View
28
Download
4
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal
Examination CommitteeProf. Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh (Chairperson)
Prof. Ajit P. Annachhatre
Dr. Thammarat Koottatep
By
Visal Yoeung
Asian Institute of Technology
School of Environment, Resources and Development
Environmental Engineering and Management Program
Emission Inventory of Air Pollution from Vehicle Fleet in Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Final Thesis Examination
Contents
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal
01 Introduction
04 Conclusion and Recommendation
Methodology02
Results and Discussions03
2/26
Introduction
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal3/26
Source: www.phnom penh.gov.kh, 2014
PNH is the capital of Cambodia
area of 678km2
1.5 million people
2,213 of population density
9 districts and 99 Communes
Source: NIS, 2011& MPP , 2014
12 42 3
Introduction
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal4/26
The growth of vehicle fleet in PNH from 2000 to 2014
2,083 roads – Total Length: 1,230 km (MPWT, 2010)
32% of arterial roads are in bad condition
Both bad road conditions and rapid increase numbers of vehicle possibly cause air pollution
in PNH in the near future.
Source: Department of Vehicle Registration of MPWT, 2014
142 3
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
Nu
mb
ers
of
Veh
icle
s
Car/10 Van Small Truck Heavy Truck Bus MC/100
MC, 77.30%
Car, 14.35%
LDV, 5.75%
Bus, 0.26%
HDV, 2.34%
MC Car LDV Bus HDV
Introduction
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal5/26
Pollutants Power Industry Residential Transportation
SO2 7 13.7 7.6 6.1
NOx 3.6 5.8 3.2 14.3
CO 0 10.7 485 74.2
NMVOC 0.1 6.2 56.7 50.3
PM10 0.9 3.2 63.2 0.5
PM2.5 0.6 2.2 57.4 0.5
BC 0 0.1 6.4 0.1
OC 0 0.1 31.9 0.2
Emission of Air Pollutants from Different Sources in
Cambodia (Gg/ year)
Source: CGRER, 2006
142 3
Objectives
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal6/26
To investigate the current vehicle fleet and driving
pattern in Phnom Penh
To develop emission inventory for mobile sources in
Phnom Penh using Mobilev 3.0 Model
To quantify the co-benefits on air quality and climate
mitigation under an optimistic vehicle technology
scenario for Phnom Penh
431
42 3
Scopes
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal7/26
Public transportation (bus), private vehicles (i.e., motorcycles and
personal cars), and goods transport (truck) in the base year 2014
EI for pollutants: CO, CO2, SO2, NOx, PM, Benzene, NH3, N2O,
CH4, BC and NMHC.
this study focused on the only the running emission from vehicle
fleets
Scenario of the faster technology intrusion: at least meet Euro 3
standard
Climate effect of the emission reduction will be estimated using
GWP metrics (CO2-eq)
41 3 41
2 3
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal8/26
Research Methodology
Data Collection
Data Processing
Mobilev 3.0 Modelling
241 3
Research Methodology
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal9/26
Output Mobilev
model
Input Mobilev
model
Data
processing
and analysis
Results and Recommendations
Result evaluation
Mobliev model
Data collection
Scenario development and
co-benefit analysis
Air quality and
climate co-benefit
Current fleet and driving
activities in PNH
• Emission factors
• Emission inventory
for PNH 2014
241 3
Data Collection
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal10/26
2 41 3
Bus: 99; Car: 360; MC: 598 Van: 105; Truck: 81 Total Survey: 1243Nov 5- Jan 10, 2015
5 GPS data loggers equipped with 13 vehicles to measure the daily speed for 13 hours
10 Main roads: Ezecom data3 Arterial roads: manually captured4 Residential Roads: manually captured24 hour recording
Questionnaire Survey
GPS Monitoring
Video Traffic Recording
Results and Discussions
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal11/26
341 2
MotorcycleFuel type: petrol:100%4-stroke:
>150cc: pre euro 1: 67.9%; euro 2: 0.55% <= 150cc: euro1: 55.78%; euro 2: 0.08%2-stroke:
>150cc: pre euro1: 77.68%; euro2: 6.1%<=150cc: pre euro 1: 66.8%, euro2: 0.18%
Car Petrol: 72.73%;
- Pre euro1: 5.96- Euro 1: 34.63%- Euro 2: 16.46%- Euro 3: 22.17%- Euro 4: 20.78% Diesel: 27.27%
- pre euro: 1.94%- Euro1: 14.72%- Euro2: 34.85%- Euro3: 44.25%- Euro4: 4.23%
LDV Petrol: 10.89%- Pre euro1:5.96% - Euro1: 34.63%- Euro2: 16.46%- Euro3: 22.17%- Euro4: 20.78%Diesel: 89.11%- Pre euro1:1.94%- Euro1: 14.72%- Euro2: 34.72%- Euro3: 44.25%- Euro4: 4.23%
Bus Weight <=15t:
22.22%- pre euro1:
30.92%- Euro1: 17.31%- Euro2: 35.48%- Euro3: 16.30%
Weight >15-18t: 77.79%- Pre Euro:
30.92%- Euro1: 16.90%- Euro2: 37.43%- Euro3: 14.75%
HDVRigid Truck: 66.16%. More than 50% below Euro 3 standard. Trailer Truck:
33.84%. More 50% are under Euro3 standard.
( Table4.5, page 37)
Vehicle Technologies
Results and Discussions
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal12/26
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
Nu
mb
er o
f ve
hic
le
Model Year
Vehicle Model Year
MC Car Van Bus Truck
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
MC Car Van Bus Truck
Age
Average Age of Vehicles
Average Age of Vehicle MC: 4(1-20) Car: 5(1-19) Van: 5(1-16) Bus: 3(1-9) Truck: 10(1-15)
(Based on registration data)
The actual ages based on the vehiclemodel year found that the majority of carand van’s ages are around 14-15 years old.
>>>There are many old vehicles except MCare being used in the city.
Vehicle Ages
341 2
Vehicle Fleet Composition
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal13/26
Vehicle Fleet Composition
MC, 80.67%
Car, 16.50%
LDV, 2.10% Bus, 0.15%
HDV, 0.58%
MC Car LDV Bus HDV
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
1:00-6:00 7:00-9:00 10:00-15:00 16:00-19:00 20:00-00:00
Nu
mb
er
Couting Period
MC/10 Car/10 LDV Bus HDV
Normal hour: 1:00-6:00, 10:00-15:00, 20:00-00:00 Average traffic volume: 104,744 Rush hour: 7:00-9:00 and 16:19:00 Average traffic volume: 157,584
341 2
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal14/26
Driving Pattern
Weekday
MC: 17.11 km/h
Car: 17.73 km/h
LDV: 17.64 km/h
Bus: 13.85 km/h
HDV: 16.44 km/h
Weekend:
18.35 km/h
20.47 km/h
20.92 km/h
14.62 km/h
19.28 km/h
Daily Speed and Stop-start Pattern Daily:
17.46 km/h
18.52 km/h
18.58 km/h
14.07 km/h
17.25 km/h
341 2
Emission Factors
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal15/26
Pollutantsg/h*km
MC Car LDV Bus HDV Total
Benzene 8927.5 2649 601.13 1.5 9.4 12188.2
CH4 12048.7 2341 533 2.2 11.2 14936.5
CO 652346.2 230725 51892.3 276.9 1401.9 936642.7
CO2 4482364.5 14187200 2805659.1 112000.9 358344.9 21945570
NMHC 179807.9 39891 9034.8 88.1 368.6 229190.4
N2O 100.1 388 82.6 0.8 3.9 575.6
NH3 100.1 1142 237.8 0.3 2.5 1482.7
NOx 5155.4 39770 8077.8 1392.5 3715.5 58110.6
PM 0.00 2705 546.3 32.5 116.8 3401
BC 0.00 1990 402.6 12.9 47.2 2452.9
SO2 24.13 78 15.5 0.6 2.01 120.5
341 2
Pollutant Emission Factor by Vehicle Types
Emission Inventory
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal16/26
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
MC Car LDV Bus HDV
Ton
ne
CO= 48,885 tonne/year
MC, 70.02%
Car, 18.74%
LDV, 5.55%
Bus, 5.55%
HDV, 0.15% CO
MC, 20.6%
Car, 48.9%
LDV, 12.8%
Bus, 15.8%
HDV, 1.9%CO2
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
MC Car LDV Bus HDV
Ton
ne
CO2= 1,135 Kt/year
341 2
Emission Inventory
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal17/26
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
MC Car LDV Bus HDV
Ton
ne
NOx=3030.2 tonne/year MC,
8.94%
Car, 51.67%LDV,
13.86%
Bus, 18.00%
HDV, 7.53% NOx
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
MC Car LDV Bus HDV
Ton
ne
SO2= 6.23 tonne/year
MC, 20.24%
Car, 49.13%
LDV, 12.84%
Bus, 15.87%
HDV, 1.93%
SO2
341 2
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal18/26
Emission Inventory
0.0
107.9
28.8 32.2
7.1
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
MC Car LDV Bus HDV
ton
ne
PM= 176.1 tonne/yearMC, 0.0%
Car, 61.3%LDV, 16.4%
Bus, 18.3%
HDV, 4.0%
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
MC Car LDV Bus HDV
ton
ne
NMHC=11,919 tonne/year
MC, 78.64%
Car, 13.27%
LDV,
3.96%
Bus,
3.97%HDV, 0.17%
NMHC
341 2
Emission Inventory
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal19/26
PollutantsTonne/year
Total MC Car LDV Bus HDV
Benzene 665 69.99% 20.48% 4.71% 4.72% 0.06%
CH4 777 80.89% 11.94% 3.58% 3.56% 0.07%
CO 48885 70.02% 18.74% 5.55% 5.55% 0.15%
CO2 1134997 20.64% 48.90% 12.78% 15.79% 1.89%
NMHC 11919 78.64% 13.27% 3.96% 3.97% 0.17%
N2O 30 17.50% 51.57% 14.43% 15.00% 0.73%
NH3 77 6.82% 59.55% 16.14% 17.03% 0.13%
NOx 3030 8.94% 51.67% 13.86% 18.01% 7.53%
PM 176 0.00% 61.33% 16.38% 18.32% 4.03%
BC 127 0.00% 62.49% 16.72% 18.30% 2.22%
SO2 6 21.00% 51.00% 13.33% 16.50% 2.00%
341 2
Emission from Vehicle Types
Air Quality Benefit
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal20/26
CO/10 VOC/100 NOx SO2*1000 PM*10
2014 (Base Case) 4888.517 11349.97 3030.22 6230 1761.1
Scenario: Euro3 1277.7 24.85 310 9000 960
Reduction rate 73.86% 99.78% 89.78% -38.55% 45.49%
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000To
nn
e/ye
ar
2014 (Base Case) Scenario: Euro3 Reduction rate
341 2
Climate Co-benefit
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal21/26
CO2/1000
N2O CH4 VOC/10 NOx BC Sulfate
GHGs O3 Aerosol
2014 (Base case) 1134.997 30 777 1191.9 919 127 18
Scenario Euro3 489.309 1.3 572.5 248.53 94 4.5 27
Reduction Rate 56.90% 95.60% 26.40% 79.10% 90.85% 96.40% -50.00%
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400To
nn
e/ye
ar
2014 (Base case) Scenario Euro3 Reduction Rate
341 2
Air Quality and Climate Co benefit
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal22/26
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Total Pollutants excluding BC, CO2 Total GWP/10
Ton
ne/
Year
2014 (Base Case) Scenario Euro3
61.48%
40.5%
341 2
Summary and Conclusion
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal23/26
1. Vehicle Technology:
MC: petrol: 100%, 100% not meet the euro 3 standard yet.
Car: petrol: 72.73%; diesel: 27.27%, more 50% are below euro 3 standard
LDV: petrol: 10.89%; diesel:89.11%, more 55% not complied with eur03 standard
Bus and HDV based on the weight capacity are more 70%, 50% accordingly below
the euro 3 standard.
2. Driving Pattern:
Daily average speed of MC: 17.46 km/h; car: 18.52 km/h; LDV: 18.58 km/h; Bus:
14.07 km/h; HDV: 17.25 km/h.
The average number of stop and start of MC: 4times; Car: 4times, LDV: 4times, Bus:
7 times; and HDV: 2 times.
431 2
Summary and Conclusion
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal24/26
3. Emission Factors:
MC fleet has the highest EF contribution of CO and NMHC: 652.34 kg/(km*h) and
179.8 kg/(km*h) while the highest emission factor contribution of car were
CO2=14.18tonne/(km*h), NOx,= 39.7 kg/(km*h); PM= 2.7kg/(km*h) and SO2=
78g/(km*h).
4. Emission Inventory:
MC shared 70.02% of CO and 78.64% NMHC while car highly contribute 48.90% of
CO2, 61.33% of NOx,, 62.49% of PM and 51% of SO2
5. Air Quality and Climate Co-benefit
The reduction of air pollutant under at least Euro 3 standard decreased to 61.48% and
climate change forcing was 40.5%.
431 2
PNH vehicle fleet should be used directly in order to get the accurate result.
To complete emission for PNH, cold start emission should be considered in the further study.
Cost-benefit analysis should be conducted for proposed scenario considering also the technology cost, benefit for air quality and climate change mitigations, i.e. both direct and indirect costs
The cleaner fuel scenario i.e compress nature gases (CNGs) and its cost-benefit analysis should be considered in the next study.
Fuel types and emission stage of both buses and heavy duty vehicles should taken into account of vehicle layer and emission stage table in Mobilev model.
Recommendation
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal25/26
431 2
6/11/2015 Yoeung Visal26/26
Recommended