Analysis of Technical Options for Mitigating Environmental Emissions from the Urban Transport System

1
Analysis of Technical Options for Mitigating
Environmental Emissions from the Urban Transport
System in Metro Manila Society for the
Advancement of Technology Management in the
Philippines
2
Outline

• Energy demand and emissions of Metro Manila
  Transport System
• Technological Options to Mitigate Emissions of
  Harmful Pollutants
• Barriers to Adoption of Selected Technical
  Options
• Recent Developments in Use of Alternative Fuels

3
Profile of Metro Manila Transport System

• Population 10 million
• Registered vehicles 1.3 million
• Growth rate of population 2.2
• Growth rate of vehicle stock 8
• 33 of vehicles run on diesel
• Private vehicles account for 35 of passenger
  travel demand. Average occupancy rate of private
  vehicles is 2.5.

4
Projected Vehicle Stock and Energy Demand
2000 2020 Vehicle stock (000)
Car 571.0 1,825.6 Utility vehicle
653.2 2,732.5
Motorcycle 173.9 437.8 Bus
10.3 26.4 Truck
69.4
119.9 Trailer
14.0
57.6 Energy Demand (mtoe) Passenger
8.2 25.6 Freight 0.9 1.9
Total 9.1 27.5
5
Projected Emissions of the Transport System
in million kilogram
2000 2020 Growth Greenhouse gases
CO2 3,978.6 12,191.5
5.9 N2O
0.1 0.4 5.8
CH4 2.6
8.2 6.2 GWP
4,076.1 12,493.7
5.9 Local pollutants CO
353.1 1,228.9 6.6
SOx 0.8 2.0
4.7 HC
85.9 282.0 6.3
NOx 38.5
123.3 6.1 VOC
88.2 290.5
6.3 TSP
8.1 23.8
5.7

6
Biggest Emitters of Pollution, 2000 and 2020
7
Technological Options to Mitigate GHG
1. Mass rail transit (MRT) system 2. Diesel
desulfurization 3. Motor vehicle inspection
system 4. Catalytic converter 5.
Alco-diesel (15) 6. Coconut Methyl Esther
(5) 7. Compressed Natural Gas
8
Emission Mitigation Potential of Technological
Options
reduction of total emissions
CO2 N2O CH4 CO SO2
TSP Alcodiesel 3.9 5.2 0.5
0.3 9.5 5.6 Cat. conv.
19.7 ... 37.4 87.9
... 80.2 CME 1.3
3.7 1.5 0.5 3.2
36.5 CNG 3.7 6.5
-30.7 0.3 41.7
26.2 Desulf. diesel ... ...
... ... 52.8
5.5 MRT 16.4 31.4
3.4 2.0 43.0 ... MVIS
3.6 ... 47.6
89.9 ... 81.8
9
Life-cycle Costs of Selected Technological Options
peso per passenger-kilometer
Bus-diesel 1.094 Bus-alcodiesel 1.101 Bus-
CNG 1.058 Bus-CME 1.106 Bus-desulfurized
diesel 1.097 Bus-diesel with cat.
conv. 1.094 MRT 0.418
10
Levelized Costs of Alternative Fuel
peso per liter
Diesel 14.75
Alco-diesel 16.74 CNG 17.78 CME
(5) 15.09
2001 prices
11
Technical Issues in Adoption of Technological
Options

• Trade-off between emission reduction of global
  and local pollutants
• As CO2 emission and GWP fall by 15, SOx emission
  increases by 2.
• Trade-off between energy efficiency and
  pollution mitigation
• To reduce emissions of harmful pollutants, less
  energy efficient technological options may have
  to be employed.

12
Optimal Fuel Mix, 2001 - 2020
in percent
No CO2 target 5 less CO2 15 less
CO2 Diesel 31.9 29.7
27.9 Gasoline 67.2
67.2 66.2 Alcodiesel
- 2.2
5.0 CNG 0.8
0.8 0.8 Desulf. diesel
CME Electricity (MRT) 0.1
0.1 0.1
13
Barriers to Adoption of CNG

• Technical
• Large space requirement for CNG storage tank
• Feasibility of bi-fuel engine (CNG conventional
  fuel)
• Economic
• High cost of engine conversion
• Large investment cost to set up infrastructure
  for CNG distribution
• Institutional
• 5. Limited number of stations to sell CNG

14
Barriers to Adoption of CME

• Technical
• Uncertainty of impact on engine performance
• Feasibility of bi-fuel engine (CME conventional
  fuel)
• Clogging of fuel filter
• Economic
• High cost of coconut oil
• Insufficient local supply of coconut oil
• Institutional
• Limited number of stations to sell CME
• High cetane index prescribed by the Clean Air Act

15
Barriers to Adoption of Alco-diesel

• Technical
• Uncertainty of impact on engine performance
• Feasibility of bi-fuel engine (alco-diesel
  conventional fuel)
• Economic
• High local production cost of alcohol
• Limited local supply of alcohol
• Institutional
• 5. Limited number of stations to sell alco-diesel

16
The Analytic Hierarchy Process

• Multicriteria decision-making tool
• Objective framework to process subjective
  preferences of an individual or group in making a
  decision
• Able to mix quantitative and qualitative criteria
  in the same decision framework

17
Profile of Respondents
18
Ranking of Barriers to Adoption of Alco-diesel
19
Ranking of Barriers to Adoption of CME
20
Ranking of Barriers to Adoption of CNG
21
Some Policy Implications

• Technical barriers are as important as cost
  barriers, hence the need for more RD activities
• Innovative and exhaustive information campaign is
  needed.
• Pro-active government is needed to push the use
  of alternative technologies in the market.
• Strict enforcement of emission standards is
  needed to reduce the fiscal support required to
  make the alternative technologies commercially
  viable.

22
Recent Developments in Use of Alternative Fuels
in the Philippines
NATURAL GAS VEHICLE

• Target launching of 100 NG buses October 2003
• buses to ply Manila-Batangas route
• Mother refuelling station at Batangas daughter
  refuelling stations possibly in Fort Bonifacio,
  NAIA and Paranaque
• Estimated costs of distribution pipelines US1
  mil/km
• Batangas-Cavite-Laguna-Manila 80 to 100 km
• Bataan-Manila 135 km
• Batangas-Manila 80 to 100 km

23
Recent Developments in Use of Alternative Fuels
in the Philippines

• NATURAL GAS VEHICLE
• BUT performance tests of NGV-converted buses of
  DOE (Nissan) and PNOC (Hino) are currently on
  hold due to lack of funds for setting up the
  refueling stations.
• DOE has given assurance that the project will
  meet its target schedule.

24
Recent Developments in Use of Alternative Fuels
in the Philippines

• COCO-METHLY ESTER (CME)
• Senbel Fine Chemicals Company, Inc. estimates
  that the cost of putting up a CME factory with
  capacity of 100,000 tons is US 15 million.
• Suggested retail price P59 per liter
• Benefits of CME (at 5 blend)
• a) 50 smoke reduction
• b) life cycle increased by 50
• c) at 100 0C, CME retains its viscosity better
  than mineral oil
• d) better mileage 10.2 km/l against 6.5 km/l
  for regular diesel
• e) increased power/torque/fuel efficiency

25
Trends in Prices of Coconut Oil vs. Crude Oil
26
Trends in Prices of CME vs. Diesel