ...................................................................... 23
2.3.1
Cleaner burning fuels ................................................................................ 23
2.3.2
Retrofit technologies ................................................................................. 25
2.4 Refuelling for alternative fuel HDVs ................................................................... 27
2.4.1
LNG .......................................................................................................... 27
2.4.2
CNG ......................................................................................................... 27
2.4.3
Hydrogen .................................................................................................. 28
2.4.4
Charging for electric HDVs ........................................................................ 29
2.5 Conclusions regarding the alternative HDV market ............................................ 29
3
Infrastructure and fuel supply in the Liverpool City Region ................................ 30
3.1 Existing infrastructure for alternative fuel HDVs ................................................. 30
3.2 Renewable fuel supply opportunities .................................................................. 31
3.3 Conclusions regarding fuel supply opportunities................................................. 34
4
Demand for alternative fuel HDVs in the Liverpool City Region .......................... 35
4.1 Key findings from fleet consultation .................................................................... 35
4.1.1
Barriers to uptake of alternative fuel HDVs ................................................ 35
4.1.2
Demand for alternative fuel HDVs ............................................................. 37
4.2 Siting opportunities for gas stations ................................................................... 38
4.3 Summary of demand for gas infrastructure ........................................................ 47
4.4 Recommended approach to gas refuelling infrastructure for the Liverpool City
Region ....................................................................................................................... 48
5
Uptake and impacts of alternative HDV technologies ........................................... 50
5.1 Uptake of short term technologies ...................................................................... 50
5.1.1
Uptake of Euro VI diesel vehicles .............................................................. 50
5.1.2
Retrofit and cleaner diesel for existing fleets .............................................. 52
5.1.3
Uptake of Euro VI gas vehicles .................................................................. 54
5.2 Uptake of long term technologies ....................................................................... 58
5.2.1
Uptake of electric vehicles ......................................................................... 58
5.2.2
Uptake of hydrogen vehicles ..................................................................... 60
5.3 Potential benefits of lower emission HDV uptake ............................................... 62
5.3.1
Reductions in NOx from HDV fleet ............................................................. 62
5.3.2
Reductions in PM from HDV fleet .............................................................. 64
1
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
5.3.3
Reductions in GHG emissions from HDV fleets ......................................... 65
5.4 Conclusions and recommendations on uptake and impacts of alternative HDV
technologies ............................................................................................................... 68
6
Recommendations for an Alternative Fuels Strategy ............................................ 70
6.1 Seeking funding for vehicles and infrastructure .................................................. 71
6.2 Local policy measures ....................................................................................... 73
6.2.1
Clean Air Zones (Low Emission Zones) ..................................................... 74
6.2.2
Toll differentiation and parking incentives .................................................. 78
6.2.3
Role of businesses and local stakeholders ................................................ 78
6.3 Internal measures for consideration ................................................................... 79
6.4 Prioritisation of recommendations for the Liverpool City Region ......................... 80
6.5 National level requirements to facilitate regional actions..................................... 83
6.6 Key conclusions and recommendations ............................................................. 84
Appendix ............................................................................................................................ 86
Authors
For comments or queries please contact:
[email protected];
[email protected]
Tel: 0330 119 0990
With input from CNG Services
Reviewer
Alex Stewart, Associate Director, Element Energy
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the fleet operators who took part in workshops or interviews
and provided vital input for this work: Arriva, Avon Buses, Booker, Brit European, Cumfybus,
DHL, EnterpriseLiverpool, G K Travel, Halton Transport, Howard Tenens, JMD Haulage,
John Lewis Partnership, Merseytravel, Montgomery, Nagel Langdons, NWF Agriculture,
Royal Mail, Sainsbury’s, Stagecoach and Stobart, and the fleet operators within the Local
Authority teams across the Liverpool City Region. The authors are also grateful for the inputs
of other industry stakeholders who brought very relevant insights: CNG Fuels, ENN, Gas
Bus Alliance, Gasrec, Iveco, MAN, Peel Ports, and Scania. The authors would also like to
thank National Grid for providing maps of the local gas network. The authors are also
thankful for the input received from the organisations on the project Steering Committee: the
Freight Transport Association, Halton Borough Council, Knowsley Council, Liverpool City
Council, the Local Enterprise Partnership for the Liverpool City Region, Merseytravel, Sefton
Council, St Helens Council, and Wirral Council.
2
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Abbreviations
AQ
AQMA
AQO
ACT
BSOG
CBM
CBTF
CEF
CNG
CO2
COMAH
DfT
DECC
DPF
EC
EV
FCEV
FCH JU
FTA
GHG
GTL
GVW
H2
HDV
HGV
ICE
IP
LBM
LCEB
LCNG
LCR
LCV
LEP
LGV
LNG
LowCVP
LPG
LTS
N2
NAEI
NO2
NOx
NTS
OEM
OLEV
PHEV
PM, PM10
RE-EV
RCV
RHI
Air quality
Air quality management areas
Air quality objectives
Advanced conversion technologies
Bus Service Operators Grant
Compressed biomethane
Clean Bus Technology Fund
Connecting Europe Facility
Compressed natural gas
Carbon dioxide
Control of Major Accident Hazard
Department for Transport
Department of Energy and Climate Change
Diesel particulate filter
European Commission
Electric vehicle
Fuel cell electric vehicles
Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking
Freight Transport Association
Greenhouse gas
Gas-to-liquid (diesel)
Gross vehicle weight
Hydrogen
Heavy duty vehicle
Heavy goods vehicle
Internal combustion engine
Intermediate pressure
Liquefied biomethane
Low Carbon Emission Bus
Liquid and compressed natural gas station
Liverpool City Region
Light commercial vehicle
Local enterprise partnership
Light goods vehicle
Liquefied natural gas
Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership
Liquefied petroleum gas
Local transmission system
Nitrogen
National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory
Nitrogen dioxide
Nitrogen oxides
National transmission system
Original Equipment Manufacturer
Office of Low Emissions Vehicles
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
Particulate Matter
Range extended electric vehicle
Refuse collection vehicle
Renewable Heat Incentive
3
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
SCR
TCO
TEN-T
TfL
TTW
UCO
WTT
WTW
Selective catalytic reduction
Total cost of ownership
Trans-European Transport Network
Transport for London
Tank to wheel
Used cooking oil
Well to tank
Well to wheel
Note on terminology – particulate matter (PM) and PM10
The Air Quality Directive (2008/EC/50) sets limits for levels of PM 10, defined by the EU as
fine particles with a diameter of 10 μm or less. Vehicle regulations (i.e. Euro standards) and
tests currently limit and measure levels of particulate matter (PM) without distinguishing the
particle size. However, reductions to vehicle “PM” emissions are expected to lead to
reductions to the measured levels of PM10 attributed to these vehicles.
In consequence, both PM and PM10 are referred to in the report: PM in relation to vehicle
emissions (EURO standard or modelling results) and PM10 in relation to legal AQ thresholds.
Note on maps
Maps developed for this project and shown in this report contains Ordnance Survey data ©
Crown copyright and database right 2014.
4
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
1 Introduction
1.1 Background and objectives
Air quality in the UK
Air quality has risen in the national agenda in recent years. High nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
levels have been linked to respiratory problems and premature death, as have emissions of
particulate matter (PM). European legislation set down limits for these pollutants, to be
achieved in member states by 2010. These limits are mirrored in the national air quality
objectives. However, limit values for NO2 and PM10 (particulate matter of less than 10
micrometres in diameter) are still being exceeded in several parts of the UK, and in 2014,
the European Commission announced that it would be pursuing legal action against the UK
government for failing to meet health limits for NO 2. The government faces annual multimillion pound fines from the Commission if compliance is not achieved. These fines could
potentially be passed on (in part or in full) to the relevant local authorities, under the Localism
Act.
High NO2 levels are caused by various contributing factors, but the most significant source
is road transport. Figure 5 shows the estimated average share of nitrogen oxide (NO x) levels
by source, on UK roads outside London where recorded levels of NO2 are in exceedance of
the limit value. Approximately 65% of NOx can be attributed directly to road transport in these
areas, with a further 12% from background transport emissions. Cars and light goods
vehicles (LGVs) have the largest contribution to the road transport share, accounting for
about 60% of incremental road transport emissions across these areas.
Figure 5 Average NOx source apportionment on UK roads outside London exceeding
annual mean NO2 limits in 2013
Air quality in the Liverpool City Region
Figure 6 shows the share of NOx contributions from different vehicle types in two of the
twelve Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) that have been declared within the Liverpool
City Region. These AQMAs have been declared for exceedance of the national Air Quality
Objectives (AQOs) for NO2 and/or PM10 (which are designed to ensure compliance with the
European limits). In three AQMAs within Sefton, on key access roads to the Port of Liverpool,
emissions from HGVs have been shown to make a significant contribution to pollution levels,
far exceeding the contribution that would be expected based on the national average. For
example, at Princess Way (on the A5036) the share of NOx from HGVs within road transport
is over twice that which would be expected nationally. Princess Way has been identified by
5
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Sefton Council as the most challenging AQMA in Sefton in terms of achieving compliance
with NO2 limits, but the contribution from HGVs is similar on the A565 and the A5058.
HGV traffic to and from the port also contributes to pollution levels on routes through the
rest of the LCR, and Liverpool City Council has declared the whole city an AQMA. The High
Street AQMA in St Helens is not considered a key route to the port, but HGVs and buses
also make a more significant contribution to NOx levels here, compared to the national
average as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 6 Average source apportionment for NOx from vehicles for two AQMAs in the
Liverpool City Region6
In order to bring emissions levels in line with limit values, Air Quality Action Plans have been
put in place in the LCR. However, the port is undergoing a major expansion which will
significantly increase the volume of containers being handled on a daily basis, bringing
increased HGV traffic in the AQMAs to and from the port. A recent study on access to the
port7 indicated that the predicted increase in HGV movements would have significant
adverse impacts on air quality over the next 5-15 years; possibly extending the existing
AQMAs around the port access roads and leading to the declaration of new ones.
Through the development of Air Quality Action Plans for these AQMAs, Sefton Council has
determined that the significant reduction of emissions from HGVs in the area is one measure
that can be practically applied in order to achieve compliance with national and European
limits. In addition, major highway schemes to accommodate the increase in traffic are being
explored by consultants for Highways England, alongside other measures that could offset
the increase in emissions from the port expansion.
6
Sefton Council, Draft Air Quality Action Plan for Sefton Council for Air Quality Management Areas 15, January 2015; St Helens Council, Air Quality Action Plan for St Helens Council, March 2013
7 Atkins, Access to the Port of Liverpool Feasibility Study, November 2014
6
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Objectives of the study
The reduction of emissions from HGVs will depend largely on the uptake of lower emission
HGVs, including alternative fuel vehicles such as gas, electric and hydrogen vehicles.
Amongst other enabling factors, alternative fuel vehicles require dedicated refuelling
infrastructure. In this context, Sefton Council has commissioned Element Energy to conduct
a feasibility study for alternative fuel refuelling infrastructure in the LCR, identifying the
potential demand and setting out a business case for infrastructure that will bring reduced
HGV emissions levels in Sefton and across the LCR. The study considers the possible
uptake of a range of lower emission HGV technologies, and provides a detailed assessment
of the business case for gas refuelling infrastructure. The study also considers the potential
for reducing emissions in the LCR through uptake of alternative fuel buses. The findings of
the demand and feasibility study are brought together with recommendations for the
Liverpool City Region, to form an Alternative Fuels Strategy for HGVs and buses (referred
to together as heavy duty vehicles, or HDVs).
1.2 Scope
Vehicle segments included in the study
This study focuses mainly on uptake of alternative and lower emission technologies for
heavy goods vehicles with a gross weight of over 3.5 tonnes (HGVs), as these vehicles
make significant contributions to NOx and PM10 in AQMAs within Sefton on the port access
roads, where HGV traffic is predicted to increase. Buses also make a significant contribution
to pollution levels on a per vehicle basis in Sefton and elsewhere in the Liverpool City
Region, and are also included in the scope of this study. HGVs and buses are referred to as
HDVs.
Geographic scope and timescale of the study
The local authority of Sefton is the
main focus area in which this study
seeks to address emissions from
HDVs. Emissions levels in this area
are at risk of intensifying, due to the
predicted increase in HGV traffic in
Sefton that will come with the
expansion of the Port of Liverpool.
However, this study also considers
the potential uptake of alternative
HDVs within the wider Liverpool City
Region (LCR), including the local
authorities of Liverpool, Knowsley, St
Helens, Halton and Wirral, as well as
Sefton. Inclusion of the wider LCR
expands the opportunities for
identification of appropriate refuelling
sites for infrastructure, and ensures that the Alternative Fuels Strategy presents a coherent
approach that could benefit the whole region.
The study considers HDV uptake and potential emissions levels in 2020 and 2030. This
provides an indication of the measures that will be required to ensure that NO2 and PM10
limits are met by 2020 (the latest date for compliance set by the European Commission),
and gives a longer term picture of whether emissions levels will be compliant in 2030, by
7
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
which time HGV movements are predicted to have almost doubled, due to the port
expansion.
Vehicle technologies included in the study
The technologies included in this study are Euro VI diesel HDVs (which offer significant
emissions savings compared to previous diesel HDVs), Euro VI gas HDVs, retrofit solutions,
cleaner burning fuels (including Used Cooking Oil and Gas-to-Liquid diesel), electric HDVs
and hydrogen HDVs.
A range of other technologies are also available to reduce vehicle emissions. These have
not been considered in this study, either because they are not suited to port-focused
applications (e.g. Liquid Air, which could provide low-emission cooling for refrigerated
HGVs) or if there is evidence that they do not reduce levels of key pollutants (e.g. hybrids
and micro-hybrids).
Methods to address HDV emissions
In the context of reducing HDV emissions in the Liverpool City Region, this study focuses
on the adoption of lower emission and alternative vehicle technologies in HGV and buses.
It should be noted that transport emissions levels in air quality hotspots such as city centres
could also be reduced through other measures, such as the use of freight consolidation
centres outside these hotspots; smaller, more efficient vehicles could then be responsible
for last-mile deliveries into the city centre. This is unlikely to be an option for the port access
routes. Mode shift could also play a role in reducing HDV emissions and emissions from
surface transport in the LCR. For example, Peel Ports aims to reduce emissions levels
around port access roads through increased transport of goods from the port via in-land
waterways8; similarly, increased loading of buses as people shift from driving towards public
transport in certain areas could reduce the overall emissions levels in those areas. Further
consideration of mode shift and freight consolidation is not included in the scope of this
study.
1.3 Approach
The overall approach to the study is summarised in Figure 7 and outlined below.
Analysis of local fuel supply and siting opportunities
To inform the strategy for future refuelling infrastructure development, the opportunities and
constraints for local production and supply of alternative fuels were considered, taking
account of the current and future local production of biomethane, electricity and hydrogen,
and supply of cleaner fuels such as Used Cooking Oil and Gas-to-liquid.
Data on traffic flows, locations of major fleets, available land and existing infrastructure
(including electricity and gas grids) was used to identify an initial shortlist of opportunities for
infrastructure siting.
8
Based on discussions with Peel Ports and Peel Ports Corporate Social Responsibility Report,
2012/2013 http://peelports.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Peel-Ports-Mersey-CSR-Report-20122013.pdf
8
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Figure 7 Approach to the Alternative Fuels Strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Understanding user demand and siting preferences
In parallel to the above, a consultation with local fleets was undertaken in order to gain a
detailed understanding of the current local demand for alternative fuel vehicles, and of the
drivers and barriers that will inform levels of future demand. Fleet operators also provided
input regarding their siting preferences for future gas refuelling infrastructure, enabling the
shortlist of siting opportunities to be reduced to a few key locations. This was combined with
input from other local stakeholders such as Peel Ports, the operator of the Port of Liverpool,
to ensure that new refuelling facilities would not inadvertently cause increases to traffic in
certain areas.
This was supplemented by the development of roadmaps of the alternative HGV and bus
markets, identifying the current and future lower emission options available to fleet operators
and thereby informing the demand consultation.
Business case for a gas refuelling infrastructure in the Liverpool City Region
For the key potential gas station sites identified in the consultation, the level of future
demand for gas was estimated, based on the typical mileages and vehicle types used by
the fleets considering gas vehicle adoption. These demand estimates were used to
determine the appropriate design and economic feasibility of a gas station for each site,
based on input from gas infrastructure providers. Typical specifications have been set out
for different types of gas stations, relevant to the different sites, alongside details of the
processes and indicative timescales that can be expected, and a list of potential station
suppliers. Key risks to successful infrastructure implementation have been identified.
Development of the Alternative Fuels Strategy
Based on the results of the fleet consultation and the roadmap for alternative HDV
technologies, scenarios have been developed for the potential uptake of alternative HGV
and bus technologies in the LCR. For each technology, the emissions impacts of uptake on
urban routes have been estimated, alongside consideration of the likely requirements for
refuelling/recharging infrastructure.
9
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
The findings of the stakeholder consultation, the gas station business case and the analysis
of potential impacts were brought together to form recommendations for the Councils of the
LCR. These recommendations identify actions and interventions that the LCR authorities,
including Merseytravel and the LCR Local Enterprise Partnership, could take to enable
uptake of lower emission HDVs in the LCR, particularly in areas of poor air quality where
HDVs currently make a significant contribution to NOx and PM10 emissions.
1.4 Stakeholder consultation
A range of stakeholders were consulted throughout the project to ensure that the Alternative
Fuels Strategy reflects the needs of the fleets operating in the region, as well matching the
provisions of the current vehicle market, and the particular opportunities and constraints for
infrastructure within the Liverpool City Region.
HGV fleets
Booker
Montgomery
BRIT European
Nagel Langdons
DHL Excel
NWF Agriculture
DHL Tradeteam
Royal Mail
EnterpriseLiverpool
Sainsbury's
Halton Council
Sefton Council
Howard Tenens
St Helens Council
JMD Haulage
Stobart
John Lewis Partnership
Wirral Council
Bus fleets
Other key stakeholders
Arriva
CNG Fuels
Avon Buses
ENN
Cumfybus
Gasrec
G K Travel
Iveco
Halton Transport
MAN
Merseytravel
National Grid
Stagecoach
Peel Ports
Scania
10
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
1.5 Structure of the report
Section 2 sets out the current technologies available in the HGV and bus markets,
comparing the current characteristics associated with different alternative technologies to
those of new diesel vehicles. Technologies are described in terms of the availability of
different options, current cost premiums over diesel, and emissions benefits. The refuelling
needs of different vehicle technologies are briefly described.
The existing provision of alternative vehicle refuelling infrastructure for HGVs in the LCR is
summarised in Section 3, alongside an analysis of the possible fuel supply opportunities for
future infrastructure.
Section 4 summarises the results of the stakeholder consultation, including the key barriers
to uptake of alternative fuel vehicles, and the estimated level of demand for gas vehicles
and refuelling infrastructure in the LCR. The business case for gas stations in the LCR is
considered in relation to four potential locations, and the site most likely to be suitable for a
future gas station is identified.
Section 5 considers the potential future level of uptake for the technologies in scope, and
estimates the savings in HDV emissions that could be achieved if this uptake is delivered.
Finally, recommendations for the LCR are set out, including actions that can be taken by the
local authorities in the area to support the uptake of alternative vehicles and their
infrastructure, in order to deliver emissions reductions in key areas.
11
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
2 Alternative fuel HDVs
There are several alternative fuel technologies now available for Heavy Duty Vehicles
(HDVs). The availability, UK deployment and costs of these technologies for HGVs and
buses are summarised in Table 3 below, alongside the potential emissions benefits that can
be achieved compared to diesel vehicles.
Table 3 Summary of alternative fuel HDV technologies (comparison with Euro VI
diesel)9
Gas
NOX: similar to
diesel11
Emissions
benefits over
diesel Euro
VI10
PM: similar to
diesel
CO2: up to
80% WTW
reduction
(biomethane)
Electric
NOX: 100%
reduction
PM: 100%
reduction
CO2: up to
100% WTW
reduction
(renewable
electricity)
Hydrogen (fuel
cell based)
NOX: 100%
reduction
PM: 100%
reduction
CO2: up to
100% WTW
reduction (e.g.
electrolysis
using
renewable
electricity)
Hydrogen (ICE
diesel hybrid)
NOX: over 50%
reduction dependent on
substitution rate
PM: over 50%
reduction dependent on
substitution rate
CO2: up to 100%
WTW reduction
-dependent on
substitution rate
HGVs
Cost premium
over new
diesel
vehicles
Current
deployment
and
availability
+30%
+50%-200%
+At least 300%
Only 1 supplier
c.1,000 HGVs
in the UK –
available in
weight
categories up
to 40t GVW
Converted
trucks <18t in
a few UK
fleets; trials of
purpose-built
models in
Europe
None yet in the
UK – trials in a
few countries
2 vehicles being
converted in
Fife13
9
Andy Eastlake, LowCVP. Establishing the evidence base to support the strategy, NGV day 2015;
Ricardo-AEA, Opportunities to overcome the barriers to uptake of low emission technologies for each
commercial vehicle duty cycle, 2015; TfL, Safety, Accessibility and Sustainability Panel, July 2015;
LowCVP, Defining and supporting the 2015 Low Emission Bus scheme, April 2015; CE Delft, Zero
emission trucks: An overview of state-of-the-art technologies and their potential, July 2013; California
EPA Air Resources Board, Draft Technology Assessment: Medium- and heavy—duty battery electric
trucks and buses, 2015
10 WTW: Well-to-wheel. WTW CO emissions account for the emissions during fuel production and
2
transport as well as during the operation of the vehicle
11 DfT and LowCVP are in the process of commissioning tests of new generation Euro VI gas trucks
to determine the level of air quality benefits relative to a Euro VI diesel vehicle
13
http://freightinthecity.com/2015/09/fife-council-to-trial-ulemcos-dual-fuel-hydrogen-diesel-refusevehicles-and-vans/
12
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
100,000s
HGVs in
Europe12
Buses
Cost premium
over new
diesel
vehicles
+20-30%
+60-100%
At least 400%
N/A
Current UK
deployment
c.100 single
deckers
c.100 single
deckers and
midi buses
18 single
deckers
N/A
(global)
(100,000s)
(10,000s)
(low 100s)
Cost premiums associated with new technologies are one of the main barriers to uptake, as
they cannot always be recouped through lower running costs in a timescale acceptable to
operators. These premiums are partly due to the lower production volumes and immature
supply chains of alternative vehicle technologies, reflecting the fact that demand is initially
low and that high levels of investment are required to establish mass production. As the
capacity for higher volume production increases, costs per vehicle will decrease, which in
turn can enable higher levels of uptake.
As such, the current levels of deployment and availability for the technologies above can act
as an indication of the relative timescales required for these technologies to reach cost
parity, and more significant levels of uptake. For example, for HGVs, availability of gas
vehicles is much greater for than that of electric and hydrogen HGVs, and cost premiums
are much lower. This indicates that over the next two decades, uptake of gas HGVs is likely
to be greater than uptake of electric and hydrogen HGVs without specific policy intervention.
Conversely, gas and electric buses currently have similar levels of availability and
deployment, and this trend may continue as uptake increases.
For demand to increase in the short term (while cost premiums remain high) incentives are
likely to be required to enable fleet operators to adopt these vehicles. These incentives,
which are likely depend on the different emissions benefits of the different technologies, may
impact the relative uptake of the various technologies.
The markets for alternative fuel HGVs and buses, and other low emission solutions, are
discussed in more detail in the following sections.
2.1 Current market offer for lower emission HGVs
2.1.1 Gas and diesel HGVs – the transition to Euro VI
For HGVs, the most widely available alternative to diesel is gas (i.e. methane), which
includes both natural gas and biomethane. The market for gas vehicles has grown strongly
in Europe over the last 10 years, reaching a total fleet of over a million light vehicles in
12
Based on data from: http://www.ngvaeurope.eu/european-ngv-statistics (extracted 8th December
2015)
13
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
201414. The gas HGV market has been more limited in the UK with under 1,000 trucks
registered as of 2015, but it has nonetheless provided the main low emission option for
HGVs in recent years.
Gas HGV configurations and Euro limits
Gas HGVs are available in different configurations, which can use either gaseous or liquid
methane. Dual fuel vehicles use a mix of gas and diesel15, burnt together in a diesel engine,
while dedicated gas vehicles use a spark ignition engine that only runs on natural
gas/biomethane. Tailpipe emissions of NOx and PM10 are lower for dedicated gas vehicles
than dual fuel vehicles, and also vary according to speed and duty cycle, but there is some
evidence of emissions reductions from both configurations, in comparison to diesel HGVs
of up to Euro V standard16. Many of the gas HGVs currently on the road are diesel vehicles
that were converted to dual fuel, as part of the Low Carbon Truck Trial17.
The Euro VI emissions standard for heavy duty vehicles (introduced in 2013) has much
lower limits for NOx and PM emissions, compared to the Euro V standard, as shown in
Figure 818.
Figure 8 EU emission standards for heavy-duty diesel engines (transient test cycles)
This standard applies to all new HGVs, and as a result, new Euro VI-compliant diesel HGVs
already bring significant reductions to NO x and PM10 compared to the older diesel vehicles
they replace. New gas HGVs must also comply with these standards. As indicated in Figure
9, Iveco, MAN, Mercedes, Scania and Volvo have introduced Euro VI dedicated gas HGVs
in a range of models and sizes, with the model choice in each category expected to increase
over the next few years. Vehicles utilise gas stored on board in the form of compressed
natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG). Dual fuel models are currently only
14
With Italy, Germany and Sweden as the lead markets. http://www.ngvaeurope.eu/european-ngvstatistics
15 The share of gas used, called substitution rate, varies across engine converters but is typically 3050% across the c. 250 dual fuel trucks taking part in the Low Carbon Truck trial
16 Ricardo-AEA for the NAEI, Emissions factors for alternative vehicle technologies, February 2013
17 The Low Carbon Truck Trial provided £11.3m (from OLEV and TSB) to support vehicle procurement
and infrastructure. This included funding for the installation of 17 new gas stations.
18
The Air Quality Directive (2008/EC/50) sets limits for levels of PM10, defined by the EU as fine
particles with a diameter of 10 μm or less. Vehicle regulations (i.e. Euro standards) and tests currently
limit and measure levels of particulate matter (PM) without distinguishing the particle size. However,
reductions to vehicle “PM” emissions are expected to lead to reductions to the measured levels of
PM10 attributed to these vehicles. http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/emissions-ofprimary-particles-and-5/assessment-3;
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32005L0055
14
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
available through conversion of diesel HGVs, with Volvo’s dual fuel truck only due to become
available post-201619.
Although some companies do convert Euro VI vehicles, there is no legal requirement for the
vehicles to be “re-tested” after the conversion process, so, there is no guarantee that they
will meet Euro VI standards. As yet, no test results for dual fuel HGVs are available, and
there are early indications that the market has started to shift towards dedicated vehicles,
with OEMs reporting interest and trials of Euro VI dedicated gas models in various fleets.
Several technology providers continue to work on dual-fuel technology, with Westport
providing versions of its High Pressure Direct Injection 2.0 (HDPI 2.0) system to OEMs in
2016, which is expected to meet the Euro VI in future models. Figure 9 summarises the
current UK availability of Euro VI compliant gas HGVs.
Figure 9 Availability of Euro VI gas vehicles20
Uncertainty of NOx emissions benefits
As the relative limit levels would suggest (Figure 8), the emissions savings from Euro VI
diesel and gas HGVs, compared to Euro V HGVs, are significant. As well as being proven
in lab tests, NOx savings have been demonstrated on the road at a range of speeds, and
initial results suggest that NOx levels from Euro VI diesel HGVs are consistently low even at
very low speeds. This is not the case for Euro IV and Euro V diesel HGVs, for which NOx
levels tend to increase at lower speeds.21
Within the Euro VI market, there is currently limited evidence of the emissions benefits of
dedicated gas vehicles, compared to diesel vehicles. PEMS testing on controlled routes in
France suggests that NOx emissions from Euro VI gas HGVs could be 30%-70% lower than
19
This will be closer to dedicated than previous dual-fuel vehicles, with a small (c.5%) injection of
diesel to provide the ignition source for the gas (no spark plug). This vehicle will not be able to run on
diesel alone, but only on 95% gas, 5% diesel mix.
20 Based on Element Energy discussions with OEMs, and public announcements
21 TfL, In-service emissions performance of Euro 6/VI vehicles, 2015; ICCT, Comparison of real-world
off-cycle NOx emissions control in Euro IV, V, and VI, 2015
15
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Euro VI diesel equivalents, while PM10 emissions seem to be extremely low (well below the
limit value) from both Euro VI diesel and Euro VI gas HGVs22.
As the model choice within the UK gas vehicle market increases, Euro VI gas vehicles are
likely to be used by more fleets, bringing clearer evidence of their emissions performance.
DfT has recently commissioned the LowCVP to manage a programme of real world testing
of Euro VI gas trucks, which should provide clearer evidence of their emissions compared
to Euro VI diesel, and may reveal advantages at certain speeds and duty cycles23. The
results of this testing will inform the future approach to government policy and public funding
for these vehicles. For example, real world emissions of Euro VI in stop-start operation have
not yet been measured. There is also no evidence yet on how Euro VI diesel performance
may change over time, and it is possible that the technology used to reduce emissions from
diesel combustion could be less effective after a few years of operation. However, Euro VI
regulations are intended to avoid such effects and since 2006, manufacturers have been
required to carry out in-use conformity testing to ensure that HGVs and buses meet the limits
over their operating lifespan, (e.g. up to 700,000 km or 7 years depending on the vehicle
category)24. Gas is inherently a cleaner burning fuel than diesel, and Euro VI gas engines
may be less likely to be affected by possible increases in emissions over time. Evidence of
performance over time will be needed to inform the case for uptake of Euro VI gas HGVs.
Greenhouse gas emissions benefits
DfT’s real world testing programme and other studies such as the Low Carbon Truck Trial
will also bring results for Tank-to-Wheel (TTW) and Well-to-Wheel (WTW) emissions of CO2
and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). These findings will play a role in influencing future
policies around gas vehicles. Dedicated gas vehicles can bring around 10% reductions in
TTW CO2 emissions25. WTW savings from gas vehicles vary depending on the source of
the gas: for dedicated gas vehicles, natural gas can bring up to 15% WTW CO2 savings
compared to diesel, whereas biomethane could bring 60-65% reductions in WTW
emissions26.
Methane has a much higher global warming potential than CO 227. The combustion of
biomethane for transport effectively diverts methane from entering the atmosphere, and
therefore the WTW emissions (measured in CO2 equivalent) are much lower for biomethane
than for natural gas. One area of uncertainty in terms of WTW emissions from gas is the
issue of methane slip, whereby unburnt methane can escape to the atmosphere via the
exhaust. Methane can also escape to the atmosphere at various points during the supply
chain, particularly when gas is stored as a liquid (LNG). This can include cold methane
venting at stations, in the case of low utilisation. Work to quantify the possible extent of
methane slip and emissions is ongoing: the LowCVP and Ricardo-AEA have been working
with DfT to bring together an evidence base for methane HGVs, which will include testing of
methane emissions28, and Element Energy is currently exploring the Well-to-Wheel
emissions associated with methane vehicles, for the Energy Technologies Institute.
22
ADEME data based on PEMS (portable emissions measurement system) testing of Iveco trucks in
France. ADEME is the French public agency active in the implementation of public policy in the areas
of the environment, energy and sustainable development.
23
http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/news,lowcvp-to-manage-gas-hgv-test-programme-for-dft_3338.htm
24 TfL, In-service emissions performance of Euro 6/VI vehicles, 2015
25 Andy Eastlake, LowCVP. Establishing the evidence base to support the strategy, NGV day 2015
26 Ricardo-AEA, Opportunities to overcome the barriers to uptake of low emission technologies for
each commercial vehicle duty cycle, 2015
27 CO has a Global Warming Potential of 1, whereas methane has a GWP of 34 (over 100 years).
2
Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013
28 http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/projects/commercial-vehicle-working-group/hgv-methane-strategy.htm
16
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Costs and funding
Euro VI gas trucks currently have a cost premium of around £25-35k (30%) compared to
their diesel equivalents29, but due to the lower price of gas compared to diesel on a per mile
basis, gas vehicles can be cheaper than diesel equivalents in terms of their Total Cost of
Ownership (TCO). For high mileage vehicles (i.e. with minimum 160,000 km/year) payback
can be achieved in 2-4 years. A significant factor enabling this is a fuel duty differential
between diesel and gas (amounting to c.13.5p/km for HGVs), which will be in place until
2024. OEMs have suggested that cost premiums could drop to £10k as volumes increase.
Many fleets adopting gas vehicles to date have been part of the Low Carbon Truck Trial,
and have used trial funding to cover cost premiums. Most of the vehicles supported by the
trial are already on the road, and the majority of future gas vehicle purchases will not benefit
from trial funding. The trial has also funded the installation of gas refuelling infrastructure,
and some of the remaining stations planned under the project will support uptake by specific
fleets in cases where a station would not otherwise be financially feasible. Funding to
support infrastructure deployment has also been provided by the European Commission,
through the TEN-T (Trans-European Transport Networks) programme and the Office for
Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV) announced an allowance of £4 million in 2014. Further
details of the OLEV funding have yet to be announced, and will depend on the results of
ongoing work to understand the real air quality and GHG emissions benefits of gas vehicles
(as described previously).
Table 4 Funding and policy support for gas HGVs and infrastructure
Measures supporting the gas vehicle market

Fuel duty differential: announced in December 2013, to be maintained to 2024
(25p/kg for gas; 58p/l for diesel, translating into a difference of 13.5p/km30)

£4m OLEV fund to support infrastructure for gas HGVs (funding not yet released)

Low Carbon Truck trial: £11.3m from OLEV and TSB to support HGV
procurement and infrastructure. This included funding for the installation of 17 new
gas stations

TEN-T funding: Gasrec and ENN have secured funding to develop gas refuelling
networks across key transport corridors in Europe
The shift away from a converter market to an OEM market will have implications for the
residual value of gas vehicles, which may influence the overall business case for fleets.
Currently, converted dual fuel vehicles (which make up the majority of the UK gas HGV fleet)
can be “recovered” i.e. converted back to diesel, after their fleet lifetime has expired. The
vehicles can then be sold on, and this forms a key part of the operator business model. With
OEM gas vehicles, the resale market is much more uncertain, and this is currently one of
the barriers to uptake. However, it can be argued that if the uptake of CNG is successful
there may be a premium for 5 year old dedicated CNG trucks, as they will still have 10 years
life remaining in their CNG storage tanks, and will benefit from low cost fuel if operated from
a public CNG station (such as Leyland).
One important limitation at present is that dedicated CNG/LNG trucks are limited to a
maximum of 330 hp (available from Scania and Iveco, see Figure 9). This is good for 4 x 2
29
Based on input from OEMs and fleet operators: e.g. premium of £35,000 for gas trucks over diesel
equivalent was quoted by Eddie Stobart
30 Based on fuel consumption figures for articulated HGVs (8mpg for diesel and equivalent of 10%
efficiency loss for dedicated gas)
17
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
tractors limited to 40 tonnes. However, 44 tonne trucks comprise the majority of the large
diesel truck market and therefore a 420 hp CNG/LNG tractor is required. Scania have
indicated that they are working on such a truck, and that it may come to market in 2016.
Some operators prefer to use 44 tonne 6 x 2 tractors even if their operations do not require
44 tonnes, because of the residual value for such trucks, which are generally sold to ownerdrivers who need the flexibility to offer services at 44 tonnes 31. One way to reduce truck
WTW GHG is to move to smaller trucks where possible, as these are more fuel efficient for
a given payload. However, several sectors in the UK do rely on 44 tonne trucks, particularly
in general haulage and heavy bulk operations.
2.1.2 Zero-emission capable HGVs
If the on-the-road performance of Euro VI diesel HGVs proves to be in line with test results,
the gradual replacement of HGV fleets will bring a considerable baseline level of NOx and
PM10 emissions reductions over the next 5-15 years (at least on a per mile basis). Uptake
of Euro VI gas HGVs may bring additional improvements to air quality, although there is
currently limited evidence regarding the level of emissions reductions that may be achieved.
However, in order to achieve more significant improvements to air quality in cities in the long
term, particularly in light of projected population and traffic increases, zero-emission capable
HGVs are likely to be required. Unlike internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, zeroemission HGVs will not be subject to variation in emissions with speed, which can result in
HGVs producing higher levels of emissions when operating at low speeds in city centres
(often the areas with highest demand for lower pollution levels). Instead, zero-emission
capable HGVs will have the capability to operate in zero-emission mode (e.g. using their
electric drive-train only) when operating in areas where air quality is of high importance.
Such vehicles are also likely to be required to achieve long term UK targets for CO2
reductions from the transport sector.
Zero-emission and zero-emission capable HGVs are currently being trialled in small
volumes worldwide, including both plug-in and hydrogen vehicles.
Electric HGVs
The size and weight of current batteries (usually lithium ion technology) mean that for electric
trucks, there is a need to compromise between electric range and payload. As such, plug-in
trucks are currently limited to predictable, back to base operations with either relatively low
payload requirements, or low range requirements.
Electric trucks have been deployed in two key applications: urban deliveries, and drayage.
For urban deliveries, trucks are typically <18t GVW. For example, the electric Renault
Maxity (4.5t) has been used in urban deliveries and refuse collection, and a trial electric
Renault Midlum (16t) has been successfully used for fresh and frozen food deliveries.
EMOSS & HyTruck have developed trial vehicles of up to 19t GVW for city distribution
applications in Europe; for example, a 19t vehicle has been in use by Heineken in the
Netherlands since 201332.
Recently, heavier electric trucks of up to 44t GVW have been trialled in drayage
applications. These applications typically involve trip distances of 2-100km, returning to the
same base at least twice each day (potentially offering opportunities for “top-up” charging
31
For instance, one UK supermarket has explained that this is their reason for choosing 44 tonne
vehicles.
32 http://frevue.eu/heineken-starts-using-new-electric-heavy-goods-vehicle-in-amsterdam/
18
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
during unloading). In Munich, a 36t electric truck manufactured by Terberg is running a
delivery route for BMW with a daily distance of 16km, with port-based trials ongoing in
California and Shanghai.
The HGVs trialled to date typically have electric ranges of less than 150km. Both of the
applications above tend to have short daily distances, with a high level of stop-start which is
beneficial for regenerative braking technology. But many truck applications have a minimum
of 200 km/day. Haulage is a key example of this, and there are currently no plug-in solutions
for this market.
Hydrogen fuel cell HGVs
Due to the relative energy densities of batteries and hydrogen, it is technically feasible for
hydrogen-powered trucks to achieve greater ranges and payloads than plug-in equivalents.
However, significant developments are needed in several aspects of hydrogen mobility
before manufacturers develop vehicles for long haul applications. Reductions to costs of fuel
cells and of hydrogen storage and production are likely to come as a result of current
developments in fuel cell cars and their associated infrastructure, and this could enable the
development of fuel cell HGVs suitable for long-haul applications.
Range-extended electric vehicles (RE-EVs) have a hydrogen fuel cell and storage tank in
addition to a battery, extending the maximum range of zero-emission driving compared to a
pure battery electric vehicle. Heavy RE-EVs are currently being trialled in similar applications
to plug-in trucks, with greater daily driving distances, e.g.:


Urban deliveries – a converted Renault Maxity, with a range of 200km, is being used
by La Poste (France)33
Drayage – RE-EVs with minimum range of 160km will be trialled at Los Angeles
port34
Hydrogen diesel hybrid HGVs (Internal Combustion Engine)
ULEMCo in the UK converts diesel vehicles to run on dual fuel, hydrogen and diesel. The
company has previously converted a fleet of diesel vans, and is currently working with Fife
Council to convert two refuse trucks. The benefit of converted vehicles is that they have the
same maximum range as their diesel equivalents, but can also use the hydrogen tank alone,
enabling low emission driving.
Costs of zero-emission capable HGVs
The available plug-in trucks currently have high cost premiums (up to three times the diesel
equivalent), and trials tend to be supported by funding at either national or European level.
However, fuel and maintenance cost savings can be significant. For a small truck, fuel cost
savings could be in the region of 18p/km. In addition, electric vehicles are exempt from the
Vehicle Excise Duty and from MOT (goods vehicles only).
Premiums for hydrogen HGVs are also high, with production costs of fuel cell HGVs
estimated at over four times that of diesel HGVs, and significant premiums even for ICE
hybrid vehicles35. Funding for trials of hydrogen vehicles and infrastructure is often accessed
33
http://corporate.renault-trucks.com/en/press-releases/2015-02-23-the-french-poste-office-andrenault-trucks-jointly-test-a-hydrogen-powered-truck-running-on-a-fuel-cell.html
34
https://chargedevs.com/newswire/ports-of-los-angeles-and-long-beach-to-test-seven-hybrid-fuelcell-class-8-trucks/
35 CE Delft, Zero emission trucks: An overview of state-of-the-art technologies and their potential, July
2013
19
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
as part of a wider project. For example, the Fife vehicle conversions are part of the
Levenmouth Community Energy project, which is supported by the Scottish Government’s
Local Energy Challenge Fund. Other RE-EV trials and demonstrations in Europe are part of
European projects, funded by the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH JU).
2.2 Current market offer for lower emission buses
As with HGVs, the introduction of Euro VI standards for heavy diesel engines will bring a
strong baseline level of NOx and PM10 emissions reductions in bus fleets as new buses
replace existing pre-Euro VI vehicles. The alternative fuel bus technologies which are now
available have the potential to lower these emissions even further. Zero-emission options
are becoming available from an increasing number of manufacturers, and these in particular
will provide opportunities for targeted emissions reductions in areas where air quality
improvement is a high priority.
The main current options for alternative fuel buses are summarised in Figure 10, and
discussed in more detail in the following sections.
Figure 10 Summary of alternative fuel bus technologies
Hybrid and micro-hybrid buses are also available, but these technologies are not discussed
here, as there is mixed evidence on NOx and PM10 emissions compared to diesel buses,
with some results suggesting that these systems can be similar to or more polluting than
diesel buses36. This may be due to stop-start technologies designed to reduce energy
consumption, which can reduce the effectiveness of emissions-reducing technologies.
Geofencing technology could enable buses to identify when to employ stop-start systems,
based on certain geographic boundaries, which could make these solutions more
appropriate for operation in areas of high NOx and PM10 levels. This could also be applied
to zero-emission capable technologies, to ensure that zero-emission capability is used in
within AQMAs.
2.2.1 Gas buses
Over 100 gas buses are now operating in UK cities, using compressed (bio)methane
delivered via the gas grid (referred to as CNG buses hereafter). The two models currently
available (the MAN EcoCity and the Scania/ADL E300) are both 12m single-deckers, and
these have been successfully adopted in several cities, including Reading (34 gas buses),
36
Ricardo-AEA for the NAEI, Emissions factors for alternative vehicle technologies, February 2013
20
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Sunderland (40+ gas buses), and across the North-East and North-West of England.
Several new models are expected to become available in the UK over the next few years,
including double decker and 18m options. The specifications of the current and upcoming
models are summarised in Figure 11 below.
Figure 11 Specifications of CNG buses available or soon to be available in the UK 37
As is the case with HGVs, Euro VI gas and diesel buses offer significant reductions to NOx
levels compared to diesel buses of up to Euro V standard, as can be seen in
Figure 12.
Figure 12 NOx emissions from CNG and diesel buses on the MLTB test cycle38
Figure 12 shows that single decker Euro VI CNG buses do not offer additional savings in
NOx emissions compared to Euro VI diesel vehicles. This is also the case for PM emissions
(which are extremely low, “n/a” in MLTB test results, for Euro VI diesel and gas). Well-to37
Element Energy compilation of public information and direct conversations with OEMs
TfL, Safety, Accessibility and Sustainability Panel – Emissions from the TfL Bus Fleet, July 2015;
LowCVP, Defining and supporting the 2015 Low Emission Bus scheme, April 2015
38
21
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Wheel CO2 savings can be as high as 80% compared to Euro V diesel, if the buses are run
on biomethane. In addition, CNG buses bring 50% reduction in noise, compared to diesel
equivalents, which is seen as an advantage by drivers and operators.
Costs and funding
CNG buses currently have purchase cost premiums of £25k-£35k, and these premiums
could be partially covered by public funding, e.g. from OLEV’s Low Emission Bus Scheme.
However, even without capex funding, payback can be achieved within 3-6 years
(depending on mileage) due to fuel cost savings of up to 6p/km compared to diesel. Cost
savings between gas and diesel can be even greater for buses than for HGVs, as
biomethane can directly qualify for the Low Carbon Emission Bus (LCEB) incentive, which
can be accessed through the Bus Service Operators Grant. Table 5 summarises the
various policies currently supporting uptake of gas buses.
Table 5 Funding and policy support for gas buses
Measures supporting the gas vehicle market

Fuel duty differential: announced in December 2013, to be maintained to 2024
(25p/kg for gas; 58p/l for diesel, translating into a difference of c.13p/km39)

Low Carbon Emission Bus (LCEB) incentive: for the proportion of km travelled
using biomethane (minimum 50%), gas buses can claim 6p/km through the Bus
Service Operators Grant (BSOG)

OLEV £30m Low Emission Bus Scheme: funding available for uptake of low
emission buses – commercial and tendered bus services are both eligible
2.2.2 Zero-emission capable buses
The increasing need for improved air quality in cities has led to a demand for zero-emission
buses, particularly for use in pollution hot-spots such as city centres. Electric buses are the
more widely available of the zero-emission bus options, and hydrogen fuel cell buses, also
zero-emission, are at trial stage in London and Aberdeen.
Electric buses
Around 100 fully electric buses, from Wrightbus, Optare and BYD are now in use in the UK,
with other manufacturers set to bring vehicles to the UK market. Available OEM models to
date have been midi buses and 12m single deckers, but a conversion of a double decker
has been carried out by Magtec, and other double decker models are expected to be
available for trials by the end of 2015 (including five in London, from BYD and Alexander
Dennis40). Vehicle ranges have so far been limited to around 240km, which restricts the use
of electric buses to specific routes.
For single deck buses, cost premiums can be between £60k and £100k, but in a recent
report for the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership (LowCVP), TTR recently estimated that the
payback period can be as low as 4 years even without incentives or grants, due to low fuel
and maintenance costs41. In addition, the LCEB incentive allows operators of certified Low
Emission Buses (including electric buses) to claim 6p/km through the BSOG. In order to
39
Based on fuel consumption for single decker buses: 12.5 MJ/km for diesel buses, 13.8 MJ/km for
gas buses (assumes a 10% efficiency loss for gas buses)
40 http://www.themanufacturer.com/articles/first-ever-electric-double-decker-london-red-bus/
41 TTR for the LowCVP. Barriers and opportunities to expand the low carbon bus market in the UK,
Task 2: Review and role of incentive mechanisms, 2014; California EPA Air Resources Board, Draft
Technology Assessment: Medium- and heavy—duty battery electric trucks and buses, 2015
22
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
achieve LCEB certification, a bus must undergo testing to demonstrate that it produces “at
least 30% lower Greenhouse Gas Emissions than the average Euro III equivalent diesel bus
of the same total passenger capacity”, on a Well-to-Wheel basis.
Electric buses are also eligible for funding from the aforementioned OLEV Low Emission
Bus Scheme.
Hydrogen fuel cell buses
Hydrogen fuel cell buses use a hydrogen fuel cell to power an electric motor, and are
refuelled with hydrogen in a similar way that gas buses are refuelled with gas (reflecting the
conventional diesel refuelling process). Van Hool currently manufactures fuel cell buses for
European markets, and has provided the 10 buses currently on trial in Aberdeen. WrightBus
(with a Ballard fuel cell) also has hydrogen buses in the UK: 8 buses are being trialled in
London. The range of fuel cell buses is typically in the region of 250-400km.
The hydrogen transport sector is in the early stages of commercialisation. Cost premiums
for hydrogen buses are currently very high (i.e. >£600k premium per vehicle), reflecting the
fact that series production has not yet begun 42. However, negotiations for large scale
procurement in Europe are ongoing, and it is likely that this could bring costs in the next few
years down to the region of £500k. Fuel costs will be equivalent or lower than diesel.
Like electric buses, new hydrogen buses will be eligible for funding under the Low Emission
Bus Scheme, and for the LCEB incentive. However, these are not expected to cover the
cost premiums for hydrogen buses, and cities or operators looking to adopt these vehicles
in the next few years will need to seek additional sources of funding, typically through joint
European projects funded by the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH JU), and
potentially through national funding bodies such as Innovate UK (previously the Technology
Strategy Board).
2.3 Retrofit and cleaner burning fuels
The vehicle technologies discussed so far are likely to be introduced to fleets as old vehicles
are replaced when they reach the end of their ownership period. However, a number of
different solutions are available for reduction of emissions from vehicles already in operation.
These solutions, including drop-in fuels and retrofit technologies, have the advantage that
they can be immediately implemented, rather than waiting for the appropriate time in a
vehicle purchase cycle. As such, the resulting emissions reductions can be evident in a
shorter timescale. The potential benefits of cleaner burning fuels and retrofit technologies
are summarised below.
2.3.1 Cleaner burning fuels
Emissions associated with different diesel fuels can vary significantly, even within fuels
meeting the required EN590 standard. In a recent study, when tested in the same vehicle,
the ‘best’ EN590 fuel had 13% lower NOx emissions (end of exhaust line) and 20% lower
PM emissions (before exhaust treatment system) than the ‘worst’ fuel43. Gas to Liquid diesel
(GTL) and Biomass to Liquid diesel have been found to be amongst the cleanest burning
fuels. Used cooking oil can also bring significant emissions benefits.
42
Roland Berger for the FCH JU. Fuel cell electric buses – potential for sustainable public transport in
Europe, 2015
43 SP3H, Horizon 2020: SME instrument program ‘I-FUSION’ – Vehicle running, fuel variability and
fuel impacts, 2015
23
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Gas to Liquid diesel
GTL diesel is a synthetic diesel produced from natural gas by a chemical transformation
known as Gas to Liquids. Due to its very low content of sulphur and aromatics, it burns very
cleanly and produces lower local emissions compared to diesel from fossil fuel.
Table 6 below shows the percentage emissions reductions that have been measured in
engine lab tests and on-the-road trials in London, for use of GTL diesel compared to fossil
diesel in heavy duty vehicles (all on the road trials were in buses).
Table 6 Emissions reductions from GTL diesel in different engines 44
HDV engine emission
standard
Relative NOx change (%)
Relative PM change (%)
Lab
Trial
Lab
Trial
Euro I
16
-
18
-
Euro II
15
-
18
-
Euro III
5-19
4-13
10-34
9-22
Euro IV
5-16
-
31-38
-
Euro V
5-37
3
23-33
23
Euro VI
No test results for Euro VI yet available
As indicated by the ranges shown in the table, the extent of emissions reductions that can
be achieved through use of GTL diesel is uncertain. However, the percentage reductions
measured during on-the-road trials tend to be on the lower end of the lab test ranges.
Greater reductions are achieved for PM compared to NOx.
The advantage of GTL diesel is that it can be either blended with conventional diesel, or
used directly as a replacement fuel, with no required changes to the vehicles nor the diesel
storage tanks. Due to the cost premium associated with the fuel (up to 10p/l, depending on
volume) it is most suitable for use in back-to-base fleets using their own in-depot refuelling,
if these fleets can subsidise the cost-premium e.g. by obtaining funding for Air Quality
improvements. This could be beneficial for fleets with long vehicle ownership periods, where
the natural renewal rate (and therefore the adoption rate for lower emission vehicles) is low.
However, adoption of this fuel will strongly depend on a reduced cost premium, whether this
is through large scale procurement, or through some form of government incentive to reduce
the premium.
Figure 13 shows the possible costs of NOx abatement from use of GTL. For three different
cost premiums (6p/l, 8p/l, and 10p/l), the graph shows the cost of NO x abatement in £/ton
NOx saved, which (as shown in the graph) will vary depending on the % emission saving
achieved for each vehicle using GTL instead of regular diesel. The savings assumed are
based on data for Euro IV vehicles.
The abatement costs can be compared to the cost of NOx abatement through replacement
of all Euro V buses with Euro VI buses in 2015 (including early replacement). Figure 13
shows that if the premium of GTL is reduced to 8p/l, the NO x abatement cost when GTL is
44
Adapted from: Shell, GTL Fuel Knowledge Guide – Synthetic technology for cleaner air. p3 and p59.
See Appendix for original data tables.
24
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
used in Euro IV buses can be equivalent or lower than that associated with replacement of
Euro V buses with Euro VI buses. This relies on NOx savings of at least 9% being achieved.
It should be noted that the process of synthesising GTL is highly energy intensive, and a
dedicated supply chain is required to transport the fuel from Qatar where it is produced.
Therefore the WTW carbon footprint of GTL is likely to be significantly higher than that of
natural gas and diesel.
Figure 13 NOx abatement costs for GTL at different cost premiums and emissions
savings levels45
Used Cooking Oil
Test results from dual fuel (UCO and diesel) trucks operating as part of the Low Carbon
Trucks trial show that PM emissions have been reduced by approximately 40% for converted
diesel trucks, particularly for ultrafine particles. NOx emissions were similar between diesel
and UCO vehicles. The trucks have an average diesel substitution ratio of 86%, and show
no loss in efficiency; in some cases, the vehicles showed small improvements to efficiency.
On average, the WTW CO2 emissions savings achieved by UCO vehicles are estimated at
83%.46
The conversion of a diesel vehicle to use UCO costs around £6,000.
2.3.2 Retrofit technologies
A number of retrofit technologies are available to reduce emissions on older vehicles to the
level of more recent Euro standards through various after-treatment processes. Although
45
Based on range of savings shown in Shell GTL Fuel Knowledge Guide. NOx abatement cost shown
for replacement of all Euro V buses with Euro VI buses, in 2015 (i.e. including early replacement),
based on: Defra, Abatement cost guidance for valuing changes in air quality, May 2013.
46 Atkins & Cenex, Low carbon truck and refuelling infrastructure demonstration trial evaluation –
Second annual report to the DfT – Executive summary, 2015
25
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
different technologies are used to reduce PM10 and NOx respectively, they can be used in
combination to reduce levels of both pollutants simultaneously. Table 7 shows the potential
emissions reductions that can be achieved by installing these technologies on diesel
vehicles, and the associated costs.
Table 7 Emissions reductions and costs of key retrofit technologies47
Main Technologies
Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF)
Reduces PM close to Euro VI levels
Selective Catalytic Reduction
(SCR)
Reduces NOx close to Euro VI levels
Emissions impact
Costs
DPF and SCR
technologies can be
combined to bring
emissions of Euro III-V
buses close to emissions
of Euro VI buses (on
Euro III bus, equivalent to
90% reduction for NOx
and 95% for PM)
Combined system
costs c.£10,00012,000
The technologies described in Table 7 have been demonstrated, and shown to be effective,
through DfT funded schemes over the last few years 48. For example, Transport for London
retrofitted Diesel Particulate Filters on all 6,500 of its Euro II and Euro III buses, and
Selective Catalytic Reduction technology on over 1,400 Euro III buses.
Funding is now available through DfT’s Clean Bus Technology Fund (CBTF) for local
authorities to cover the costs of installing retrofit technologies for buses, specifically in areas
of poor air quality. This covers the capital costs of the retrofit, including installation. Funding
will be awarded by prioritising proposals that can achieve the highest reductions to NOx
emissions in areas with air quality issues, with the condition that the retrofitted buses must
remain in operation for a minimum of 5 years. The greatest benefits are likely to be seen in
Euro III or Euro IV buses operating on city centre routes or other high-traffic routes.
The equipment does not affect bus operations or payload, but additional maintenance such
as filter cleaning is likely be required, and these costs are not covered by the CBTF.
The retrofit technologies described above can also be used to improve NOx and PM10
emissions for HGVs, but the only eligible funding for this historically has been for vehicles
operated by local authorities (e.g. refuse collection vehicles) under the Clean Vehicle
Technology Fund. The LowCVP has been running an Accreditation Scheme for retrofit
technologies, since September 201549. This may encourage uptake of retrofit in HGV fleets
by providing independent verification of the applicability of the equipment for different
operational environments. However, funding is likely to be required to support this uptake.
47
Information provided to Cumfybus & Halton Transport as part of tender for retrofits; TfL, Safety,
Accessibility and Sustainability Panel, July 2015; Ricardo-AEA for the NAEI, Emissions factors for
alternative vehicle technologies, February 2013
48
TfL, Safety, Accessibility and Sustainability Panel – Emissions from the TfL Bus Fleet, July 2015
49 http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/projects/commercial-vehicle-working-group/hgv-accreditationscheme.htm
26
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
2.4 Refuelling for alternative fuel HDVs
Under normal operations, 90% of buses and many HGV fleets (80% of articulated trucks,
45% of rigid trucks50) use their own in-depot refuelling facilities: one or more diesel tanks
located in the depot will be used to refuel the vehicles as and when required. Some HGV
fleets use open-access refuelling stations, either in addition to their own refuelling
facilities, or exclusively using open-access stations. One of the key challenges for uptake of
alternative fuel vehicles will be the installation and use of the new infrastructure, whether
this is publicly accessible, or in individual depots. In some cases, refuelling (or recharging)
will be significantly different from the diesel refuelling process and will require drivers and
fleet operators to adapt to new processes.
Gas can be used as a transport fuel in either compressed or liquid form, known as CNG
(compressed natural gas) and LNG (liquefied natural gas) respectively. Both of these fuels
can be provided to fleets at open-access stations, or at in-depot refuelling facilities. In
addition, some station operators have deployed semi-private refuelling facilities under
cooperative contractual arrangements, allowing pre-agreed operators to share these
facilities. This maximises station throughput and reduces dependency on public
infrastructure rollout.51
2.4.1 LNG
LNG (liquefied natural gas) is used by HGVs. In the UK, it is currently trucked inland from
Avonmouth and Isle of Grain (from late 2015) to refuelling sites, and is stored in cryogenic
tanks at a temperature of around -160°C, and a pressure of <10bar. Refuelling with LNG
can be done manually in a similar timeframe to conventional diesel or petrol refuelling, but
training is required to account for the differences in the dispensing equipment and the driver
must wear protective gloves and face protection.
Due to the way it is stored, there is generally a minimum level of turnover required for an
LNG station to ensure that unacceptable levels of “boil-off” do not occur. As such, the
minimum level of demand that would be required for a small station would be about 10
vehicles making regular use of the station. Some infrastructure providers can provide
containerised stations catering for this level of demand, likely to be suitable for fleets
refuelling in-depot. As the number of gas vehicles in the fleet expands, the capacity of the
station can be increased. Public/open-access LNG stations are usually put in place when
a certain level of demand has been committed from fleets operating in the area, and the size
of the station will depend on this committed demand.
LNG is odourless. If vehicles are fuelled using LNG, gas detection must be installed in
workshops, as well as a system to handle gas in the on board storage tanks when a vehicle
is being repaired (this gas would vent off after around 2 days, which cannot be done indoors).
Once the gas has vented off, if the vehicle has a dedicated engine then some means to
refuel it has to be found, or it must be towed to an LNG filling point.
2.4.2 CNG
CNG (compressed natural gas) can be used in both HGVs and buses. CNG is like the
conventional diesel or petrol refuelling process, but training is required to ensure the driver
50
Element Energy, DfT Modes 3 study, 2011
Element Energy for the LowCVP, Transport Energy Infrastructure Roadmap to 2050 – Methane
Roadmap, 2015
51
27
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
knows how to connect the vehicle to the CNG dispenser hose. The gas smells of natural
gas.
The majority of CNG-only gas stations in the UK use a connection to the gas grid to access
gas, which is then compressed to 200 or 250 bar onsite52. Gas is transported at different
pressures at different points in the gas network, and depending on the location of the station,
gas can be accessed at higher or lower pressures. In general, station providers prefer to
connect at higher pressure points (e.g. the Local Transmission System) where possible,
because this reduces the power demand for further compression, and the associated costs.
It also provides gas with a lower well-to-wheel greenhouse gas footprint and has lower
maintenance costs because flow-rate is typically 2,000 m3/hr, compared to 400m3/hr from a
medium pressure grid.
In some cases, a large CNG station with a high capacity can act as a “mother” station, from
which CNG can be loaded in trailers which are then transported to smaller “daughter”
stations. Daughter stations have relatively low capital costs and therefore require lower
levels of “anchor” demand in order to be economically viable. As such, these could be
suitable for fleets using in-depot refuelling, adopting a small number of CNG vehicles. This
also eliminates the need for gas grid connection, which is not possible for all depots. A
station with sufficient capacity to be a “mother” station would be more suitable as a
public/open-access CNG station, to be used by several different fleets, in an area with a
high level of demand. A new CNG daughter station opened at Scunthorpe in November
2015. This will fuel 20 dual fuel trucks initially, with a total annual consumption of around
500,000 kg. There are two Mother Stations able to supply this: at Crewe and (from
December 2015) at Leyland.
Trucked-in LNG can also be pumped to 250 bar and then vaporised onsite, enabling LNG
stations to dispense both forms of gas (LCNG stations).
2.4.3 Hydrogen
As with LNG and CNG, hydrogen refuelling reflects the conventional diesel or petrol
refuelling process, with a dispenser with a nozzle being used to fill the tank. Training is
required for drivers or staff refuelling the buses. Hydrogen is dispensed as a high pressure
gas, at 350 bar for buses and trucks.
There are currently two refuelling stations in the UK for hydrogen buses, one of which uses
delivered hydrogen (in London), and one of which initially used delivered hydrogen and now
uses hydrogen produced by an on-site electrolyser (in Aberdeen). In the initial stages of
adoption by UK cities, station configurations are likely to continue to vary on a case-by-case
basis. In the majority of cases, refuelling for the hydrogen buses will be based within bus
depots, or in close proximity to bus depots, and will be used exclusively by buses. Stations
will be sized according to demand. However, in some cases, bus operators may be willing
to share the station with vans or HGVs, to improve the overall economics of the station (and
potentially access lower cost hydrogen). In such cases, stations may be classified as “open
access” but are likely to have dedicated refuelling zones for use by buses and for other
vehicles, to ensure that there is no conflict in refuelling times.
52
Currently all CNG buses have 200 bar tanks, while converted dual fuel trucks have 250 bar tanks.
Different nozzles are required for refuelling at 200 or 250 bar. However, OEM trucks are expected to
accommodate both 200 and 250 bar designs. To deal with this, CNG stations will provide dual
200/250 bar dispensers.
28
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Refuelling stations for hydrogen trucks is likely to reflect the case of buses, as there are
often similar constraints around scheduling of vehicle operations, and, similarly to buses,
HGV operators are unlikely to have the high demand for rapid refuelling associated with the
passenger car market. Therefore, 350 bar refuelling should be sufficiently high pressure.
2.4.4 Charging for electric HDVs
Currently, the majority of electric heavy duty vehicles in operation are re-charged on a daily
basis, when they return to their depot (typically overnight). Electric HGVs and buses have
high daily energy needs, and require correspondingly large batteries (300-400kWh
compared to the typical 20-40kWh for electric cars). Many HGVs and buses have relatively
small windows of inactivity (e.g. 6 hours or fewer), so high power charging points are needed
to ensure that these batteries will be fully recharged.
Typically, fleet operators with electric HGVs or buses will need to install one charge point of
at least 40kW per electric vehicle. For fleets charging more than two or three vehicles
simultaneously, this can lead to high costs for reinforcement of the local distribution network
to accommodate the large power demand.
Inductive charging on bus routes is currently being trialled in the UK. This may prove to be
a feasible long-term solution that will enable the roll-out of electric buses without costly
network reinforcements. Other alternatives, such as overhead catenary cables and dynamic
inductive charging, may also play a role in the future.
2.5 Conclusions regarding the alternative HDV market
Key conclusions to inform an Alternative Fuel Strategy are as follows:




Diesel and gas Euro VI vehicles bring significant emissions reductions to NO x
and PM10 compared to Euro V and older diesel vehicles; this has been
demonstrated in real world conditions as well as in lab tests.
It is unclear whether Euro VI gas brings additional improvements to air quality
or GHG emissions compared to Euro VI diesel, but various studies on realworld emissions and Well-to-Wheel emissions pathways will provide evidence
on this by mid-2016.
Various solutions are available to reduce the emissions of pre-Euro VI vehicles,
including retrofit solutions and cleaner burning fuels.
Zero-emission buses are becoming more widely available, but options are
currently very limited for zero-emission HGVs, and are only applicable for low
mileage and low pay load applications.
29
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
3 Infrastructure and fuel supply in the Liverpool City Region
This section summarises the current provision of refuelling facilities for alternative fuel
vehicles, setting the context for new HDV refuelling infrastructure in the LCR. Opportunities
for local production and supply of alternative fuels are then discussed.
3.1 Existing infrastructure for alternative fuel HDVs
As discussed in Section 2, the main alternative fuel option for HGVs is gas. Figure 14 shows
the current provision of gas stations in the UK and around the LCR, including public and
private stations53. As shown on the right hand side of the figure, the Runcorn station (serving
Arriva’s gas buses) is currently the only gas station within the boundaries of the LCR. This
station is in Arriva’s depot and is unlikely to be convenient for use by other fleets.
Figure 14 Gas refuelling points in the UK and the Liverpool City Region
Supplying gas to refuelling stations
As discussed in Section 2.4.2, for CNG stations, connection to the Local Transmission
System (LTS) is the most economical solution to accessing gas, as this reduces the costs
of compression to higher pressure. However, both Intermediate Pressure (IP) and Medium
Pressure (MP) pipelines can also offer connection opportunities for CNG stations. These
are lower pressure than the LTS, at 2-7 bar and 75 mbar- 2 bar respectively (the LTS is in
the 7-70 bar range).
Figure 15 shows some of the LTS and IP pipelines in the Liverpool City Region. Feasibility
assessments would be required to identify whether gas could be extracted for a CNG station
at any point on these pipelines.
For LNG stations, liquefied gas is distributed to refuelling stations via road delivery from LNG
facilities with truck loading facilities (at Avonmouth, due to close in 2016, and at Isle of
Grain). In November 2015, National Grid opened a truck loading facility at the Isle of Grain,
with the capacity to fill 36 LNG tankers per day, ensuring a secure supply for LNG stations
across the UK.
53
Note that some “public” stations require an appointment or access code
30
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Figure 15 Gas distribution pipelines in the Liverpool City Region54
There are currently no electric or hydrogen HGVs or buses operating within the LCR.
Infrastructure for these vehicles will be installed as and when required for their adoption,
and as such there is not yet any suitable infrastructure for these vehicles.
3.2 Renewable fuel supply opportunities
The Well-to-Wheel GHG savings associated with uptake of alternative fuel vehicles depend
on the production pathway of each fuel. The LCR offers several opportunities to supply
alternative fuel vehicles operating in the region with locally produced renewable fuels,
simultaneously increasing the GHG reductions from uptake of these vehicles, and
supporting local businesses. These supply opportunities are summarised in Table 8 below.
Table 8 Current and potential supply of alternative fuels in the Liverpool City Region
Linking to transport
demand
Supply
Biomethane



Electricity

Local grid-injection of biomethane is
currently around 6,000 tonnes/year;
further facilities in planning stages
Current grid-injected biomethane
could supply 100-200 dedicated
CNG trucks or buses
No local production of liquid
biomethane
1% of current local renewable
electricity generation could power
50 electric buses55

Station providers can
produce or “purchase”
biomethane and track
its use through Green
Gas Certificates

Small electric fleet
operators: access
renewable energy
54
Element Energy mapping of National Grid data
Total renewable electricity generated in the LCR in 2014: 424 GWh (based on installed capacity in
2014, extracted from DECC Renewable Energy Planning; 2012-2013 average load factors). Electric
bus demand based on mileage of 70,000 km/year, 1.1 kWh/km
55
31
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report

Hydrogen



Cleaner fuels

Local renewable generation is set to
triple with the expansion of Burbo
Bank offshore windfarm

Existing local production of byproduct hydrogen could supply a
station of around 80kg/day – this
could increase in future
80kg/day could meet the needs of a
few hydrogen trucks (e.g. converted
dual fuel) or buses
Potential for hydrogen production
via electrolysis: 1% of current
renewable electricity generation in
the LCR could produce enough
hydrogen to power 11 buses56

Used Cooking Oil: United Biscuits
factories (including one in Liverpool)
produce UCO which could supply
their own fleet or other fleets


tariffs from their
supplier
Operators with
greater charging
needs: Power
Purchase
Agreements with
renewable electricity
generator(s)
Existing pipeline for
by-product hydrogen
could directly supply a
hydrogen station
For electrolysis:
power purchase
agreement between
electrolyser operator
and renewable
electricity
generator(s)
Cleaner fuels can be
supplied directly for
use in existing fleets
Biomethane
There are several possible production pathways for CNG and LNG. Compressed and
liquefied forms are both available in fossil fuel form, or as biomethane, which includes
production routes such as anaerobic digestion, landfill gas and (in the future) gasification of
biomass. Biomethane offers much greater CO2 savings than fossil gas on a WTW basis57.
Biomethane can be injected into the gas grid, receiving the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI)
which incentivises grid gas injection (biomethane is more expensive to produce than fossil
gas). CNG station operators extracting gas from the grid can indirectly purchase injected
biomethane via the Green Gas Certificate Scheme, which tracks sales of biomethane
through the gas grid from production to end use. This enables gas fleets and station
operators to account for their purchase of biomethane. Some operators already use this
mechanism to reduce the WTW emissions of their gas vehicles. For buses, this allows
operators to qualify for the Low Carbon Emission Bus (LCEB) incentive.
Figure 16 shows the current and potential future capacity for biomethane production and
injection in the LCR. The ReFood Widnes plant is believed to inject around 6,000 tonnes of
biomethane per annum, which could fuel 100-200 buses or refuse trucks. There are also
several potential projects that could significantly increase this capacity in the next few years.
56
Hydrogen bus demand based on mileage of 70,000 km/year, 3.3 kWh/km (equivalent to
10kg/100km), electrolyser efficiency 60%
57 Ricardo-AEA for the DfT, Waste and Gaseous Fuels in Transport – Final Report, 2014
32
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Commercial and industrial food wastes and sewage are the main feedstocks for biomethane
production, but domestic food waste could also be used as a feedstock. The main barrier to
this is identifying a cost-effective method of aggregating food waste from collections in
different areas.
There is currently no nearby production of liquid biomethane. Its production is limited
nationwide, with only one site (in Surrey, owned and operated by Gasrec).
Figure 16 Biomethane supply: local grid-injection facilities and future production in
the LCR
Renewable electricity production
Local renewable generation facilities (including onshore wind, landfill gas and anaerobic
digestion plants in the Liverpool City Region, as well as the nearby offshore windfarms)
currently generate enough electricity to meet around 6% of total electricity consumption in
the LCR. 1% of the renewable energy generated locally would already meet the demands
of around 50 electric buses, and this is set to triple with the expansion of the Burbo Bank
offshore windfarm.
Renewable electricity can be “allocated” to end users. Fleet operators with one or two
electric vehicles could buy renewable electricity by accessing renewable energy tariffs from
their energy supplier. For operators with greater numbers of vehicles and significant
charging needs, Power Purchase Agreements could be made directly with the
generator(s)58.
Hydrogen pipeline and electrolysis
The main opportunity for local hydrogen supply is a pipeline that runs through part of the
LCR, carrying by-product hydrogen produced at a local Ineos Chlor facility. The current
surplus of hydrogen at Ineos Chlor could supply a station with a capacity of around 80kg/day,
and this could potentially increase in future. A station of this size could meet the needs of a
58
PPA still requires an electricity supplier to act as intermediary but the user effectively enters in a
contract with a generator, benefitting from an identifiable supply source and potential price reductions
33
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
few hydrogen trucks. If demand in the area was identified, a suitably located hydrogen
station would have access to hydrogen at a competitive cost (significantly below the diesel
equivalent). This would depend on the station location, due to the additional cost that would
be associated with transporting the hydrogen away from the point of extraction (e.g. £2/kg
for a delivery radius of 30-60km59). For use by FCEVs, the hydrogen may require
compression and purification, which would lead to additional capital cost for installation of a
suitable station. Establishing a supply of hydrogen for a station would depend on commercial
arrangements being agreed with the production facility.
Hydrogen could also be produced using an electrolyser, which could be located in (or close
to) a future hydrogen refuelling facility. The electrolyser operator (likely to be the station
operator) could use a Power Purchase Agreement to ensure a renewable supply of
electricity.
Cleaner burning fuels
United Biscuits are currently trialling sixteen dual fuel Used Cooking Oil (UCO) trucks in
Ashby de la Zouch (Leicestershire). To create the fuel, Convert2Green blends UCO (which
is created as part of the United Biscuits manufacturing process) with biodiesel. United
Biscuits have a factory at Aintree in Liverpool, and could potentially supply UCO to fuel their
own vehicles based in the area or for use by converted vehicles in other fleets. However,
the supply is likely to be limited to a small number of vehicles.
There is currently no supply of Gas-to-liquid diesel (GTL) in the UK, which reflects the fact
that there is no demand for this fuel yet. However, Shell is currently looking to identify
demand from buses or HGVs in the North-West of England, as there is an opportunity for
the fuel to be delivered to a facility in Wirral, where an existing Shell fuel storage tank is
available. According to Shell, once a sufficient demand is established, the supply chain for
the area could be implemented within a matter of weeks. Salford City Council is currently
exploring possible funding options to subsidise the use of GTL in waste trucks; if funding is
secured, an initial supply chain could be established locally.
3.3 Conclusions regarding fuel supply opportunities
Key conclusions to inform an Alternative Fuel Strategy are as follows:


59
Current levels of production of biomethane, renewable electricity and hydrogen
are ample to meet current demand from alternative fuel HDVs and could
accommodate a significant increase in demand. The exception to this is
demand for liquid (rather than compressed) biomethane, for which national
supply is very limited
Fleets adopting alternative fuel vehicles have the opportunity to form links with
producers of renewable fuel to maximise their reductions to GHG emissions on
a well-to-wheel basis
Element Energy calculations for the Aberdeen Hydrogen Strategy, 2014
34
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
4 Demand for alternative fuel HDVs in the Liverpool City
Region
4.1 Key findings from fleet consultation
This section of the report presents the results of a consultation with HDV fleets operating in
the Liverpool City Region. Several workshops, followed by questionnaires and interviews,
were held in order to assess potential demand for alternative fuel HDVs. In total, 14 HGV
fleet operators and 5 bus fleet operators provided input to the consultation, covering c. 800
HGVs and c.900 buses operating in the area.
Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 describe the key results from the consultation, covering the main
barriers to uptake of alternative fuel HDVs, and the estimated demand for alternative fuel
HDVs, respectively.
4.1.1 Barriers to uptake of alternative fuel HDVs
Figure 17 below summarises the barriers and motivations for uptake of alternative fuel
vehicles within HDV fleets. The number of crosses (or ticks) represents the extent of each
barrier (or motivation) for the key “lower emission” alternative vehicle technologies60.
Figure 17 Barriers and motivations for uptake of alternative fuel HDVs
Currently, lack of vehicle availability and model choice is one of the main barriers to
uptake of alternative fuel vehicles: several fleets that reported interest in lower emission
alternatives cited the fact that these alternatives were not available for their category of
vehicle or their preferred model. This is especially relevant to HGVs, where the availability
of different alternative fuel vehicles has a long way to go to match the diverse range of diesel
vehicle types and classes.
60
Euro VI diesel and retrofit/cleaner fuel solutions were not discussed in detail at the consultation
stage, as Euro VI diesel is the baseline “new” technology, and retrofit and cleaner burning fuels are
simple to implement, provided that costs can be covered.
35
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Compounding this barrier to uptake is the variation in awareness of availability / model
choices, among fleet operators. Several fleet operators were not aware of the appropriate
options available, or had ruled out a technology on the basis of out-of-date perceptions of
performance. In general, consultees in national “innovation manager” or “Environment
manager” type roles (where these existed) had a greater awareness of technology
availability and performance, compared to managers of smaller local fleets, even among
subsidiaries of large early adopter fleets.
Cost and motivations to pay
Cost is the dominant driving factor of fleet purchase decisions. Fleet operators usually
consider costs on a total cost of ownership (TCO) basis, considering fuel and maintenance
costs as well as the cost of the vehicle, over the period of ownership (which can be as short
as 3-5 years for high mileage trucks). In many cases, the TCO for alternative fuel vehicles
is currently higher than that of the diesel equivalents and therefore uptake of those vehicles
(beyond very small trials) would be unlikely. Several factors can come into this, including:




Purchase cost premiums / lease premiums over diesel vehicles
The bulk-buy discount that can be applied to diesel vehicles cannot yet be applied for
gas HGVs
Additional infrastructure installation costs (for in-depot refuelling)
Resale value (resale is an essential part of the business model for many major
operators, and the resale market for alternative fuel vehicles is not yet established)
Fleets often use minimum payback periods as a metric to determine whether to buy a vehicle
that is more costly than their usual diesel option. If the fuel and maintenance cost savings
that the alternative vehicle will bring can cover the purchase premium within a certain
number of years (usually significantly below the expected vehicle lifetime), then it is likely to
be approved for uptake (subject to a trial successfully demonstrating the technical
performance). This is the case for most fleets currently operating gas HGVs, and for CNG
buses.
The business case can be made even more attractive by incentives such as the fuel duty
differential (or MOT exemption for electric goods vehicles) and in some cases, public funding
covering the purchase cost premiums (which are currently more commonly available for
buses). However, even without these measures, there are some cases in which the payback
period is sufficiently short that using these vehicles can provide significant cost savings on
a TCO basis. This can be the case for gas HGVs and buses in fleets with very high annual
mileages. In these cases, cost is a motivation for uptake of alternative fuel vehicles, rather
than a barrier.
A few operators are also motivated by reductions to fleet carbon emissions. For example,
some national organisations with internal carbon targets (such as Sainsbury’s) will adopt
vehicles with a longer payback period than the usual threshold, if they can deliver a certain
reduction in fleet carbon emissions. This usually only applies to organisations (and their
contractors) with business areas outside the transport and haulage industry, where costs
can be covered elsewhere.
Reductions to emissions other than CO2 (i.e. improvements to air quality) do not yet form
part of corporate social responsibility strategies for such organisations. Although some fleets
expressed interest in adopting alternative technologies to improve air quality, the view was
that customers are not willing to pay more for lower emissions and therefore no value is
currently placed on air quality (unless air quality based low emission zones/urban entry
restrictions are in place, with operational impacts for fleets). Unless there is a favourable
36
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
TCO, fleets have no motivation to consider reducing their NOx or PM10 emissions beyond
the levels that will come with adoption of Euro VI diesel engines (see Section 2.1.1).
Infrastructure
Several fleets also cited the lack of refuelling infrastructure as a barrier to uptake of
alternative fuel vehicles. While many of the consulted fleets refuel in their own depots (and
therefore would not use a public infrastructure network), fleets without prior experience of
the technologies were deterred by the processes (and costs) involved in installation of
refuelling or recharging facilities in their own depots.
4.1.2 Demand for alternative fuel HDVs
Demand for alternative fuel HGVs
Consultation with HGV fleets was focused primarily on demand for gas HGVs, as this is
currently the main alternative fuel option available (as discussed in Section 2.1). Several
fleet operators expressed interest in the potential adoption of gas vehicles, for operation in
the Liverpool City Region. Zero-emission technologies were also discussed, in the context
of national uptake, and to gauge interest in trials in the region. Although some interviewees
had considered trialling zero-emission HGVs, none of the fleets consulted yet had plans to
adopt electric or hydrogen trucks in the Liverpool City Region.
As part of the consultation, fleets operating in the LCR with experience of operating gas
vehicles elsewhere in the UK were interviewed, in order to identify their plans regarding
future uptake of gas vehicles, and whether this might include operations in the Liverpool City
Region. These fleets included logistics and distribution companies as well as major
supermarkets. Several of these fleets had plans to make gas part of their “business as
usual”, and as such, operators predicted a significant uptake of gas vehicles in their LCRbased fleets. However, in most cases, plans for adoption were subject to various enabling
factors, including:





Availability of dual fuel trucks from OEMs (see Section 2.1.1)
Increased availability and model choice of LNG and CNG trucks in high GVW
categories
Maintenance of the fuel duty cost differential beyond 2024 (and/or:)
Closing of the cost premium between gas and diesel trucks
Availability of liquid biomethane
These factors were also applicable to a number of other locally operating fleets, who were
in the process of trialling (or considering trials of) gas HGVs in the UK, at the time of the
interviews. Overall, there was a high level of potential demand with 9 fleets being potential
gas trucks buyers over the next few years, representing up to 200 gas trucks. This level of
demand is dependent to varying degrees on the realisation of the above factors (with
availability of dual fuel and dedicated trucks being the most essential).
Of the interviewed fleet operators, those with operations around the port had either not
considered uptake of gas HGVs internally, or had found that their operations were not
compatible (e.g. insufficient mileage for a favourable TCO).
Demand for alternative fuel buses
Two national bus operators in the LCR operate around 75% of routes in the region, with the
remaining routes accounted for by smaller operators (10%) and by routes supported by
Merseytravel (15%).
37
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
The two major operators (Arriva and Stagecoach) have both experience of operating gas
buses and electric buses, and Stagecoach currently operates 6 hydrogen buses in
Aberdeen. At the time of the interviews, the operators had the following plans for their
operations in the Liverpool City Region:


Arriva:
o Expansion of CNG fleet (Runcorn depot in Halton) to 19 buses (currently 10)
o Adoption of 13 electric buses at Green Lane depot in Liverpool
Stagecoach:
o Adoption of 100 CNG buses at Gillmoss depot (Knowsley/Liverpool boundary)
o Potential adoption of electric buses in 1-2 years
The envisaged timescale for the deployment of the above vehicles was to be dependent to
some extent on the results of various OLEV Low Emission Bus Fund applications, both in
2015 and in possible future rounds. Arriva’s CNG fleet expansion could potentially go ahead
without OLEV funding, as they already have the necessary infrastructure, whereas in the
other cases for both bus operators, funding for vehicles and/or infrastructure is likely to be
a requirement for uptake.
Of the small bus operators, Cumfybus and Halton Transport were interested in adopting
retrofit technologies. An application for the Clean Bus Technology Fund (funding decision
yet to be confirmed) was made through Merseytravel, for the retrofit of 31 buses with
combined SCR and DPF technologies, and additional micro hybrid technology. Further
uptake of such technologies is likely to depend on continued funding.
4.2 Siting opportunities for gas stations
As discussed in Section 4.1.2, the consultation identified a number of HGV and bus fleets
with potential demand for gas vehicles. As a further aspect of the consultation, possible
siting opportunities for gas refuelling infrastructure were considered in terms of their
convenience for these fleets should they choose to adopt gas vehicles. Fleet operators were
asked to identify their preferred locations for siting of public infrastructure, among the major
junctions in the region. They were also asked to indicate whether they would prefer to use
infrastructure in (or close to) their own depot.
Figure 18 and Figure 19 below show a number of locations which were identified as having
“clusters” of potential demand in and around the LCR, with indicative levels of potential
uptake of gas HGVs (and corresponding LNG or CNG demand) for each location. Demand
estimates include contributions from potential gas fleets with depots nearby, and from those
who stated preferences for public refuelling in those locations.
38
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Figure 18 Existing and planned gas stations and potential locations for future stations
Figure 19 Estimated potential demand for gas refuelling at different locations
There are five main options for the installation of gas refuelling infrastructure, in terms of
station design and fuel type. The suitability of each option for a particular site depends on
the expected demand for the different fuel types (e.g. as laid out in Figure 19), and on the
options for fuel supply (e.g. grid connection capabilities for CNG). Table 9 summarises the
key requirements for these five station types, including an indication of the ‘anchor demand’:
the minimum gas demand needed for a station to be economically viable. Space
requirements for stations are mainly dependent on the access requirements for different
vehicles (i.e. the size of the vehicles refuelling will dictate the turning circle space, if needed)
and will also depend to some extent on the type of station. For further explanation of the
practicalities of different station models, see Section 2.4.
39
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Table 9 Options for gas refuelling infrastructure
Fuel type
Anchor
demand
(kg/day)61
Comment on station
capacity
Trailer-based CNG
CNG
No minimum
per se but
must be
within c. 100
miles of a
high capacity
station
Gas grid-connected
CNG
CNG
900
Capacity depends on grid
connection pressure
Containerised LNG
LNG
850
At 1,500-2,000 kg/day, case
for a skid-based station
becomes economic
Skid-based LNG
LNG
1,500-2,000
No maximum
Skid-based L-CNG
LNG, CNG
2,000 LNG
1,400 CNG
CNG capacity depends on
compressors
The “mother” station would be
the Leyland station, which will
have trailer loading facilities
and high throughput with a
relatively low cost of CNG
expected.
Some infrastructure providers have secured funding under TEN-T (Trans-European
Transport Networks) to build open-access gas refuelling stations on TEN-T corridors in the
UK, which include the Liverpool area (see Figure 20). Innovate UK has also provided funding
for gas infrastructure, and the Office for Low Emission Vehicles has announced a £4m
allowance (funding and details have yet to be released). Following the identification of
suitable sites (which could potentially include those listed in Figure 18) this funding could
enable the business case for stations to become viable with a slightly lower level of initial
anchor demand.
61
Based on conversations with gas infrastructure providers
40
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Figure 20 TEN-T corridors62
The following sections summarise the demand and siting opportunities at each of the
locations in Figure 19, and identify, on this basis, which of the station options would be most
feasible and appropriate in each case.
Where specific sites have been identified, these would be subject to typical planning
processes, and detailed feasibility assessments, to determine whether they meet any station
requirements for power and gas. Economic feasibility is assessed here on the basis of the
typical minimum demand threshold, but the cost of land at each site has not been accounted
for. Affordable land costs can be fundamental to a successful station business case and as
such, the conclusions provided here around station feasibility should be treated with caution.
62
Map adapted from the European Commission TEN-T Core Network Corridors, by Element Energy,
for Birmingham City Council, 2015. Original source:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tentec/tentecportal/site/maps_upload/SchematicA0_EUcorridor_map.pdf
41
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Site 1 - Gillmoss & Knowsley business park (M57/A580 junction)
Figure 21 Gas station siting opportunities around the M57/A580 junction
Figure 21 shows a number of potential sites for gas refuelling in the area around the
M57/A580 junction, some of which are in close proximity to either the Intermediate Pressure
(IP) gas pipeline, or the Local Transmission System pipeline (LTS). Figure 22, below,
indicates possible timescales for deployment of different station types by comparing the total
estimated demand in the area in the short-term (c.2017) and mid-term (c.2020) with the
minimum demand thresholds for each station type.
Figure 22 Comparing short-term potential demand and minimum demand for different
gas station types around the M57/A580 junction
As indicated in Figure 22, the most likely scenario to make an LNG station economically
viable for this site would be a significant demand from one fleet, which would be likely to
increase over time as more LNG vehicles are adopted within that fleet. Such a station would
42
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
probably be a containerised solution, which could be depot-based, but could also potentially
support a small number of LNG vehicles in another nearby fleet.
In the case of CNG, the main source of potential demand is Stagecoach, which could adopt
c.100 CNG buses at their Gillmoss depot and would provide sufficient demand for a gridconnected station. Stagecoach confirmed they are potentially willing to allow other fleets to
refuel in their depot. However, even without the demand from Stagecoach, the adoption of
a small number of dedicated CNG HGVs (e.g. 10-20 small rigid trucks) could make a trailerbased “daughter” CNG station viable in the mid-term.
Conclusion: Likely to be a suitable area for containerised LNG by 2017 and/or a gridconnected CNG station by 2017, if the following demand is secured:


10 LNG large rigid trucks and/or:
Minimum 15 CNG buses
Site 2 – OMEGA Warrington
Figure 23 Gas station siting opportunities around the OMEGA site in Warrington
The OMEGA development, shown in Figure 23 above, is located by Junction 8 of the M62
in Warrington, just outside the boundaries of St Helens. Several nationally operating fleets
will have depots or distribution centres within the development, or very nearby. As
development is ongoing, there could be opportunities for either an open-access station, or
in-depot refuelling within the fleets’ own sites. There is no gas grid within the development
area, but the LTS pipeline is within 1km and this could be an attractive option, as a result of
National Grid Distribution making changes to the cost of LTS connections. Depending on
fleet demand and willingness to refuel off-site, an LTS-connected CNG station could be
feasible just outside OMEGA or an LTS connection pipeline could bring high pressure gas
to the site.
Figure 24 below compares the potential gas demand from fleets based in the area, with the
minimum demand thresholds for each station option.
43
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Figure 24 Comparing short-term potential demand and minimum demand for different
gas station types around the OMEGA development
Since there are several fleets based at OMEGA with potential demand for gas (as shown in
Figure 24) it is possible that there will be sufficient demand for at least a containerised LNG
station in 2017, even if not all the demand shown in Figure 24 is realised. By 2020, the
combined LNG and CNG demand could be sufficient for an L-CNG station, if the fleets
adopting gas in 2017 have expanded their fleets based at OMEGA. Before this level of
demand is reached, CNG could be supplied by a trailer-based CNG station, as a “daughter”
to the Leyland station.
The type of station in 2020 will depend on which of the fleets choose to have in-depot
refuelling, as this could reduce the demand contribution for an open-access station,
depending on the specific siting, and could make a large L-CNG station less economically
feasible.
Conclusion: Likely to be suitable for a containerised or skid-based LNG station by
2017, and L-CNG by 2020, if the following demand is secured for an open-access /
shared access station in 2020:


At least 30 dedicated LNG large rigid trucks or articulated trucks
At least 40 CNG small rigid HGVs
Site 3 – M6/M62 junction
A few HGV operators had a preference for gas refuelling infrastructure near the M6/M62
junction, shown in Figure 25. The LTS pipeline runs very close to this junction, offering the
potential opportunity for an LTS-connected site if there is sufficient demand for CNG.
As indicated in Figure 26 below, two fleets have potential demand for CNG refuelling near
this junction, and by 2020 this demand could be great enough to justify a gas grid connected
station. The demand for CNG vehicles is likely to depend on increased vehicle availability in
segments suitable for the relevant fleets, and a station in the area would be subject to a
suitable site being identified. It is likely that an open-access station would be preferred by
the relevant fleets. It is also possible that some of the CNG vehicles at OMEGA would be
willing to use such a station. Before the minimum level of demand is reached for a grid44
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
connected station, CNG could be supplied by a trailer-based CNG station, as a “daughter”
to the Leyland station.
One of the consulted HGV fleets had potential demand for LNG refuelling in the area by
2017-2020, depending on the vehicle models that become available, and on the relative
costs of diesel and gas. On this timescale, the fleet using a potential station would probably
be limited to 10-20 vehicles, which could be supported by a containerised LNG station. This
could be either depot based or open-access, depending on the fleet preferences. However,
this demand could also be met by an LNG station at the nearby OMEGA site; it is unlikely
that open-access LNG stations at both sites would be required.
Figure 25 Gas station siting opportunities around the M6/M62 junction
Figure 26 Comparing short-term potential demand and minimum demand for different
gas station types around the M6/M62 junction
Conclusion: Could be suitable for an open-access grid-connected CNG station and a
containerised LNG station by 2017, if the following demand is secured:
45
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report


At least 10 dedicated CNG large rigid HGVs or articulated HGVs (or equivalent
demand from dual fuel vehicles), and/or:
At least 10 dedicated LNG large rigid trucks
Site 4 – M6/M56 junction
One national fleet operator expressed interest in CNG refuelling for a small number of
articulated HGVs at the M6/M56 junction, just outside St Helens (see Figure 27 below).
There are already two LNG stations near the junction – one private station (at a Stobart
depot) and one public station (Moto services). These stations could potentially be used as
sites for CNG refuelling, subject to agreement with the station operators.
Figure 27 Gas station siting opportunities around the M6/M56 junction
Figure 28 below compares the potential gas demand, with the minimum demand thresholds
for each CNG station option. The level of demand from this fleet is likely to be small (could
be as few as 3 articulated HGVs using the station) and therefore the only type of station that
could be economically feasible would be a trailer-based CNG station, which could use the
Leyland LTS-connected station as the “mother” station.
Conclusion: Could be suitable for a trailer-based, daughter CNG station by 2017
46
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Figure 28 Comparing short-term potential demand and minimum demand for different
gas station types around the M6/M56 junction
4.3 Summary of demand for gas infrastructure
The overall potential demand for gas HGVs and buses in the LCR by 2020 is summarised
in Table 10. The table shows the total number of vehicles that could be adopted for each
type of gas, and the factors that could enable this level of uptake.
Table 10 Summary of demand for gas HDVs in the Liverpool City Region
Number of fleets
interested
Estimated
potential demand
for new vehicles
by 2020
Key enabling
factors required
Gas HGVs
CNG buses
9
2
73 CNG
109 buses
120 LNG
Increased model availability
across OEMs
Access to OLEV funding needed
for maximum number of vehicles
Reduced cost premiums
Figure 29 shows the key results of the siting exercise. For each of the locations identified,
the graphs indicate the potential demand for CNG and/or LNG in 2017 and 2020, based on
the potential demand for different gas vehicles reported by each of the fleets included in the
consultation. The different fleets are represented in Figure 29 by letters A-L. Figure 29 also
highlights specific siting opportunities and (where relevant) high-level details on access to
the gas grid in the area, which could be used to supply high pressure gas to a CNG station.
47
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Figure 29 Potential demand for LNG and CNG refuelling at different locations (each
letter represents a different fleet)
Fleet A had potential interest in two different refuelling sites, but may require only one
station. It should also be noted that a station at any one of the sites mentioned could
potentially be used by the fleets based at other demand “clusters”, especially in the case of
the latter three sites, which are quite close together. This means that it is unlikely that there
will be sufficient demand to make stations at all four sites economically viable by 2020. Of
the four potential sites, a station at OMEGA Warrington is most likely, as there is potential
demand from at least four different fleets, amounting to high levels of demand for both LNG
and CNG even if not all of these fleets adopt gas vehicles.
Many fleets would only use stations based in their own depot, or very close by, and it is likely
that more than one station will be needed to meet future demand in the different locations.
As described in the previous sections, there are different options for gas stations, depending
on the total level of demand, and it is likely that future infrastructure will consist of a mix of
small and large, depot-based and open-access stations. Future siting activities should also
take account of further potential opportunities in new developments in the area, and across
the North West. Such opportunities could enable refuelling to be co-located with other large
clusters of fleet depots, or even with freight consolidation centres.
4.4 Recommended approach to gas refuelling infrastructure for
the Liverpool City Region
As previously mentioned, there are various potential sources of funding that could facilitate
the installation of gas stations, with a lower required commitment from fleets. This could then
encourage more fleets to adopt gas vehicles. Gasrec and ENN both have funding for
installation of stations on TEN-T corridors (which include the Liverpool area, as shown in
Figure 20). In addition, OLEV announced an allowance of £4 million to support gas
infrastructure in 2014. Further details of the OLEV funding have yet to be released.
Given the current level of uncertainty around the air quality and GHG emissions benefits of
new gas vehicles compared to diesel equivalents (as discussed in Section 2.1.1), the
recommended approach for the LCR is to wait until clear evidence on these issues becomes
48
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
available before taking specific actions to support infrastructure deployment. The details and
release of the OLEV funding will also depend on this evidence, which should result from
ongoing work including the DfT/LowCVP’s HGV testing programme, and Element Energy’s
study of Well-to-Wheel emissions from methane vehicles for the ETI.
Even if evidence of emissions savings from Euro VI gas compared with Euro VI diesel
emerges, the need for specific actions relating to gas infrastructure will depend on the
possible impacts of the HDV fleet renewal (i.e. gradual adoption of diesel Euro VI HGVs and
buses) on the overall NO2 levels in the various AQMAs. Over the next 5-15 years, the
replacement of old HGVs and buses with Euro VI vehicles will reduce the fleet average
emissions on a per km basis. However, the expected increase in HGV traffic due to the port
expansion will increase the total km travelled by these vehicles and will counteract the effect
of fleet renewal to some extent. Considering both of these factors, as well as emissions
contributions from other sources, it is unclear when the overall NO2 levels within the AQMAs
will come down to the limit values. Modelling of NO2 from all sources, taking into account
expected fleet renewal and traffic increases, will be needed to determine when limit levels
would be met under a baseline scenario, and to determine the extent of the possible benefits
of adopting gas vehicles. This is discussed in detail in Section 5.3 and Section 5.4.
The key recommendations relating to gas infrastructure are therefore as follows:
Recommendations for gas infrastructure


Use the Merseyside Atmospheric Emissions Inventory to model future emission
levels in the city region, to inform the need for mitigating actions to avoid
continued exceedances of air quality objectives, particularly as traffic around the
port increases. The potential benefits of gas vehicle adoption should be
considered in terms of the extent that this could accelerate air quality
improvement in AQMAs, compared to a baseline scenario (i.e. with no additional
measures taken to reduce emissions from transport).
If the MAEI modelling results indicate that gas vehicle uptake could bring forward
compliance with NO2 limits compared to the baseline scenario, and provided that
there is clear evidence of the air quality benefits that adoption of gas vehicles
could bring, the LCR should consider supporting the installation of gas refuelling
infrastructure.
o The LCR could bid (or contribute to a bid) for OLEV funding for gas
infrastructure, as and when this funding is released (likely to be within
the first half of 2016). Any specifications set out by OLEV should be
taken into careful consideration to ensure that the air quality and/or GHG
emissions benefits are maximised.
o Bids should be informed by the siting exercise presented in this report,
and by direct consultation with infrastructure providers who may have
identified new potential demand from fleets.
o If a bid for OLEV funding is unsuccessful, the LCR could support
infrastructure providers by demonstrating commitment to identifying
suitable sites and facilitating the installation process. However,
supporting an OLEV funding application should be the initial priority, as
the release of this funding is expected to be dependent on evidence of
the emissions benefits of gas vehicles.
49
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
5 Uptake and impacts of alternative HDV technologies
Technological change in the transport sector is slow. When diesel became available as a
fuel for cars, it took 40 years for diesel to achieve a 50% share of the UK parc, despite there
being only a low cost premium, and significant fuel cost savings offered against petrol cars.
This is partly due to the slow shift from sales share to percentage of stock, as well as new
technology being perceived as risky to most consumers. Similarly, the transition of the HDV
fleet from Euro II-V to Euro VI will take place over at least 15 years.
In the majority of cases, alternative fuel HDVs do not have the financial benefits associated
with diesel cars, but are in many cases significantly more expensive. In addition, the
availability and model choice of these vehicles is much smaller than the choice of diesel
HDVs (as discussed in Section 2.1). As such, the uptake of these vehicles is expected to be
slow, even in the presence of current national incentives. This is reflected in the uptake
scenarios for 2020 and 2030, shown in this section.
This section of the report considers the potential benefits of lower emission HDV uptake in
the Liverpool City Region, and provides recommendations for local authorities in the region
on how best to support this uptake as a means to manage the emissions from heavy
vehicles. The assumptions around the levels of uptake of short term and long term
technologies are laid out in Section 5.1 and 5.2 respectively. The potential emissions
impacts associated with these uptake scenarios are described in Section 5.3. Finally,
Section 6 sets out recommendations for the delivery of these potential benefits through
uptake of alternative fuel HDVs in the LCR.
5.1 Uptake of short term technologies
The vehicle and fuel technologies already on the market have the potential to achieve
significant reductions on current emissions levels. The extent of these reductions varies
between technologies, and will depend on the level of technology uptake over the next 5-15
years. Scenarios for uptake are considered in the following sections.
5.1.1 Uptake of Euro VI diesel vehicles
As discussed in Section 2.1.1, Euro VI diesel HDVs offer significant test-cycle and real world
NOx emissions savings compared to previous Euro standard buses and trucks. As such, the
level of emissions per kilometre driven from the overall fleet of HGVs and buses in the LCR
will gradually decrease over time, as older vehicles are replaced by new vehicles meeting
the Euro VI standard.
For example, Figure 30 shows the estimated progression of different Euro standards in the
HGV fleet to 2030, based on the data behind Defra’s fleet emissions model63. The graph
shows, for each year, the projected share of overall vehicle mileage driven by vehicles of
different Euro standards. This assumes that there is no change in the fleet renewal rate
compared to the historical renewal rate64.
63
National Atmospheric Emissions Model, Emissions factors for transport. Extracted 25 th November
2015 from: http://naei.defra.gov.uk/resources/rtp_fleet_projection_Base2013_v3.0_final.xlsx
64 The projected share of vehicle mileage shown in the figure is shifted back by a year, compared to
the DEFRA results (i.e. for 2015 the fleet mix reflects Defra values for 2014). This is based on fleet
interview results, which indicated a lower than expected share of Euro VI vehicles in the 2015 fleet
(even accounting for the fact that newer vehicles are likely to have higher annual mileages).
50
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Figure 30 Projected share of vehicle mileage from HGVs of different Euro standards
(baseline renewal rate)
The progression in Figure 30 shows that by 2030, the whole fleet is expected to be at Euro
VI standard or above, which would bring significant reductions in NOx and PM10 emissions
on a per km basis (assuming that Euro VI really delivers on the road the emissions
reductions implied by the change in the limit values – see Figure 8, p13).
Emissions reductions from the introduction of Euro VI vehicles could be accelerated by
introducing an age limit for vehicles operating in certain areas of the city, or for specific
fleets. Using the example of the national HGV fleet, Figure 31 (below) shows the estimated
split mileage by emissions standard, if a 10-year age limit was introduced. This scenario
would require many of the oldest vehicles in the fleet to be replaced with Euro VI vehicles
(with an estimated 19% of HGV mileage estimated to come from HGVs over 10 years old in
2015), the result of which would be a higher share of Euro VI vehicles in 2018 and 2020,
compared to a scenario with no age limit. The possible impacts of introducing age limits for
HDVs in the LCR are assessed in Section 5.3.
Figure 31 Projected share of vehicle mileage from HGVs of different Euro standards
(10 year age limit)
However, the introduction of an age limit (even in specific areas) is likely to be met with
resistance from fleet operators, as it may not be compatible with their business models for
fleet renewal, particularly as Euro VI trucks and buses are more costly than previous
versions due to the complexity of the engines and after-treatment systems. Without specific
incentives for use of lower emission HDVs, fleets are unlikely to accelerate their renewal
process.
51
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Table 11 outlines some recommendations for consideration by the local authorities in the
LCR, which could help towards the implementation of an age limit.
Table 11 Possible actions for the LCR to support uptake of Euro VI diesel HDVs
Challenges for accelerating
uptake of Euro VI diesel
vehicles
Businesses do not place value on
improved air quality so accelerated
renewal does not fit fleet business
models
Recommendation for the LCR to address
challenge
Communicate to the public, businesses and
industry on the health implications of air quality
and encourage them to include air quality related
requirements in their contracts and supply chains
Communicate to local fleets on the possible fuel
saving benefits of Euro VI65 through existing
channels such as ECO Stars, FTA, Council
business teams
Monetise AQ through e.g. LEZ implementation
with penalties for non-compliance, procurement
conditions in Government contracts where
appropriate
5.1.2 Retrofit and cleaner diesel for existing fleets
Uptake of retrofit technologies
Funding for retrofit technologies for buses is currently available under the Clean Bus
Technology Fund. An application for the Clean Bus Technology Fund (funding decision yet
to be confirmed) was made through Merseytravel, for 31 buses operating in AQMAs in the
Liverpool Urban Area and Halton to be retrofitted with combined SCR and DPF technologies,
and additional micro hybrid technology (achieving at least 15% fuel savings on the MLTB
test cycle)66.
Retrofit technologies to improve NOx and PM10 emissions are also available for HGVs. One
barrier to uptake is the lack of independent verification or credible assessment of the
applicability of the equipment for different operational environments. To address this, the
LowCVP has been running an Accreditation Scheme for retrofit technologies, since
September 201567.
Figure 32 below shows the uptake scenario that is used to calculate the possible emissions
savings from retrofit technologies. Although the share of Euro III-V vehicles adopting retrofit
technologies may increase over time, the share of Euro III-V in the overall fleet will be lower
in 2030, compared to 2018, and therefore the total number of retrofits is likely to be very low
by 2030. Projected numbers of retrofitted buses are based on information from Merseytravel
regarding the total number of buses operating in the LCR. Projected numbers of retrofitted
65
There is anecdotal evidence from some fleet operators and the Road Haulage Association on fuel
savings achieved by Euro VI compared to Euro V. The following source also suggest that fuel savings
can be achieved: ICCT, Literature review: real-world fuel consumption of heavy-duty vehicles in the
United States, China and the European Union, January 2015
66 Based on information provided to Merseytravel regarding micro-hybrid “ancillary drive” as part of the
Clean Bus Technology Fund application
67 http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/projects/commercial-vehicle-working-group/hgv-accreditationscheme.htm
52
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
trucks have been estimated based on the number of licenced trucks in the LCR in 201468.
However, it is possible that this does not accurately reflect the number of trucks operating
in the area, as some fleet vehicles are registered at the company headquarters, rather than
at the depot the vehicle is based at or where it operates on a daily basis. Addressing the
lack of certainty around the number of vehicles operating in the LCR could be important for
future assessments of emissions levels.
Figure 32 Possible uptake of retrofit technologies
This scenario would rely on the continuation of funding to cover the costs of retrofit for buses
(e.g. the Clean Bus Technology Fund). Similarly, if any uptake is to be expected among
HGVs, this would depend on the availability of funding. Local measures that incentivise
lower emission vehicles could also encourage HDV fleet operators to adopt retrofit
technologies for their older vehicles.
Uptake of cleaner fuels
Cleaner diesel fuels such as GTL diesel do not require capital expenditure or new vehicles,
and can be used by any fleet willing to pay the fuel premium (although this could be
prohibitively high). Back-to-base fleets are the most appropriate for adoption of GTL, as they
can take out a fuel contract directly, allowing vehicles to be run purely on GTL.
For the purpose of assessing the potential impacts of GTL diesel, a simple uptake scenario
is used, as shown in Figure 33 below. This scenario would only be realised if the cost
premium of the fuel could be eliminated for operators. For example, the additional cost could
be covered by AQ grant funding.
Figure 33 Illustrative uptake scenario for GTL diesel
Table 12 outlines some initial recommendations for the Liverpool City Region to support
uptake of retrofit technologies and cleaner fuels.
Table 12 Possible actions for the LCR to support retrofit and uptake of cleaner fuels
Challenges
Recommendation for the LCR to address
challenge
68
DfT, Vehicle Licensing Statistics, Table VEH0105
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/vehicles-statistics
53
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Cost of retrofit
Coordinate applications for the Clean Bus Technology
Fund, and identify routes with the highest potential for
NOx savings through retrofit
Encourage local retrofit businesses to become
involved with LowCVP accreditation scheme
Cost premium of cleaner fuel
such as GTL
Determine whether AQ grant funding is applicable for
GTL use (both at small and large scale) by liaising
with Salford City Council69 and other local authorities
Liaise with other regions to secure demand and lower
the cost premium
5.1.3 Uptake of Euro VI gas vehicles
Vehicle uptake
As discussed in Sections 4.1.2 and 4.2, the potential demand for gas HGVs and buses in
the LCR was identified through a series of interviews and workshops targeting fleets
operating in the region. Based on the results of this consultation, Figure 34 sets out a
potential uptake scenario for heavy dedicated gas vehicles to 2030, assuming that a high
(but not unrealistic) share of the potential demand specified by fleets is converted to actual
demand.
Figure 34 Potential uptake of gas HDVs in the Liverpool City Region
This level of uptake would require a continued increase in vehicle availability and model
choice from OEMs, alongside reduced premiums of Euro VI gas vehicles compared to Euro
VI diesel. It is likely that it would also depend on the continuation of the cost differential
between gas and diesel (e.g. via the extension of the fuel duty differential beyond 2024).
Deployment of gas infrastructure
In order to support the level of gas vehicle uptake presented in Figure 34, the following
infrastructure would be required:
Table 13 Projected numbers of gas stations in/close to the LCR (including existing
stations)
69
In-depot stations in the LCR
Open-access stations in/near to the
LCR
2020
Up to 5
1-2
2030
Up to 20
3-5
Salford City Council have applied for Air Quality Grant funding for use of GTL
54
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
The future mix of in-depot and open-access stations will depend on which fleets adopt gas
vehicles; for example, if more bus fleets than expected adopt gas vehicles, then there is
likely to be a higher number of in-depot stations. Urban delivery HGV fleets typically have
back-to-base operations, and are also likely to use in-depot refuelling. In general, openaccess stations are more likely to be used by long-haul fleets, (i.e. as a complement to their
base depot refuelling).
The key processes involved in delivering a gas station are outlined in Figure 35. This
highlights some of the potential risks to timely and successful station implementation, while
Figure 36 provides indicative details for a typical implementation timeline. For a CNG station
this is usually around 14-18 months, but can be even shorter (the Leyland site was identified
in November 2014, planning permission achieved by February 2015, and will be completed
by December 2015). Shorter timescales are possible for LNG stations (subject to site
identification and planning) as there is no requirement for gas grid connection. However,
there are generally additional safety related issues due to the storage of LNG on site, which
requires Hazardous Substances Consent if over 15 tonnes of gas is stored.
55
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Figure 35 Key processes and risks involved in gas refuelling station delivery
Figure 36 Indicative timescale for delivery of a gas refuelling station (months)
Once demand for a station has been established, the site identification process (including
the planning and consenting process) can be one of the most challenging and time
consuming aspects of delivery. For CNG stations, it is essential to conduct initial feasibility
assessments for gas and electricity connections, as these are crucial for CNG station
operation. Potential requirements for costly network upgrades should be identified as early
as possible to inform siting decisions. For LNG stations, finding a sufficiently large site can
be challenging, as the COMAH safety regulations specify a large site area (can be twice the
size of a CNG station of equivalent capacity).
For both station types, planning applications are more likely to be successful in cases where
the station would not cause a local increase in vehicle movements, meaning that in-depot
sites, or sites where the demand comes from fleets based very near the station, are more
likely to be successful.
56
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Recommendations for the LCR
Table 14 sets out recommendations for the local authorities in the Liverpool City Region,
around the approach to encouraging uptake of gas buses and HGVs. Due to the current lack
of evidence around the AQ benefits of Euro VI gas over Euro VI diesel (see Section 2.1.1),
this report recommends that any specific action encouraging uptake of gas vehicles should
be subject to further, more definitive evidence that indicates that Euro VI gas vehicles could
bring air quality benefits. However, further recommendations are also provided, that outline
possible actions to be taken if and when such evidence emerges.
Table 14 Possible actions for the LCR regarding uptake of gas HDVs
Challenges for uptake of
gas vehicles
Lack of clear evidence on
the AQ benefits of Euro VI
gas over Euro VI diesel (see
Section 2.1.1)
Recommendation for the LCR to address challenge
Further progression of gas vehicle uptake and
infrastructure deployment in the LCR should be
subject to clearer evidence of air quality benefits –
the upcoming DfT/LowCVP HGV testing program
should provide answers on this by or before mid2016
Monitor the increasing gas vehicle availability and
improvements in emissions performance
Identify opportunities for gas vehicle operation on long
routes through key AQMAs to maximise the air quality
benefits
Vehicle cost premiums over
Euro VI diesel
Continue to engage with bus operators in the area
around key funding opportunities
Finding appropriate land for
gas infrastructure can be a
lengthy process
Help infrastructure providers to identify and liaise with
site owners
Develop planning policy/guidance for infrastructure
providers, in relation to siting requirements, fuel quality
and traffic impacts
Support feasibility assessment and planning process
for potential sites e.g. by providing access to gas and
electricity network details through Master Utilities
Planning; access to road and traffic data
Streamline planning processes for biomethane fuel
infrastructure
Engage with infrastructure providers with already
granted TEN-T funding (for LNG, Gasrec and ENN and
for CNG, CNG Fuels) to identify the best opportunities
for council fleet refuelling
57
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
5.2 Uptake of long term technologies
The uptake assumptions for zero-emission (i.e. electric and hydrogen) trucks and buses
presented in Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 are based on an ambitious national policy-led uptake
scenario for low emission vehicles, developed by Element Energy for the Low Carbon
Vehicle Partnership. This scenario features high levels of zero-emission vehicle uptake
across vehicle segments, in line with the achievement of 2050 CO 2 emissions reductions
targets set by the Committee on Climate Change 70. The factors required to enable the
realisation of this high uptake scenario are laid out in the following sections.
5.2.1 Uptake of electric vehicles
Vehicle uptake
Uptake assumptions for electric HGVs and buses in 2020 and 2030/2035 are shown in
Figure 37. The assumed sales shares at a national level have been translated to LCR level
stock figures by comparing the number of registered HGVs and buses nationally and within
the LCR. Numbers of buses are based on information from Merseytravel regarding the total
number of buses operating in the LCR. Numbers of trucks have been estimated based on
the number of licenced trucks in the LCR in 201471.
Figure 37 Potential uptake of electric HDVs in the Liverpool City Region
As shown in Figure 37, buses are assumed to have a higher sales share compared to trucks
(in 2020 and 2030). This reflects the difference in deployment of electric vehicles in 2015,
with over 100 electric buses already on the road in the UK, and only a few electric trucks
being trialled in Europe. Due to the payload and range constraints of electric trucks (a result
70
Element Energy for the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, 2015. Validated by the LowCVP Fuels
Working Group in February 2015, and used in the development of the Transport Infrastructure
Roadmaps
71 DfT, Vehicle Licensing Statistics, Table VEH0105
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/vehicles-statistics
It is possible that this does not accurately reflect the number of trucks operating in the area, as some
fleet vehicles are registered at the company headquarters, rather than at the depot the vehicle is
based at or where it operates on a daily basis. Addressing the lack of certainty around the number of
vehicles operating in the LCR could be important for future assessments of emissions levels.
58
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
of the low energy density of batteries), battery electric trucks are assumed to be mainly in
the <12t segment, at least until 2030.
For this level of electric HDV uptake to be realised, a number of factors will be required (as
shown by the “Enablers” in Figure 37). Trials of trucks and buses in the LCR by 2020 will be
important to build skills and experience in the operation of heavy electric vehicles. However,
purchase costs are presently high and funding is likely to be needed to facilitate trials. For
example, Arriva plans to operate 12 electric buses in the LCR, and has applied (through
Merseytravel) for funding to enable this under the OLEV Low Emission Bus Scheme.
Roll-out of charging infrastructure
Initially, the majority of electric HGVs and buses are expected to use in-depot charging
infrastructure. This will typically be one charge point per vehicle, of 50kW or more. In the
2020-2030 timescale, buses and HGVs are likely start to using inductive (wireless) charging
points, which in the case of buses may be placed along applicable routes. Learnings from
current trials in London and Milton Keynes will inform the requirements for future
infrastructure.
Some fleets are likely to adopt several electric buses or trucks, and as a result may face
high network reinforcement costs and lengthy procedures to ensure that the vehicles can be
charged. These challenges are acknowledged by the UK government, and charging
infrastructure is currently eligible for funding under the OLEV bus scheme.
Beyond 2030, trials of new charging technologies may begin to enable longer distance truck
operations to become feasible. For example, Highways England recently conducted a
feasibility study into dynamic inductive charging, whereby trucks could be charged as they
drive along a motorway72. In early 2016, Scania will test overhead charging of electric trucks:
the trucks will be tested on an “electric road”, where charging will take place via overhead
lines, using pantograph power collectors fitted to the trucks 73.
Ultra high power charging stations (300-400kW), currently being trialled in Europe and soon
in Edinburgh, could potentially support HDV intercity travel in the future, as well as enabling
increased use of electric buses.
Recommendations for the LCR
The measures that the local authorities in the LCR can take to address some of the barriers
to electric HDV uptake are set out in Table 15.
Table 15 Possible actions for the LCR to support uptake of electric HDVs
Challenges for uptake of
electric vehicles
High vehicle cost premiums
Recommendation for the LCR to address challenge
Coordinate approach to funding applications to identify
highest impact routes in terms of AQ. Explore
opportunities for joint procurement across UK and
European cities to lower unit costs of vehicles
(particularly relevant for electric buses)
72
Highways England, Feasibility study: powering electric vehicles on England’s major roads, 2015
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/06/scania-to-test-electrically-powered-trucks-on-electricroad-under-real-life-conditions.html
73
59
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
nfrastructure costs
Lengthy charge point
installation process
Engage with Distribution Network Operator and
infrastructure provider to find optimal solutions for
charging
Take a proactive approach to help interested fleets
navigate infrastructure installation
5.2.2 Uptake of hydrogen vehicles
Vehicle uptake
Uptake assumptions for hydrogen HGVs and buses in 2020 and 2030/2035 are shown in
Figure 37 below. As in Figure 37, the assumed sales shares at a national level have been
translated to LCR level stock figures by comparing the number of registered HGVs and
buses nationally and within the LCR. Numbers of buses are based on information from
Merseytravel regarding the total number of buses operating in the LCR. Numbers of trucks
have been estimated based on the number of licenced trucks in the LCR in 201474.
Figure 38 Potential uptake of hydrogen HDVs in the Liverpool City Region
Buses are assumed to have a higher sales share compared to trucks, as fuel cell buses are
already being trialled in London and Aberdeen, and efforts to bring costs down through joint
procurement by multiple European cities are ongoing. Meanwhile, trials of hydrogen hybrid
and range extended trucks are in early stages of development in the UK and Europe.
Hydrogen trucks are assumed to be mainly in the <12t segment initially, as most current
projects are focused on increasing the range of light electric trucks through conversion to
range-extended electric vehicles, by installing a small fuel cell and hydrogen tank.
It is highly unlikely that this level of uptake of hydrogen HDVs will be achieved unless the
“Enablers” (summarised in Figure 38) come into effect. Funded trials in the LCR in the next
74
DfT, Vehicle Licensing Statistics, Table VEH0105
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/vehicles-statistics
It is possible that this does not accurately reflect the number of trucks operating in the area, as some
fleet vehicles are registered at the company headquarters, rather than at the depot the vehicle is
based at or where it operates on a daily basis. Addressing the lack of certainty around the number of
vehicles operating in the LCR could be important for future assessments of emissions levels.
60
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
c.5 years will be essential to establish the knowledge and skills base for future uptake, and
significant cost reductions will also be needed to enable deployment of hydrogen HDVs to
increase above 10s of vehicles on a 2020-2030 timescale.
Deployment of hydrogen stations
Figure 39 provides an indication of the number of hydrogen stations that may be required to
support the assumed uptake of buses and trucks in the LCR. Although many fleets typically
prefer refuelling at their own depot, the initial hydrogen stations in the LCR may be located
outside of depots due to planning & siting constraints, and may be shared with more than
one operator. Refuelling for buses and trucks will be at 350 bar initially, and some HGVs
may use 700 bar refuelling in the future.
Figure 39 Hydrogen stations in the LCR
Siting of hydrogen stations will depend partly on the desired production pathway. On a 20202030 timescale, the production of electrolytic hydrogen is likely to be onsite, and will require
a 3-phase electricity connection. Onsite production of hydrogen may not be feasible for all
depots. Hydrogen may also be supplied from local sources of by-product hydrogen (see
Section 3.2) 75.
The timescales for obtaining planning permission for a hydrogen station can be highly
uncertain, which can act as a barrier to vehicle deployment. For buses and HGVs,
deployment of hydrogen vehicles and stations should be carefully coordinated to ensure that
vehicles deployed will be able to refuel and that stations will have sufficient demand.
Recommendations for the LCR
Table 16 Possible actions for the LCR to support uptake of hydrogen HDVs
Challenges for uptake of
hydrogen vehicles
Recommendation for the LCR to address
challenge
High vehicle and
infrastructure costs
Support the creation of a local hydrogen partnership
to bring together expertise and initial demand, and
improve understanding of local hydrogen supply
opportunities (e.g. hydrogen pipeline)
Join or support bids for national or European funding
to enable such groupings to deploy stations and
vehicles (e.g. FCH 2 JU, TEN-T, CEF, Innovate UK).
This could include the 100 Fuel Cell Bus project.
75
3-phase connection is likely not to be needed if station is supplied with locally produced by-product
hydrogen, which will be compressed at the production site
61
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Challenges for site
identification and planning
Take a proactive approach to help interested fleets
navigate processes involved in infrastructure
installation and procurement, e.g. facilitate access to
relevant planning maps and DNO personnel
5.3 Potential benefits of lower emission HDV uptake
5.3.1 Reductions in NOx from HDV fleet
The NOx reductions that can be achieved through uptake of different HDVs are shown by
the graphs in Figure 40.
The first graph shows the percentage reductions to HDV NOx contributions that can be
achieved through uptake of Euro VI diesel and gas vehicles, via the baseline fleet renewal
process (described in Section 5.1.1). The graph takes into account the predicted increase
in HGV traffic in the area, due to the expansion of the port. It shows the change in NOx
emitted by HDVs between 2015 and 2030, calculated by multiplying the weight-averaged
emission factors of the fleet (gNOx/km, DEFRA factors at 12 km/h) by the projected increase
in traffic (+28% by 2020 and +88% by 2030)76. Emissions factors for diesel and gas vehicles
are based on COPERT 4 equations, calculated at 12km/h to reflect the emissions
contribution from HGVs and buses in urban areas. According to these assumptions, the
transition to Euro VI vehicles will reduce the urban NO x emissions from HDVs by almost
60% by 2030, despite the increase in HGV traffic. If emissions factors are taken for a speed
of 60km/h, the estimated reductions are even greater (86% by 2030), implying that the
relative improvements from Euro V to Euro VI are greater at higher speeds. In either case,
fleet renewal is predicted to deliver significant emissions reductions.
This does not account for the possibility that emissions from Euro VI diesel engines could
increase through the vehicle lifetime. It is possible that the technology used to reduce
emissions from diesel combustion could become less effective after a few years of
operation, and this would make the overall reductions to emissions levels by 2030 less
significant than suggested by the graph77. However, Euro VI regulations are intended to
avoid such effects and since 2006, manufacturers have been required to carry out in-use
conformity testing to ensure that HGVs and buses meet the limits over their operating
lifespan, (e.g. up to 700,000 km or 7 years depending on the vehicle category) 78.
Gas is inherently a cleaner burning fuel than diesel, and Euro VI dedicated gas engines may
be less likely to be affected by possible increases in emissions over time. If it becomes
apparent (e.g. through testing of emissions levels over vehicle lifetimes) that Euro VI diesel
emissions increase significantly as the vehicles age, uptake of gas vehicles (and other lower
emission vehicles) could maximise the possible emissions savings.
The following graphs show the additional savings to HDV NOx levels that could be achieved
on a 2030 timescale through acceleration of fleet renewal, and uptake of alternative
technologies. The results show that any other technology can only bring small incremental
76
Atkins, Access to the Port of Liverpool Feasibility Study, November 2014
It should be noted that older vehicles generally have lower annual mileages, with vehicles less than
2 years old accounting for about a third of all HGV miles nationally. Therefore, the aging effect would
not necessarily have a great impact on emissions reductions.
78 TfL, In-service emissions performance of Euro 6/VI vehicles, 2015
77
62
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
changes, compared to the baseline fleet renewal. This is due to the relatively low uptake of
these technologies (as outlined in Section 5.1 and Section 5.2).
However, this does not show any of the local effects that could be achieved through adoption
of lower emission vehicles on specific routes. For example, idling tends to be associated
with high emissions impacts from pre-Euro VI diesel vehicles79. If lower emission alternative
vehicles replacing Euro III-V diesel HDVs are concentrated on routes where there is a high
proportion of idling, this could lead to more significant emissions savings from those vehicle
technologies in those areas.
Uptake of alternative vehicles could also bring additional benefits to certain areas (e.g. lower
noise from gas, electric and hydrogen vehicles).
Figure 40 Reductions in NOx emissions levels from HGV and bus fleets, compared to
a 2015 baseline level
79
There is some evidence showing Euro VI performance at different speeds, which suggests that Euro
VI HDVs maintain their low emission performance at low speeds. This may include idling, but there is
insufficient evidence to support this as yet. TfL, In-service emissions performance of Euro 6/VI
vehicles, 2015
63
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
5.3.2 Reductions in PM from HDV fleet
Figure 41 shows the potential reductions in HDV PM contributions that can be achieved
through uptake of lower emission HDVs. The approach and assumptions are the same as
those used for the calculation of NOx reductions.
The potential reductions that can be achieved through fleet renewal (the first graph) are
even greater than those for NOx, due to the significant savings on PM achieved by Euro VI
HDVs compared to previous versions. Emissions factors for diesel and gas vehicles are
based on COPERT 4 equations, calculated at 12km/h to reflect the emissions contribution
from HGVs and buses in urban areas. The COPERT 4 emissions factors indicate that at this
speed, PM emissions from pre-Euro VI vehicles can be several orders of magnitude higher
than those of Euro VI vehicles. If emissions factors are taken at 60km/h, the estimated
reductions are slightly lower (88% by 2030, compared to a 91% reduction for a speed of 12
km/h).
As with NOx, the graphs show that any other technology can only bring small incremental
reductions to PM levels, compared to the baseline fleet renewal. This does not account for
any locally concentrated impacts. As with NOx, the baseline reductions to PM do not account
for the possible increase in emissions from individual Euro VI diesel vehicles, as the vehicles
age.
64
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Figure 41 Reductions in PM emissions levels from HGV and bus fleets, compared to
a 2015 baseline level
5.3.3 Reductions in GHG emissions from HDV fleets
As was discussed in Chapter 2, alternative HDV technologies can bring reductions to
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on a well-to-wheel (WTW)80 basis. The potential
reductions per vehicle are summarised in Table 17. GHGs include methane as well as CO2.
The global warming potential of methane is much greater than that of CO281 and therefore,
the use of biomethane as a vehicle fuel has the potential for significant savings, as it
prevents methane from escaping to the atmosphere when it is created through
biodegradation processes.
Table 17 Potential reductions to GHG emissions per vehicle from alternative HDVs
GHG
emissions
benefits
over
Gas
Retrofit
Cleaner
fuels
Electric
Up to 80%
WTW
reduction
(biomethane)
No
reduction
from DPF
Up to 80%
WTW
reduction
(Used
Up to 100%
WTW
reduction
Hydrogen
(fuel cell
based)
Up to 100%
WTW
reduction
(e.g.
80
WTW: Well-to-wheel. WTW GHG emissions account for the emissions during fuel production and transport as
well as during the operation of the vehicle
81 CO has a Global Warming Potential of 1, whereas methane has a GWP of 34 (over 100 years). Source:
2
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013
65
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
diesel
equivalent
and SCR
technologies
Cooking
Oil)
(renewable
electricity)
electrolysis
using
renewable
electricity)
The estimated changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from HGV and bus fleets by
2030, compared to 2015, are shown in Figure 42 and Figure 43 below. In both cases, the
baseline scenario assumes no uptake of alternative fuel vehicles. Relative GHG emissions
levels are shown in terms of CO2 equivalent.
In Figure 42, the graph shows that at a baseline level the HGV fleet GHG emissions will
increase by around 43% by 2030, even accounting for incremental improvements in the
overall efficiency of the fleet (brought with renewal processes and the greater efficiency of
new diesel engines82). This is due to the expected increase in HGV mileage in the LCR, due
to the port expansion (an estimated 88% increase by 203083).
For the bus fleet (Figure 43), there is no assumed increase in fleet mileage, and as such the
overall fleet GHG emissions decrease by 16% under the baseline scenario, due to the
increase in the diesel fleet efficiency.
The GHG emissions impacts of alternative fuel vehicle uptake (as described in Section 5.1
and 5.2) are also shown in Figure 42 and Figure 43, in terms of the additional impact in 2030
compared to a diesel-only fleet. These impacts are considered in terms of the Tank-toWheel (TTW) and Well-to-Wheel (WTW) GHG emissions84. For gas vehicles and for zeroemission vehicles (ZEVs), two possible scenarios are considered for the WTW GHG
emissions. These scenarios reflect the different fuel production pathways which represent
the highest and lowest GHG impacts, respectively, for each fuel type. The GHG emissions
factors associated with the different scenarios are provided in the Appendix.
Adoption of retrofit and cleaner fuels is not included in these scenarios. There is no reduction
to GHGs from the main retrofit technologies (DPF and SCR), or from GTL diesel, and
although UCO can provide significant reductions to GHG emissions on a per vehicle basis,
the supply of UCO is likely to be very limited, as discussed in Section 3.2.
82
There is anecdotal evidence from our conversations with fleet operators on fuel savings achieved
by Euro VI compared to Euro V. The Road Haulage Association also received this feedback from their
members. The following source also suggest that fuel savings can be achieved: ICCT, Literature
review: real-world fuel consumption of heavy-duty vehicles in the United States, China and the
European Union, January 2015
83 Atkins, Access to the Port of Liverpool Feasibility Study, November 2014
84 TTW: Tank-to-Wheel. TTW GHG emissions account for the tailpipe of the vehicle. WTW: Well-towheel. WTW GHG emissions account for the emissions during fuel production and transport as well
as during the operation of the vehicle
66
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Figure 42 Changes to Tank-to-Wheel and Well-to-Wheel GHG emissions levels from
HGV fleets by 2030, compared to a 2015 baseline level
Figure 43 Reductions in Tank-to-Wheel and Well-to-Wheel GHG emissions levels from
bus fleets by 2030, compared to a 2015 baseline level
The relative WTW emissions savings from each fuel type differs between HGVs and buses,
reflecting the different share of uptake expected between the different fuel types in 2030.
Uptake of gas HGVs achieves a higher GHG reduction from the baseline level, compared
to the reduction from gas buses, whereas the opposite pattern is suggested for the GHG
impacts of ZEV uptake. This reflects the expectation that ZEVs will take a larger share of
future bus sales than of HGV sales, whereas gas vehicles are expected to take a larger
share of the HGV market than of the bus market.
67
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
5.4 Conclusions and recommendations on uptake and impacts
of alternative HDV technologies
As shown in Section 5.3, the emissions performance of new Euro VI diesel HDV engines
(compared to older models in the existing fleet) implies that on a 2030 timescale, the biggest
reductions to fleet NOx and PM will be achieved through the normal fleet renewal process85.
This is predicted to provide overall reductions to fleet NO x and PM emissions, in spite of
projected traffic increases, which have a significant impact on overall emissions. An
acceleration of the renewal process could bring these reductions into effect more rapidly, as
could the uptake of retrofit technologies in the pre-Euro VI fleet. The move beyond Euro VI
diesel, towards alternative and zero-emission powertrains, has the potential to bring further
reductions, and these will also be required to achieve reductions in carbon emissions from
HGVs and buses across the LCR and nationally.
However, there are several significant barriers to any fleet change beyond the baseline rate
of fleet renewal. Technological change and the uptake of alternative fuels and vehicles is
slow even when the technology is cheaper - partly due to the time taken for supply chains
to be established and production volumes to be increased - but currently, the alternative
technologies available are more expensive on a TCO basis for the vast majority of fleets.
This is particularly the case for HGVs, and in addition, there are still major technological
barriers preventing the application of zero-emission technologies on the majority of HGV
operations.
As discussed in Section 4.1.1 (and in this chapter), cost premiums and limited vehicle
availability are among the most significant barriers to uptake of alternative HDV
technologies. For the models that are available, the issue of cost premiums could be
addressed through provision of grants, or through local measures that incentivise the use of
lower emission vehicles, such as age limits or emissions restrictions. Examples of such
measures will be considered in detail in Chapter 6.
If local measures designed to make significant improvements to air quality are to be
introduced, a clear evidence base demonstrating the need for such measures will be
required. While a significant proportion of air pollution can be attributed to HGVs and buses,
there are numerous other contributing sources, including other road traffic, industry, and rail
traffic. Potential changes in HDV emissions (and their role in meeting air quality objectives)
must be set in the context of overall NO2 and PM10 projections for 2020 and beyond, taking
into account possible increases and reductions to emissions levels from these other
sources, as well as the changes in fleet composition. Sefton Council should make use of the
Merseyside Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (MAEI) and the monitoring data available
from across the LCR to estimate levels of future emissions under a “business as usual”
scenario. Such projections should be informed by real data on current emissions, and
awareness of specific local changes to traffic and industry, and should therefore provide the
most accurate representation of future levels of NO 2 and PM10 within existing AQMAs. This
would enable clearer insights into the potential role that uptake of lower emission HDVs
could play in ensuring that NO2 and PM10 limits are met by 2020, and would thereby help to
identify whether measures such as age limits or emissions restrictions should be put in
place.
85
As discussed in Section 2.1.1, real-world emissions data for Euro VI supports the test values in
terms of the reductions that are achieved compared to Euro V and older vehicles
68
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Summary:





To inform the prediction of future emissions from HDVs, scenarios for renewal of the
diesel HDV fleets were developed, based on the National Atmospheric Emissions
Inventory transport projections. Under the normal fleet renewal rate, 79% of HGVs
are predicted to be Euro VI by 2020. Under an accelerated renewal rate (assuming
a 10 year age limit) 88% of HGVs are predicted to be Euro VI by 2020.
Uptake scenarios for alternative vehicle technologies in the LCR were also
developed (based on ambitious national uptake scenarios). In these scenarios, by
2030, c.1,000 HDVs will be gas, c.300 will be electric, and c.200 will be hydrogenfuelled. The scenarios also include adoption of retrofit solutions and cleaner fuels.
The percentage changes to emissions from HGVs and buses in the Liverpool City
Region in 2018, 2020 and 2030 were estimated for each of these scenarios, taking
into account the possible increase in HGV traffic due to the port expansion. The
impacts on NOx, PM and CO2 emissions were considered.
Under the normal fleet renewal rate (with no adoption of lower emission vehicles),
the percentage change to NO2 emissions from HGVs and buses between 2015 and
2020 was estimated to be -43%. Incremental reductions (e.g. up to -30% of 2020
levels) could be achieved through accelerated renewal and/or adoption of lower
emission vehicle technologies.
Under the normal fleet renewal rate (with no adoption of lower emission vehicles),
the GHG emissions levels from HGVs between 2015 and 2030 was estimated to
increase +43%, due to the projected increase in HGV traffic. For buses, the
equivalent figure is -16%. Small reductions (e.g. up to -15% of 2030 levels) on a Wellto-Wheel basis could be achieved through the adoption of alternative vehicles.
Conclusions:


Natural fleet renewal is likely to bring the most significant reductions to HDV
emissions by 2030, even compared to ambitious uptake of zero-emission vehicles
Reductions to HDV emissions could be accelerated through the implementation of
an age limit and/or retrofit of older vehicles
Recommendation:

Sefton Council should use the MAEI to develop specific “business as usual”
projections for overall NO2 and PM10 emissions within AQMAs (accounting for
possible increases in traffic) to identify the role of HDV uptake and possible
interventions in ensuring that air quality objectives and limit values are met by 2020.
69
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
6 Recommendations for an Alternative Fuels Strategy
To a large extent, overall emissions levels in the LCR under a “business as usual” scenario
will depend on how traffic changes, on the rate of natural fleet turnover, and on emissions
from sources other than HDVs86. Cars and vans make a significant contribution to NOx, even
in areas dominated by port HGV traffic, and possible future reductions will be tempered by
the fact that many light vehicles are failing to meet emissions standards on the road 87.
Further work is required to identify what this will mean in terms of compliance with emissions
limits over the next 5-15 years. However, as shown in Chapter 5, it is possible that the NOx
and PM10 contributions specifically from HGVs and buses could be reduced below the levels
achieved by natural fleet renewal. This could be achieved through accelerated uptake of
new Euro VI diesel (or gas) vehicles, or through uptake of alternative technologies including
retrofit solutions and zero-emission vehicles.
Cost premiums and limited vehicle availability are among the most significant barriers to
uptake of alternative HDV technologies, with others listed in Figure 44 (below). The issue of
cost premiums (which also present a barrier to accelerated fleet renewal) can be addressed
in a number of ways, as indicated in Figure 44. Funding from UK government to support
uptake of low emission vehicles is one example. Various measures could also be
implemented locally by the Liverpool City Region authorities, in order to “level the playing
field” in terms of cost, by directly or indirectly incentivising the use of lower emission vehicles.
For example, one such measure would be a Low Emission Zone (LEZ) or Clean Air Zone
(CAZ), which could impose emissions limits on vehicles operating within a certain area.
The following sections outline various options and provide recommendations for the local
authorities in the Liverpool City Region, with regard to addressing the barriers to uptake of
alternative fuel HDVs and capturing the reductions to emissions that they could bring.
Figure 44 Barriers to alternative HDV technologies and possible actions for the LCR
86
As well as cars and vans, in some areas industry and rail contribute a large share of emissions. See
Figure 51 in the Appendix for an example of emissions breakdown by source at Princess Way.
87 ICCT, NO control technologies for Euro 6 diesel passenger cars, August 2015
x
70
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
6.1 Seeking funding for vehicles and infrastructure
National funding
To enable uptake of alternative fuel HDVs, the LCR can apply to several sources of national
funding, either for local authority fleets or on behalf of commercial fleets. These are
summarised in Table 18.
Table 18 National funds to support uptake of alternative fuel HDVs
Funding
Description
OLEV Low
Emission Bus
Fund
Funding for low emission
buses in areas of poor AQ
Clean Bus
Technology Fund
Funding for retrofit achieving
min 50% NOx reduction per
bus in areas of poor AQ
Closed 30 October 2015 –
Second round expected in
2016
Closed 30 October 2015 –
additional rounds expected
Funding
Applicable to:
£30m
available
nationally for
first round
Buses &
infrastructure
£5m
available
nationally
Retrofit
technology for
buses
Innovate UK
(Technologies
Strategy Board)
Funds innovation in a range
of technology areas (e.g. has
provided funding for the Low
Carbon Trucks Trial)
Up to 50% of
project value
(60% for
SMEs)
e.g. Infrastructure
for HGVs
Defra AQ Grants
Funding for projects to
reduce NO2 or PM10 in areas
of exceedance
£0.5m
available
nationally
Any relevant cost
£4m
available
nationally
Gas stations
OLEV gas station
funding
Funding to support strategic
gas refuelling network
To open in 2016 pending
emissions results for Euro VI
gas HGVs
These funding sources can be accessed through a competitive bidding process. In order to
have the best chance of securing future funding, the LCR should identify the best
opportunities for emissions reductions in areas of key AQ concern, such as port access
roads (A5036, A565 and A5058), and/or in terms of CO2 (depending on the specific fund).
The Merseyside Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (MAEI) will be a key tool in determining
and providing evidence for which areas could benefit most. A coordinated approach to these
sources of funding will help to compare and prioritise as many options as possible in terms
of the various funding criteria.
71
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Recommended actions for the Liverpool City Region:
1. Identify opportunities for vehicle replacement or retrofit within council fleet: e.g.
vehicles operating on key routes such as the A5036, the A565 and the A5058
2. Inform fleets of relevant funding schemes through ECOstars, business support
initiatives and Trade Associations such as the FTA
3. Coordinate funding applications e.g. through Merseytravel or the LEP (if nonbus related), prioritising specific routes in AQMAs
4. Engage with existing UK projects – e.g. “100 fuel cell bus” project for joint
procurement of hydrogen buses is open to include more local/transport
authorities
European funding
Funding to support low emission vehicles and infrastructure is also available at European
level. The different sources are summarised in Table 19.
Table 19 European funds to support uptake of alternative fuel HDVs
Funding
Description
EU
Structural
and
Investment
Funds
EU funds for encouraging development
across a range of thematic objectives (total
~€10.7bn 2014-2020 for the UK)
Horizon
2020
Regular calls for proposals for research and
innovation projects, with total budget €80bn
2014-2020 across Europe. e.g.:
 2016-2017 Green Vehicles call
includes funding for demonstration
projects as well as research and
development
Fuel Cell
and
Hydrogen
Joint
Undertaking
(FCH2 JU)
Funding under Horizon 2020. Public-private
partnership between EC and industry, to
advance the commercialisation of hydrogen
and fuel cells
EU TENT/CEF
funding
Funding to improve key transport corridors
in Europe, across a range of modes (total
€26.3bn 2014-2020 across Europe).
Liverpool is part of the strategic network.
Funding
rate
Applicable
to:
Up to 60%
of project
value
Could include
HGVs, buses
and
infrastructure
Up to 70%
of project
value
Up to 70%
of project
value
Varies up
to 50%
depending
on type of
project
Could include
HGVs, buses
and
infrastructure
Hydrogen
vehicles and
infrastructure
Infrastructure
along TEN-T
corridors
TEN-T: Trans-European Transport Network; CEF: Connecting Europe Facility
Demonstrations or trials of zero emission HDVs could be funded through projects under
Horizon 2020 (for hydrogen vehicles, this would be likely to be under the Fuel Cell and
72
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Hydrogen Joint Undertaking specifically). These funds are typically accessible through the
formation of a consortium of partners across several European countries, including industry
stakeholders, such as vehicle manufacturers and fleet operators, as well as public sector
partners such as local authorities. Establishing groups of local stakeholders for different low
emission vehicle powertrains could facilitate future funding applications and enable the
identification of opportunities for trials of new technologies.
Some infrastructure providers have already secured TEN-T/CEF funding for infrastructure,
e.g. for gas refuelling. As Liverpool is on the strategic road network for TEN-T, the LCR
should engage with these providers to establish opportunities for stations in or close to the
LCR which could support uptake of gas HGVs, and other low-emission HGVs, as these
become more widely available.
Recommended actions for the Liverpool City Region:
1. Support the creation of local partnerships to bring together expertise and initial
demand for different low emission fuels (i.e. biomethane, electricity and
hydrogen), and improve understanding of local supply opportunities (e.g.
hydrogen pipeline, expansion of offshore wind)
2. Join or support bids for European funding to enable such groupings to deploy
stations and vehicles. Guidance is available from various platforms including
official national contact points for various aspects of Horizon 2020, and external
platforms e.g. http://www.welcomeurope.com/understand-european-funds.html
3. Engage with other European cities with experience of participating in funded
projects for low carbon transport
4. Engage with gas infrastructure providers with TEN-T funding (ENN, Gasrec) to
discuss opportunities for stations in the LCR
6.2 Local policy measures
As well as applying for funding for lower emission vehicles, the LCR authorities can consider
putting in place local policy measures that could accelerate uptake of lower emission
vehicles in the LCR, and specifically in areas of poor air quality. Some possible examples
are outlined in Table 20.
Table 20 Possible local policy measures for implementation in the LCR
Clean Air Zone/Low
Emission Zone88
Toll differentiation
Parking incentives
Restrictions on vehicles of
specific emissions
standards e.g. for HGVs
and buses only
Mersey crossing tolls could
introduce fixed tariffs for lower
emission vehicles over a
specific timescale (with other
tariffs increasing with inflation)
Priority access to loading
bays/parking for
alternative fuel vehicles
The measures described in Table 20 could incentivise uptake of Euro VI and alternative fuel
vehicles, e.g. by imposing a fine or a restriction on vehicles, operating in certain routes or
88
“Clean Air Zone” is the terminology used by DEFRA in their 2015 draft plans to improve air quality
in the UK. The term has the same implication as “Low Emission Zone”, which has been used to
describe previous zones.
73
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
areas, which do not meet certain emissions criteria. In each case, the specific criteria for
emissions and the applicable vehicle types would be subject to a feasibility study to
determine the potential costs and benefits, and the possible impacts on local businesses.
6.2.1 Clean Air Zones (Low Emission Zones)
Of the measures described in Table 20, Clean Air Zones or Low Emission Zones could be
the most effective in terms of alleviating air quality issues in specific areas within the LCR.
There are a number of precedents and potential lessons to learn from Low Emission Zones
which have been implemented in other European cities, including London (see examples in
the boxes below). These often apply specifically to heavy vehicles, although most LEZs in
the UK to date (outside London) relate to buses only.
Low Emission Zone – Example 1 – Sweden89
Based on a national framework for low emission zones, applied in several cities
including Stockholm. Operated by the separate cities.
A city-wide LEZ, with restriction to Euro II, with a gradual phasing to Euro V limits.
This applies to all heavy, diesel-powered lorries and buses. Vehicles are allowed in for 6
years from the date of first registration, and Euro III vehicles 8 years from date of first
registration. The implications are:




89
Euro II vehicles can no longer enter the LEZ.
The latest a Euro III vehicle can be driven is 2015 (if first registered in 2007).
Euro IV vehicles can be driven until 2016, regardless of the year of registration.
Euro V vehicles can be driven until 2020, regardless of the year of registration.
Adapted from Jacobs, Low Emissions Strategy Literature Review for Transport Scotland, 2014
74
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Low Emission Zone – Example 2 – London89
The London LEZ restricts the use of older technologies for HGVs, buses, coaches, and
some LGVs within Central London. The minimum emission standards for a vehicle to
be able to drive within the LEZ without charge were introduced in phases, as follows:




From February 2008, a standard of Euro III for particulate matter (PM) for HGVs
over 12 tonnes;
From July 2008, a standard of Euro III for PM for HGVs over 3.5 to 12 tonnes,
buses and coaches;
From October 2010, a standard of Euro 3 for heavier LGVs and minibuses;
From January 2012, a standard of Euro IV for PM for HGVs over 3.5 tonnes, buses
and coaches.
The phased process of implementation allowed HGV users to make fleet upgrade
decisions over time. A small number of vehicles (including specialist agricultural
vehicles) are exempt from the charges for non-compliance.
This was a well-resourced project with good stakeholder engagement process,
supported by a strong enforcement regime. All of these elements were key factors in
the impressive compliance figures it has achieved.
Figure 45 summarises the indicative process to follow to assess the case for implementation
of a CAZ.
Figure 45 Indicative process for CAZ assessment and implementation
Define CAZ features
Before undertaking a feasibility study for a CAZ, LCR authorities should consider and define
parameters for the following:
•
•
•
•
Boundaries
o Likely to include AQMAs on the port access roads (the A5036, the A565 and
the A5058). The Merseyside Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (MAEI) should
be used to determine which areas are likely to have NO 2 or PM10 levels in
exceedance of European limits and UK objectives by 2020, taking into account
possible increases in traffic due to the port expansion.
Type of vehicles restricted
o As shown in the case studies, a CAZ could apply specifically to commercial
vehicles.
Enforcement
o Enforcement tends to be more manageable if only a few roads are included in
the zone (this could inform the zone boundaries).
Approach to emissions restriction
75
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Restrictions could be placed in terms of age (e.g. an age limit) or by imposing a
certain emissions standard (e.g. Euro VI standard). The latter would allow for
older vehicles to remain on the road if their emissions could be reduced to meet
the proposed standard, e.g. through retrofit. If some form of funding for retrofits
was made available, small businesses (with low capacity to replace their
vehicles early) would be less likely to be excluded from the CAZ.
Phasing approach
o Sufficient notice should be given of a CAZ implementation, and the required
standard could be increased over time (see examples in the boxes above).
o Increasing the standard over time could increase the overall benefit of the CAZ
by incentivising improvements beyond Euro VI.
o Alignment with other CAZs in the area would be recommended.
Non-compliance fines
o A recommended approach would be to follow a national framework (although
this does not yet exist).
Exclusions (e.g. emergency service vehicles)
o Some exclusions could be allowed for essential services for which compliance
with the CAZ restrictions would be very challenging. The terms and timescale
of any exclusions would need to be defined.
o
•
•
•
DEFRA recently outlined a proposed framework for Clean Air Zones (CAZs) as part of their
draft plans to improve air quality in the UK. The consultation document indicates the local
authorities that could be expected to implement CAZs in order to avoid exceeding air quality
limit values for NO2 by 2020, and suggests a common framework for these authorities to
use. DEFRA’s forecasts indicate that all the local authorities within the LCR will be compliant
by 2020. However, these forecasts do not account for the specific traffic increases that are
likely to come as a result of the port expansion. If a national framework is ultimately adopted,
using it for any future CAZs in the LCR would be appropriate, to avoid generating conflicting
signals to fleets and businesses operating on a national basis. This could include following
recommended levels of charges and fines, as well as coordinating a “phased” CAZ
introduction to align with plans in other regions.
CAZ feasibility study
Once the parameters have been defined, the potential impacts of a CAZ should be assessed
through a dedicated feasibility study. This should include an assessment of the potential
costs, including costs for fleet operators to achieve compliance, and implementation costs
for the relevant local authorities. These costs should be weighed against the economic value
of the benefits that a CAZ could bring. For every year that emissions levels exceed the limit
values, the financial cost to the LCR could be significant:
•
•
•
The European Commission has stated that it would like the UK to achieve full
compliance with limit values for nitrogen dioxide in the EU Air Quality Directive by 2020
at the latest. The government faces annual multi-million pound fines from the
Commission if compliance is not achieved.
These fines could potentially be passed on (in part or in full) to the relevant local
authorities, under the Localism Act.
In addition, the health impacts of air pollution could be detrimental to business within the
region. Across the LCR, an estimated 4-5% of deaths of people aged 25+ can be
attributed to local levels of anthropogenic PM2.5, accounting for around 8,100 in total90.
90
Public Health England, Estimated Local Mortality Burdens associated with Particulate Air Pollution,
2014. Note that the attributable deaths metric is likely to represent a smaller health impact across a
larger number of people.
76
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
•
Such estimates do not yet exist for NO2. These estimates can be used as an indicator
of the costs associated with high pollution levels: as well as reducing the size of the
workforce and affecting overall productivity, they can be linked to an increased cost
burden on public healthcare.
The indirect cost impacts of pollutants have been quantified by Defra, for use in
appraisal processes such as feasibility studies. These values, known as “damage
costs”, account for economic losses from air pollution related health impacts (including
resource costs and productivity losses).91
In 2014, Southampton City Council commissioned a study to assess the feasibility of a LEZ
to reduce NOx levels around the port of Southampton. The consultants conducting the study
(Ricardo-AEA) consulted with local stakeholders to inform the study, including the Port
Operators and logistics groups. Stakeholder engagement and input at the feasibility study
stage (and even at the definition stage) is important to ensure that the implications of
LEZ/CAZ implementation are well understood. The Southampton study assessed the costs
and benefits of two LEZ scenarios, requiring HGVs in the LEZ to be Euro V compliant and
Euro VI compliant respectively. For these two scenarios, the study estimated the cost of
abatement (representing the overall cost of achieving LEZ compliance, including vehicle
replacement and enforcement costs) and the potential savings to damage costs. This
analysis suggested that the costs of an LEZ would significantly outweigh the benefits (in
both Euro V and Euro VI cases).92
Newcastle City Council and Gateshead Council reached similar conclusions regarding the
implementation of LEZs for HGVs93,94. However, in estimating the possible cost savings from
LEZ or CAZ introduction, these feasibility studies do not account for the possible reallocation of fines from the EC. These fines could significantly change the value of CAZ
implementation, and should be considered as a possibility within feasibility studies for the
LCR.
Internal approval and wider consultation
For the LCR case, the results of a CAZ feasibility study should be considered internally
before deciding whether to proceed with a wider consultation. During the internal process,
the health and potential financial implications of improved air quality should be highlighted,
as this could raise the status of air quality issues and improvement measures, even if a CAZ
is not deemed appropriate.
If a CAZ is approved within the relevant local authority, the proposed details should be
published for consultation. The consultation should seek to engage with specific groups that
could be negatively impacted by the CAZ, to identify possible approaches to reduce these
effects. For example, small fleet operators and highly specialised fleets (such as equipment
hire trucks or art transportation vehicles) are unlikely to have the capacity to purchase new
vehicles ahead of schedule, or to install filters on all the vehicles in their fleets. To avoid
excluding such fleets from CAZ operations, the LCR could push for national level solutions
91
Defra, 2013.Air Quality: Economic analysis. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/air-quality-economicanalysis (Retrieved 7th December 2015)
92 Ricardo-AEA for Southampton City Council, Western Approach AQMA air quality assessment,
Southampton, July 2014
93 Dr Paul Goodman, Newcastle/Gateshead Low Emission Zone Feasibility Study presentation,
December 2013. Extracted from http://www.iapsc.org.uk/presentations-december-2013.php on 8th
December 2015.
94
Note that LEZs restricting the emissions of buses have been implemented in Oxford, Brighton and
Nottingham, and proposed in Leicester.
77
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
(e.g. low interest loans or leasing schemes) to ensure that small local businesses do not
suffer disproportionately as a result of any future CAZs.
A CAZ would be demanding in terms of resources within the relevant local authorities, and
could also conflict with other political priorities such as economic development. Peel Ports
(the operator of the Port of Liverpool) takes the view that a CAZ enforcing emissions limits
on the main access routes to the Port of Liverpool could have detrimental impacts on key
businesses in the LCR, if haulage and shipping lines choose to relocate to other ports where
such restrictions are not in place. To avoid this, if a CAZ is considered it would be vital for
the councils of the LCR to engage with other port towns during the consultation process and
even before this stage, to discuss a consistent approach to reducing emissions levels
associated with HGV traffic near ports. The LCR can also engage with national government
to put in place a consistent framework to address this.
6.2.2 Toll differentiation and parking incentives
An alternative to a Clean Air Zone would be to introduce differential tariffs in certain areas,
to provide cost benefits to fleet operators using low emission vehicles. For example, in
Halton, the Mersey Gateway Bridge is currently being constructed. When it opens in 2017,
this bridge and the existing Silver Jubilee Bridge will be tolled, in order to pay for the new
bridge. This offers the potential for toll differentiation: one option would be a lower toll rate
for vehicles with emissions below a certain threshold. The conclusion of a discussion with
Halton Council and the Mersey Gateway Crossings Board (the organisation managing the
new bridge and the tolls) was that such a scheme would be technically feasible, but would
rely economically on the certainty of revenues from the tolls. The toll introduction may lead
to impacts on traffic levels, which will impact emissions as well as the revenues taken. Once
greater understanding of emissions and revenues is achieved (after the new bridge is
opened in 2017) this could enable a suitable differentiation scheme for low (or zero)
emission vehicles to be developed.
Parking incentives could be used in a similar way, by offering reduced parking rates to lower
emission vehicles. A study of HGV operator parking preferences by Atkins found that most
drivers operating around the Port of Liverpool tend to avoid paying for parking, as there is
currently a sufficient supply of free parking95. As such, strict parking controls would need to
be introduced in order to make differential parking rates an effective strategy to reduce NO2
levels around the port access routes. This would be challenging in terms of political
acceptability and in terms of resources for implementation.
6.2.3 Role of businesses and local stakeholders
In addition to providing input to consultations, local businesses could play a more direct role
in reducing air pollution by starting to take NO x and PM10 emissions into account in their
Corporate Social Responsibility strategies. For example, businesses could demonstrate
their commitment to local health as well as climate change (CO 2 related targets) by
introducing maximum emissions requirements in contracts for delivery services. The vast
majority of businesses do not value air quality despite the health implications for employees
and the general public, and this means that there is no incentive for fleets to improve their
emissions.
As a major stakeholder in the freight sector within the LCR, Peel Ports (the operator of the
Port of Liverpool) has a role to play in reducing emissions from HGV traffic in the port area.
As part of this role, Peel Ports is actively supporting the increased use of the Manchester
95
Atkins, Port of Liverpool HGV Parking Demand Study, October 2015
78
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Ship Canal, which will bring reduced road congestion and emissions96. However, in terms
of reducing emissions from HGVs on a per-vehicle basis, Peel Ports cannot currently take
an active role. This is partly due to the inherent difficulty in restricting HGVs from accessing
the Port based on their fuel type. The competition between Ports in the UK means that Peel
Ports would not be inclined to restrict access to the port by fuel type or emissions level, even
if it was technically feasible, as this could hurt the organisation and potentially affect the local
economy. As discussed previously, this could change if a consistent framework for
regulation of Port-related emissions was developed.
Possible actions relating to the implementation of local policy measures are summarised
below:
Recommended actions for the Liverpool City Region:
1. If results of emissions projections (using the MAEI) suggest that NO2 limit
values will continue to be exceeded, define suitable parameters and conduct a
feasibility study for Clean Air Zones in the relevant areas
 Collaboration between the LCR authorities and other regions
needed to ensure that cross-boundary benefits are achieved
 Seek a national government approach to address air quality issues
in Port towns, to avoid potential detrimental effects of a port access
CAZ on key businesses in the LCR. This could include a mandate to
report on air quality impacts in CSR documents
2. Outreach within Council to raise the status of air pollution issues: present health
case and financial case to local government, using the results of the feasibility
study
3. Following the opening of the Mersey Gateway Bridge, identify traffic impacts of
the tolls and the consequences for AQ hotspots
6.3 Internal measures for consideration
The following section outlines other actions that can be pursued internally by the Liverpool
City Region Councils, to facilitate uptake of lower emission vehicles and infrastructure.
Minimum standards for council fleet procurement
Procurement of lower emission vehicles within Council owned fleets (and Councilcontracted operations) will contribute to the overall reduction of emissions and to the
expansion of the market for these vehicles. In order to reduce the emissions impacts of
Council fleets, the LCR could introduce minimum standards to be specified in tenders. This
could follow the Government Buying Standards for transport (vehicles), which are currently
being revised, with plans for release by the end of 201597. This is mandatory for central
government fleets, and local authorities are also encouraged to use it.
Minimum standards could be first adopted for specific services which have a particular
impact to air quality in areas of high air pollution, such as waste collection in the city centre.
96
Based on discussions with Peel Ports and Peel Ports Corporate Social Responsibility Report,
2012/2013 http://peelports.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Peel-Ports-Mersey-CSR-Report-20122013.pdf
97 Defra, Draft plans to improve air quality in the UK – Tackling nitrogen dioxide in our towns and cities
– UK overview document, 2015
79
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Account for the indirect costs of air pollution could facilitate this where contracts must be
awarded on a cost basis.
Merseytravel is currently in the process of revising specifications for supported bus routes,
providing an opportunity for the introduction of emissions standards. In doing so,
Merseytravel should work closely with the two major operators within the LCR (Arriva and
Stagecoach). These two operators are part of the Quality Bus Network partnership, and
have plans to agree levels of commitment for new vehicles in the LCR, which will impact the
future emissions levels from buses.
Planning policy and guidance
Siting can be one of the key challenges for providers of low emission fuel refuelling
infrastructure, due to the requirements for gas grid and/or electricity grid connections, land
costs, and in some cases, planning processes.
Local authorities can facilitate the siting process by:
•
•
•
Streamlining planning processes for alternative fuel production and refuelling
infrastructure (and engaging with other local councils such as Warrington Borough
Council to encourage them to align their own planning processes)
Helping infrastructure providers to identify and liaise with site owners
Support initial feasibility assessment by providing access to gas and electricity network
details through use of the LEP’s Master Utilities Planning
In addition, local authorities can encourage infrastructure providers to meet customer needs
by producing planning policy and/or guidance around factors such as access specifications,
fuel quality, or WTT CO2 content. For example, for gas vehicles, the fuel production and
supply pathway can have a significant impact on the overall GHG emissions; biomethane
results in much lower emissions than grid gas on a Well-to-Wheel basis. As such, gas station
planning applications should include evidence of a biomethane supply strategy and of
station design that maximises CO2 emission savings.
Integrate renewable fuel supply initiatives with demand from transport
To maximise the benefits of low emission vehicle uptake in terms of WTW CO2 emissions,
initiatives for local renewable production (such as the Food Waste to Energy initiative, and
the potential supply of by-product hydrogen) should be linked to future deployment of
alternative fuel vehicles. This could be encouraged by including representatives from such
initiatives in working groups for the relevant vehicle and infrastructure types. Once vehicles
are ready for deployment, local renewable supply can be secured by trading of Green Gas
Certificates (for compressed biomethane), by power purchase agreements (for renewable
electricity), or by direct supply (for by-product hydrogen).
Establishing links with local fuel supply opportunities will also increase the local economic
development impacts of uptake of alternative fuel vehicles.
6.4 Prioritisation of recommendations for the Liverpool City
Region
This report has provided a large number of potential actions for the authorities of the LCR
to consider taking to reduce the emissions contributions from HGVs and buses. Taking into
account the current pressure on local authorities to reduce costs, and the limited resources
that are available to address air quality, this section of the report highlights which of the
recommended actions set out in Sections 4.4, 5.4, and 6.1-6.3 should be prioritised. The
80
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
recommended actions have been ranked in the order in which they could be expected to
start (although several actions can be undertaken in parallel).
1. Set up a working group to review air quality for the LCR and develop
and oversee overarching action plan(s) if required
In order to ensure that future and ongoing air quality measures can be coordinated and
prioritised across the city region, a working group should be set up to bring together the air
quality and transport teams from each of the local authorities within the LCR, along with
Merseytravel and the Local Enterprise Partnership for the LCR. This group would be
responsible for managing progress in terms of air quality improvement in the region.
As well as overseeing progress, the members of the group could coordinate applications for
funding for low emission HDV technologies (such as future rounds of the Clean Bus
Technology Fund, or funding for low emission buses/HGVs), and could engage with fleet
operators, infrastructure providers and other local stakeholders for input to ensure that this
funding is used to maximise the overall air quality benefits for the LCR. The group would
ensure that funding applications highlight the most promising cases for air quality
improvement, accounting for private and public sector fleets where relevant. Coordination
by the LEP, Merseytravel or the FTA could enable opportunities across a range of
stakeholders to be prioritised. Where national fleet operators are involved, the presence of
a clear and targeted emissions reduction strategy could strengthen the case for choosing
the Liverpool City Region for deployment of alternative vehicles.
The working group should consider and discuss the recommendations made throughout this
report. However, the following recommended actions should be the top priorities to be
addressed by the group.
2. Utilise the Merseyside Atmospheric Emissions Inventory to model
future emission levels in the city region, to inform the need for
mitigating actions
To gain an understanding of the need for specific actions to avoid future exceedances of air
quality objectives, the working group should prioritise the modelling of overall NO2 and PM10
emissions levels in 2020 and beyond under a “business as usual” scenario, accounting for
possible changes in traffic and other contributing sources in the AQMAs. This modelling
should use tools such as the Merseyside Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (MAEI): for
example, an ongoing study is using the MAEI to establish the extent of exceedances, due
to the port expansion, on the A5036 (one of the key port access routes).
Future modelling should be designed enable the identification of areas where emissions
savings from HGVs and/or buses can deliver the greatest benefits in terms of air quality,
and should take account of projected emissions from all sources to provide the full context
in terms of possible exceedances. This is needed to inform decisions within the LCR on
what further actions are appropriate to ensure that air quality objectives can be achieved.
This detailed modelling will inform progress on air quality in the city region, and it is important
that resources are made available, both in terms of personnel and funding.
Some of the previous recommendations in this chapter (such as an assessment for a Clean
Air Zone) could be politically challenging and demanding in terms of resources, so a clear
idea of what pollution levels might be (relative to objectives) over the next 5 years will be
essential in deciding whether to proceed with such recommendations. Similarly, the
modelling could be a key tool in identifying the best opportunities for national funding for
81
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
lower emission vehicle technologies, or in engaging with local politicians on the health
benefits of improving air quality.
The results of the modelling would inform the need for specific measures to reduce future
emissions from transport. These measures could include either of the following actions.
3. Conduct a feasibility study for a Clean Air Zone (if evidence from
emissions modelling suggests that accelerated uptake of Euro VI
HDVs is required in the LCR)
If the MAEI modelling results indicate that continued exceedances of emissions limits in
2020 are likely under a baseline scenario (i.e. with no additional measures taken to reduce
emissions from transport), the working group should consider the options to accelerate the
uptake of Euro VI HDVs operating within the relevant area(s), and thereby avoid
exceedances. A feasibility study for a Clean Air Zone (CAZ) should be conducted to
determine the costs and benefits of implementing such a zone, which would be one of the
main options to achieve accelerated fleet renewal (as outlined in Section 6.2.1).
Such a feasibility study would be informed by evidence of the relative emissions of diesel
and gas Euro VI vehicles, such as test results that will become available from DfT and the
LowCVP’s HGV testing programme. If these results show Euro VI gas does not provide
emissions reductions compared to Euro VI diesel, supporting the uptake of Euro VI vehicles
will still be a priority, but without special emphasis on gas vehicles.
4. Apply for OLEV gas refuelling infrastructure funding (when it is
released)
If the MAEI modelling results indicate that continued exceedances of emissions limits are
likely under a baseline scenario (i.e. with no additional measures taken to reduce emissions
from transport), the working group should consider the options to increase the uptake of
lower emission HDVs. If and when OLEV releases funding for gas refuelling infrastructure,
this will be a result of clear evidence of the air quality benefits that adoption of gas vehicles
could bring. Given that a significant level of potential demand for gas vehicles operating in
the LCR has been identified (see Section 4.3) the LCR should seek to bid (or contribute to
a bid) for OLEV funding for gas infrastructure, as and when this funding is released (likely
to be within the first half of 2016). Any specifications set out by OLEV should be taken into
careful consideration to ensure that the air quality and/or GHG emissions benefits are
maximised. Bids should be informed by the siting exercise presented in this report.
For either of the two recommended actions above, and other possible interventions included
in the recommendations in this report, implementation could take a number of years and
would potentially have significant implications in terms of funding and resources for the
relevant local authorities. As such, the benefits and costs of such interventions should be
assessed against the likelihood of significant emission reductions over time from normal
fleet renewal, as well as the negative health impacts associated with delaying the reductions
to emissions.
Figure 46 shows an indicative timescale for the priority actions, and illustrates the
dependencies between these actions and various pending government announcements.
82
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Figure 46 Indicative timescales for recommendations
6.5 National level requirements to facilitate regional actions
Central government support for air quality measures
To reduce NOx and PM emissions from HGVs and buses significantly beyond the levels that
can be achieved through fleet renewal, local policy interventions will be required, as
described in the previous sections. These measures are likely to require strong political will
at a local level, and this is itself likely to require clear support from a national level.
Particularly in light of the pressure on local government to deliver substantial savings yearon-year, national support will be needed to ensure that the necessary resources and
frameworks are available.
For significant reductions to NO2 and PM10 levels to be achieved in the LCR and in the UK
as whole, emissions from all sources (including HDVs) must be addressed. To achieve this,
the health and economic impacts of high levels of these pollutants should be recognised
and built into cross-cutting policy frameworks at a national level, to ensure that the potential
impacts are accounted for in the assessment of policy and infrastructure development.
Similarly, sharing the responsibility for air quality improvement across departments would
reduce conflicting motivations between e.g. business and environment departments. This
could improve the capacity for rapid improvements and encourage connected work across
sectors and departments, allowing for the development of cohesive reduction strategies.
Further research
In addition to the need for national level support, this study has identified several areas
where further evidence or data would be helpful in the future development of Alternative
Fuel Strategies for the LCR and for other regions.
There is currently no evidence available on the emissions performance of Euro VI diesel
(and gas) engines over the course of a vehicle lifetime. Real-world emissions data
83
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
suggests that new Euro VI engines have very low NO x and PM emissions. However, it is
unclear whether these levels are consistently low through the vehicle lifetime, or whether
the efficacy of emissions reduction technology decreases over time in a given vehicle. If
made available, data over engine lifetimes could be used to make projections of future
emissions contributions from HDVs more accurate, and would help to determine whether
there is a need for measures such as Clean Air Zones in order to achieve compliance with
Air Quality Objectives. This data would also help to address the uncertainty regarding the
relative emissions benefits of Euro VI gas over Euro VI diesel, and could consequently
inform the LCR’s strategy for adoption of gas vehicles.
To address the uncertainty around the relative emissions of new gas and diesel vehicles,
there is also a demand for evidence of Euro VI diesel and gas vehicle performance at a
range of different speeds. This evidence could identify differences (between technologies)
to emissions levels at particular speeds, which should be taken account of when allocating
vehicles to different types of journeys. For example, a technology that has lower emissions
at low speeds would be suitable for city centre operations. Evidence on this is expected to
be included in the upcoming DfT/LowCVP testing programme for Euro VI gas trucks98.
Access to detailed information on fleet size, vehicle weight and age categories and
operational areas for local fleets would be helpful to inform estimations of fleet
contributions to future emissions levels, for the Merseyside Atmospheric Emissions
Inventory. Since the estimation of future emissions will inform the strategy required to ensure
compliance with EC NO2 limits, it will be important to tailor details of fleet composition to
specific areas wherever possible, rather than using national averages for certain area types.
6.6 Key conclusions and recommendations
The main conclusions of the report are summarised below, alongside the five key
recommendations that have been identified as priority actions for the Liverpool City Region.
Conclusions







98
Significant NO2 and PM10 savings are likely to be achieved through normal fleet
renewal processes, even accounting for projected traffic increases.
These savings could be accelerated and increased by measures put in place to
maximise the benefit in the long term. One such measure is CAZ (or LEZ)
implementation, which could encourage early fleet replacement or retrofit.
A CAZ is likely to be politically challenging, especially on port access routes,
and will require a dedicated feasibility study.
Further reductions to emissions levels in key areas could be achieved through
replacement of HGVs or buses with zero-emission alternatives.
Evidence of the real-world air quality and GHG emissions benefits of Euro VI
gas vehicles (compared to Euro VI diesel) is expected in 2016.
There is likely to be sufficient potential demand for gas vehicles amongst fleets
in the LCR to justify the installation of one or more gas stations (on an
economic basis).
Measures should also be taken at a national level to facilitate the
implementation of local air quality measures such as CAZs. This includes
http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/news,lowcvp-to-manage-gas-hgv-test-programme-for-dft_3338.htm
84
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
recognition of air quality impacts across several government departments to
ensure that a consistent approach can be taken.
Recommendations (in order of priority)


Set up a working group to review air quality for the LCR and oversee
overarching action plan(s) if required
Use the MAEI to model future emissions in the city region, identify areas in
which NO2 or PM10 limits will be exceeded in 2020, and highlight areas where
emissions savings from HGVs and/or buses could help to avoid these
exceedances. If evidence from this modelling suggests that continued
exceedances of emissions limits in 2020 are likely under a baseline scenario
(i.e. with no additional measures taken to reduce emissions from transport):
o
o
Conduct a feasibility study for a Clean Air Zone that could bring about
accelerated uptake of Euro VI HDVs and lower emission vehicles
Use the gas station siting study to apply for funding for infrastructure when
OLEV funding is released (provided that evidence for emissions benefits of
Euro VI gas over Euro VI diesel emerges from the DfT/LowCVP testing
programme).
85
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Appendix
Figure 47 Emissions reductions from GTL diesel: results from test data 99
99
Shell GTL Fuel Knowledge Guide, SYNTHETIC TECHNOLOGY FOR CLEANER AIR
86
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Figure 48 Emissions reductions from GTL diesel: results from trial data 100
Table 21 Fuel consumption assumptions used to estimate gas demand
Fuel consumption
(kg/100km)
Typical annual
mileage (km)
Typical daily
demand
(kg/day)
Small rigid HGV
21.4
80,000-90,000
<53
Large rigid HGV
26.7
100,000-130,000
<95
Articulated HGV
27.8
140,000-180,000
<137
Single decker
bus
27.0
70,000
<52
100
Shell GTL Fuel Knowledge Guide, SYNTHETIC TECHNOLOGY FOR CLEANER AIR
87
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Table 22 Gas Station components
LNG & LCNG station components
CNG station components








Pumps
o LNG thermosiphon storage
o High
pressure
ambient-air
vaporising units
o Odorizer (for LCNG)
o Additional
pump
components
required for LCNG
Dispensers
LNG/CNG storage
Fire and Gas System
Fuel management
Onsite piping and cabling








Compressors
Specification dependent on pressure
of connected gas pipeline
Dispensers
CNG storage
Fuel management
High pressure pipework
Utility Connections:
Gas
Electricity
Gas and electricity meters
88
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Figure 49 Reductions in NOx emissions levels from HGV and bus fleets, compared to
a 2015 baseline level, using NOx factors at a speed of 60km/h
89
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Figure 50 Reductions in PM emissions levels from HGV and bus fleets, compared to
a 2015 baseline level, using PM factors at a speed of 60km/h
Table 23 Emissions factors and references used to estimate GHG emissions from
HDV fleets
gCO2/MJ
TTW
Diesel
Gas
71.4
56.6
2011 Defra/DECC
GHG conversion
factors
2012 Defra/DECC
GHG conversion
factors
Electricity
Hydrogen
0
0
55.6
WTW: Max
CO2
pathway
WTW: Min
CO2
pathway
86.9
65.1
2012 Defra/DECC
GHG conversion
factors
Grid gas - 2013
Defra/DECC GHG
conversion Factors
86.9
2012 Defra/DECC
GHG conversion
factors
-19.5
85.5
Conservative estimate
based on DECC
Updated Energy and
Emissions projections
2015 (Nov 2015) –
value for 2020 is used
Based on grid
electricity (as
left) and 65%
electrolyser
efficiency
0
0
CBM - Ricardo 2013
(Preparing a low CO2
technology roadmap
for buses)- p.71
(WTT)
90
Alternative fuels strategy for the Liverpool City Region
Final report
Figure 51 Contributions of major source groups to annual mean NO x levels at
Princess Way101
101
Sefton Council, Draft Air Quality Action Plan for Sefton Council for Air Quality Management Areas
1-5, January 2015
91