Results: Searching for 'Transport'

This workshop was the first in a series of technical workshops under the Energy Systems Modelling Theme (ESMT) of the UKERC. The overall goal of these workshops is to enhance the links between UK energy modelling practitioners, and to learn about different methodologies and analytical techniques. The specific goals of this 1 st ESMT workshop on transport modelling was to bring together energy-economic and transport modellers to learn about each others models, their synergies, and to develop potential collaborations in terms of data, insights and projects. The envisaged workshop outputs were:

• An understanding and typology of various energy/transport models
• Opportunities for sharing data and insights
• Opportunities for collaborative ventures

• Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) have the potential to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions over the well-to-motion pathway by 13% (LNG) - 20%(CNG) for dedicated engines and 16% (LNG) - 24%(CNG) for High Pressure Direct Injection engines per vehicle in the 2035 timeframe in comparison to the reference baselinediesel pathway.
• Cycle specific powertrain technology selection and pathway optimisation are key to providing GHG emission benefits over given usage cycles, with High Pressure Direct Injection and Dedicated gas engines providing the highest benefit.
• Retrofit dual fuel engines have been shown to have high methane emissions, often being worse than baseline diesel powertrains on a GHG emission basis. Effective testing procedures and legislative certainty are required to ensure emissions conformity and facilitate market development
• Providing methane catalysis at real world operating temperatures, i.e. below 350°C, is essential to prevent uncombusted methane making its way out of the tailpipe in powertrains that cannot control methane slip and is a key technology that enables a pathway benefit.
• Employing ‘best practices’ at LNG, CNG and L-CNG stations is a key driver to providing pathway benefits. Vapour recovery systems should be implemented at all LNG stations and the economic proposition and expected utilisation should be aligned. CNG stations should be connected to the highest pressure tier of the grid where possible or employed in combination with a L-CNG station as an easy step to reduce emissions associated with compression, at least until the carbon intensity of the grid is significantly lower than today.
• The economic proposition for natural gas in the HGV fleet hinges upon the fuel duty differential and currently only the long haul segment is economic in the near term. Fuel duty tax stability is key to enable market confi dence to invest in natural gas vehicles and the necessary supporting infrastructure.

• Systematic review of the existing literature
• Qualitative interview data was collected from 11 long-term users of plug-in vehicles, 40 mainstream consumers (each of which were loaned a vehicle for around six days) and 20 fleet managers.
• These tasks informed a large-scale survey of mainstream consumers (2,729 responses) about their attitudes and opinions regarding plug-in vehicles.
• The resulting data was used to produce a segmentation of mainstream consumers, in terms of their likelihood of purchasing a plug-in vehicle and the various factors underlying this likelihood.
• Factors examined included
  • demographics,
  • attitudes towards perceived functional, instrumental, symbolic and affective characteristics of plug-in vehicles,
  • personality variables, and
  • reported responses to incentives.
• Alongside the survey of mainstream consumers, a choice experiment was implemented to test the complex trade-offs consumers make between factors (e.g. price, range, infrastructure availability, etc).

1. 1. Evaluate the potential role and economics of plug-in vehicles in the low carbon transport system: generate a quantified understanding of the market potential, cost models and carbon benefits case under defined scenarios of infrastructure investments, government intervention packages and financemodel options across a number of key plug-in vehicle type/size/capability points;
2. 2. Develop the technology tool-kit for delivering an intelligent infrastructure: create a verified open interoperability architecture and generate information to aid infrastructure planning (e.g. to indicate how many recharging points are needed and where they should be located, what mix of power levels are required, how the impact of plug-in vehicle recharging on the electricity distribution network should be managed, how the overall system can be simplified for consumers, etc).

• Overview of consumer choice modelling
• Design of the choice experiment
• Analysis of the results 
• Development of the coefficients of consumer choice for the model
• Key parameters of consumer choice are quantified against the eight market segments developed in the ‘Identification of Relevant Consumer Segments’ report. The key parameters presented quantify the effect various factors have on the price consumers are willing to pay for plug-in vehicles. These factors include:
  • availability of infrastructure,
  • vehicle acceleration,
  • electric range and
  • whether the choice is for a first or second car in the household.

• Stage 1 aims to characterize market and policy frameworks, business propositions, and the integrated vehicle and energy infrastructure system and technologies best suited to enabling a cost-effective UK energy system for low-carbon vehicles, using the amalgamated analytical toolset.
•  Stage 2 aims to fill knowledge gaps and validate assumptions from Stage 1 through scientifically robust research, including real world trials with privatevehicle consumers and case studies with business fleets. A mainstream consumer uptake trial will be carried out to measure attitudes to PiVs after direct experience of them, and consumer charging trials will measure mainstream consumer PiV charging behaviours and responses to managed harging options

• Stage 1 aims to characterize market and policy frameworks, business propositions, and the integrated vehicle and energy infrastructure system and technologies best suited to enabling a cost-effective UK energy system for low-carbon vehicles, using the amalgamated analytical toolset.
•  Stage 2 aims to fill knowledge gaps and validate assumptions from Stage 1 through scientifically robust research, including real world trials with privatevehicle consumers and case studies with business fleets. A mainstream consumer uptake trial will be carried out to measure attitudes to PiVs after direct experience of them, and consumer charging trials will measure mainstream consumer PiV charging behaviours and responses to managed harging options

• ‘ First principles’ view of the key components or Building Blocks (BB) that need to be considered as part of understanding what technology/physical, actors/commercial, market/policy, and Customer Proposition structures are most effective to enable mass deployment and use of ULEVs, and their relative importance;
• Guide to structure the Analytical Framework, which will be created as part of deliverable D1.2. The aim is to focusthe frameworkon areas of highest materiality, by specifyingwhich key BBs should be considered as part of each Narrativewhich will be assessed within the Analytical Framework.

• Project aims
• Project structure
• Modelling framework
• Narratives (scenarios)
• Stage 1 initial analysis indications
• Stage 1 research with consumers
• Stage 1 research with fleets
• Stage 2

• Vehicle electrification
• The project requires a broad range of expertise
• Modelling capability
• Scenarios have been developed to test further factors
• Interim findings
• Roadmap for efficient ULEV uptake and use
• Trials will deliver further robust evidence

• The Consumers, Vehicles and Energy Integration project is seeking to address the challenges involved in transitioning to a secure and sustainable low carbon vehicle fleet
• An integrated modelling toolset has been developed able to examine the implications for energy supply, infrastructure, vehicles, users, policy and commercial models – and with it, it is possible to test a wide range of scenarios
• Findings from several areas are already available and have been incorporated into a roadmap for delivering efficient vehicle decarbonisation
• Upcoming trials will deliver further robust evidence on how consumers respond to different charging propositions and attitudes to ULEV adoption

• CVEI project overview
• Project structure
• Analytical framework
• Accounting for trends and developments elsewhere
• Consumer adoption: understanding the mass-market
• Interim findings
• Dissemination of outputs

• Stage 1 aims to characterize market and policy frameworks, business propositions, and the integrated vehicle and energy infrastructure system and technologies best suited to enabling a cost-effective UK energy system for low- carbon vehicles, using the amalgamated analytical toolset.
• Stage 2 aims to fill knowledge gaps and validate assumptions from Stage 1 through scientifically robust research, including real world trials with private vehicle consumers and case studies with business fleets. A mainstream consumer uptake trial will be carried out to measure attitudes to PiVs after direct experience of them, and consumer charging trials will measure mainstream consumer PiV charging behaviours and responses to managed charging options.

• Stage 1 aims to characterize market and policy frameworks, business propositions, and the integrated vehicle and energy infrastructure system and technologies best suited to enabling a cost-effective UK energy system for low- carbon vehicles, using the amalgamated analytical toolset.
• Stage 2 aims to fill knowledge gaps and validate assumptions from Stage 1 through scientifically robust research, including real world trials with private vehicle consumers and case studies with business fleets. A mainstream consumer uptake trial will be carried out to measure attitudes to PiVs after direct experience of them, and consumer charging trials will measure mainstream consumer PiV charging behaviours and responses to managed charging options.

• Stage 1 aims to characterize market and policy frameworks, business propositions, and the integrated vehicle and energy infrastructure system and technologies best suited to enabling a cost-effective UK energy system for low-carbon vehicles, using the amalgamated analytical toolset.
•  Stage 2 aims to fill knowledge gaps and validate assumptions from Stage 1 through scientifically robust research, including real world trials with privatevehicle consumers and case studies with business fleets. A mainstream consumer uptake trial will be carried out to measure attitudes to PiVs after direct experience of them, and consumer charging trials will measure mainstream consumer PiV charging behaviours and responses to managed harging options

1. Customer Proposition(CP)–what the customer sees at the point interacting with a ULEV e.g. is the customer buying or leasing the vehicle
2. Physical SupplyChain(PSC)–the technologies and infrastructure required to deliver the vehicles and their energy requirements
3. Commercial Value Chain(CVC)–the commercial entities (and their business models) that sit across one or more parts of the PSC to collectively deliver the CP that the consumer sees –e.g. an electricity retail supplier
4. Market and Policy Framework (MPF)–Government intervention in the form of setting the overarching market framework for commercial entities (e.g. regulated monopolies for network infrastructure) or more direct policy intervention (e.g. in terms of taxes or subsidies on commercial entities or directly at the point of the consumer

• OEM innovation
  • To what extent is incremental/organic improvement delivered primarily via OEMs, with limited Government support, sufficient to deliver mass uptake and use of ULEVs?
  • To what extent does this complicate the delivery of new large-scale supporting infrastructure, in particular with respect to the role of hydrogen?
• City led
  • What is the value of a partial shift towards delivering mobility as a service in urban areas where this appears more viable (e.g. in terms of requiring fewer vehicles with higher utilisation)?
• ULEV enabled
  • To what extent does a more coordinated, but technology neutral, push for ULEVs facilitate their uptake and use?
  • What are the additional costs and broader requirements for providing a meaningful hedge such that mass rollout of either PIVs and/or hydrogen vehicles could both be undertaken in the later stages of the pathway to 2050?
• Hydrogen push
  • How effective is a coordinated push towards hydrogen as the primary ULEV route, given that this mirrors many of the current aspects of the customer proposition (e.g. owning asset, no range issues, ‘hub’ refuelling) as current ICEs and liquid refuelling infrastructure?
  • Is this route materially more expensive compared to other Narratives (such as City-led and Transport on demand) which tend towards electric vehicles and where does this cost difference materialise (e.g. fuel production versus additional infrastructure), and how effectively does early coordinated action reduce these costs?
• Transport on demand
  • What is the value of a systemic, coordinated shift towards delivering mobility as a service, going significantly beyond that in the City-led Narrative (e.g. in terms of requiring fewer vehicles with higher utilisation)?
  • How significant are the implications likely to be for consumers as part of this shift and can the savings from better integrated services be used to compensate for any perceived or material reduction in an individual’s ‘transport utility’ (e.g. less convenience)?

• Stage 1 aims to characterize market and policy frameworks, business propositions, and the integrated vehicle and energy infrastructure system and technologies best suited to enabling a cost-effective UK energy system for low-carbon vehicles, using the amalgamated analytical toolset.
•  Stage 2 aims to fill knowledge gaps and validate assumptions from Stage 1 through scientifically robust research, including real world trials with privatevehicle consumers and case studies with business fleets. A mainstream consumer uptake trial will be carried out to measure attitudes to PiVs after direct experience of them, and consumer charging trials will measure mainstream consumer PiV charging behaviours and responses to managed harging options

• Customer Proposition.
• Physical Supply Chain.
• Commercial Value Chain.
• Market and Policy Framework.

• Stage 1 aims to characterize market and policy frameworks, business propositions, and the integrated vehicle and energy infrastructure system and technologies best suited to enabling a cost-effective UK energy system for low-carbon vehicles, using the amalgamated analytical toolset.
• Stage 2 aims to fill knowledge gaps and validate assumptions from Stage 1 through scientifically robust research, including real world trials with private vehicle consumers and case studies with business fleets. A mainstream consumer uptake trial will be carried out to measure attitudes to PiVs after direct experience of them, and consumer charging trials will measure mainstream consumer PiV charging behaviours and responses to managed harging options

• Customer Proposition.
• Physical Supply Chain.
• Commercial Value Chain.
• Market and Policy Framework.

• Essential – these actions have been clearly identified as good, and found tobe robust to different circumstances explored through the Sensitivity analysis. They are considered to be no or low regret actions.
• Desirable – actions for which a strong case exists and which are likely to have a positive impact under most circumstances. However, a failure to employ these actions is unlikely, by itself, to lead to a failure to achieve mass uptake and use of ULEVs. Additional evidence or reduced uncertainty may also be desired by individual actors before a decision to implement them.
• Provisional – an additional categorisation implying actions for which a positive case may exist, but for which the extent or timing of deployment is likely to depend on reduction of uncertainty in the basis of analysis. This may occur through the passing of time and, for example, realisation of outturn costs. It may alternatively occur through obtainment of additional or expanded evidence from trials or initial pilot scale deployment.

• To what extent users engage and how they respond to new electricity charging tariffs and what this means for charging behaviour, e.g.via some load shifting in response to ToU tariffs as part of User-Managed Charging, or more optimal load shifting through Supplier-Managed Charging.
• Indirect factors affecting the decision to purchase a ULEV over a conventional vehicle,such as uncertainty over the variability of costs of electricity charging at non-home locations, and other ‘components’ that were identified in the four keyareas but not quantified in Stage 1.
• An overarching lack of understanding about the conditions required to enable a shift towards mobility as a service (e.g. what level of financial compensation might be required for any perceived loss of convenience, status and how this varies across different consumer groups.)

• Stage 1 aims to characterize market and policy frameworks, business propositions, and the integrated vehicle and energy infrastructure system and technologies best suited to enabling a cost-effective UK energy system for low-carbon vehicles, using the amalgamated analytical toolset.
•  Stage 2 aims to fill knowledge gaps and validate assumptions from Stage 1 through scientifically robust research, including real world trials with privatevehicle consumers and case studies with business fleets. A mainstream consumer uptake trial will be carried out to measure attitudes to PiVs after direct experience of them, and consumer charging trials will measure mainstream consumer PiV charging behaviours and responses to managed harging options

• Part 1: Overview of Stage 2,
• Part 2: Consumer Uptake Trial,
• Part 3: Consumer Charging Trial,
• Part 4: Fleet Study,
• Part 5: Analytical Tool,
• Part 6: Commercial Submission.

• Stage 1 aims to characterize market and policy frameworks, business propositions, and the integrated vehicle and energy infrastructure system and technologies best suited to enabling a cost-effective UK energy system for low-carbon vehicles, using the amalgamated analytical toolset.
•  Stage 2 aims to fill knowledge gaps and validate assumptions from Stage 1 through scientifically robust research, including real world trials with privatevehicle consumers and case studies with business fleets. A mainstream consumer uptake trial will be carried out to measure attitudes to PiVs after direct experience of them, and consumer charging trials will measure mainstream consumer PiV charging behaviours and responses to managed harging options

• understanding of consumer attitudes towards ULEV adoption including detail of existing and new barriers to adoption;
• to capture and discuss lessons learnt from previous consumer trials to identify risks and develop recommendations to mitigate the risks; and to
• qualitatively explore consumer attitudes to managed charging scenarios (with consumers who have experience of a BEV or PHEV).

• Stage 1 aims to characterize market and policy frameworks, business propositions, and the integrated vehicle and energy infrastructure system and technologies best suited to enabling a cost-effective UK energy system for low-carbon vehicles, using the amalgamated analytical toolset.
•  Stage 2 aims to fill knowledge gaps and validate assumptions from Stage 1 through scientifically robust research, including real world trials with privatevehicle consumers and case studies with business fleets. A mainstream consumer uptake trial will be carried out to measure attitudes to PiVs after direct experience of them, and consumer charging trials will measure mainstream consumer PiV charging behaviours and responses to managed harging options

• Stage 1 aims to characterize market and policy frameworks, business propositions, and the integrated vehicle and energy infrastructure system and technologies best suited to enabling a cost-effective UK energy system for low-carbon vehicles, using the amalgamated analytical toolset.
•  Stage 2 aims to fill knowledge gaps and validate assumptions from Stage 1 through scientifically robust research, including real world trials with privatevehicle consumers and case studies with business fleets. A mainstream consumer uptake trial will be carried out to measure attitudes to PiVs after direct experience of them, and consumer charging trials will measure mainstream consumer PiV charging behaviours and responses to managed harging options

• A ‘first principles’ view of the key components or Building Blocks (BB) that are considered as part of understanding what technology/physical, actors/commercial, market/policy, and Customer Proposition structures are most effective in enabling mass deployment and use of ULEVs, and their relative importance.
• A systematic allocation of the BBs to the Narratives, in such a way as tofocus the framework on the areas of highest materiality, providing the basis for the analysis reported in the separate D1.3 Market Design and System Integration Report.

• Why is HDV efficiency so important?
• Ship Construction and Lexicon
• Marine Program Structure
• What is our UK Fleet?
• Selected Vessels to represent the HDV Marine Fleet
• What do Ships use for Power today?
• Innovations for Ships
• Technology Impact
• Improved Performance
• Waste Heat Recovery
• High Efficiency Propulsion System Project (HEPS)
• Flettner Rotor System

The UK Government has been seeking views on bringing forward the end to the sale of new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars and vans from 2040 to 2035, or earlier if a faster transition appears feasible. In this joint UKERC/CREDS consultation response we provide views on the following aspects:

• the phase out date,
• the definition of what should be phased out,
• barriers to achieving the above proposals,
• the impact of these ambitions on different sectors of industry and society, and
• what measures are required by government and others to achieve the earlier phase out date.

A phase out date of 2035 or earlier is sensible yet it might not be enough. Our research, recently published in the journal Energy Policy, has found that neither existing transport policies nor the pledge to bring forward the phase out date for the sale of new fossil fuel vehicles by 2035 or 2040 are sufficient to hit carbon reduction targets, or make the early gains needed to stay within a Paris compliant carbon budget for cars and vans.

Our research has shown that deeper and earlier reductions in carbon emissions and local air pollution would be achieved by a more ambitious, but largely non-disruptive change to a 2030 phase out that includes all fossil fuel vehicles. This would include all vehicles with an internal combustion engine, whether self-charging or not. However, only the earlier phase outs combined with lower demand for mobility and a clear and phased market transformation approach aimed at phasing out the highest-emitting vehicleswould make significant contributions to an emissions pathway that is both Paris compliant and meets legislated carbon budgets and urban air quality limits.

The proposed policy will involve high levels of coordination, intention and buy-in by policy makers, business and wider civil society. By far the biggest barrier to change will be the incumbent industries the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). They have a well-known track record of pushing back against EU vehicle regulations on the grounds of cost. In the case of electric powertrains, this push back is evident, with added resistance on the base of restricted supply chains and time to alter production processes. We suggest this is all the more reason to publish and implement a market transformation strategy now so that early wins which do not rely on supply chains or large transformations to the production line can mitigate against any later genuine supply-side constraints. Such a clear policy steer from the UK government is needed in order to ensure that UK consumers have more choice of cars than they may otherwise get if the OEMs restrict their sales of the most efficient vehicles into the UK market once out of the EU regulatory regime.

UKERC research into various phase-out policies has looked at how disruptive they would be for key stakeholders of the transport-energy system, and how much coordination would be needed to achieve the policy goals. This research has shown that in the Road-to-Zero ICE phase out by 2040 the main actors of the road transport and energy system are unlikely to undergo disruptive change. This is due to the relatively slow and limited evolution of the fleet towards unconventional low carbon fuels, the continuation of fuel duty revenue streams well into the 2040s and little additional reductions in energy demand and air pollutant emissions.

However, in the earlier (2030) and stricter (in what constitutes an ultra-low carbon vehicle) phase-outs we can expect some disruption for technology providers, industry and business in particular vehicle manufacturers, global production networks, the maintenance and repair sector as well as the oil and gas industry. There will also be localised impacts (some potentially disruptive) on electricity distribution networks and companies, even with smart charging.

Ending the sale of new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars and vans earlier, coupled with the electrification of road transport should form a key part of long term decarbonisation policy, but it is not a panacea. First, an earlier phase out date of 2030 implies we have 10 years to plan for and implement a transition away from fossil-fuel ICE cars and vans. As we discussed in our response, our research suggests that this is achievable without significant disruption to the transport-energy system, but it needs to be linked to accelerated investment in charging networks, battery development and deployment, increased market availability of zero-emission vehicles, and equivalent-value support by the Government to level the playing field with the incumbents. Second, our research has shown multiple times that further and earlier policy measures that impact the transport-energy system are needed, including a clear and phased market transformation approach that targets high-emitting vehicles, access bans in urban areas, and dynamic road pricing that could fund an order of magnitude increase in investment in sustainable transport modes.

We support bringing the phase-outdate forward and urge it to be earlier than 2035 and include phasing out any non-zero tailpipe vehicles using a market transformation approach. We strongly believe Government has a crucial role to play in leading the way to decarbonise transport, going well beyond the proposed policy change of bringing forward the end to the sale of new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars and vans from 2040 to 2035 or earlier.

• Flettner Rotors
• Wing sails
• Soft-sails

• Demand for On Highway Heavy Duty Vehicles will grow from 3.34m vehicles in 2015 to 4.24m vehicles in 2030 (in the 6 large markets studied).
• The majority of this growth will be in the >7.5 ton vehicle sector, as the Chinese and Indian road transportation markets mature from an “owner operator” model towards a “fleet operator” model. The increase in vehicle weight will increase demand for larger displacement engines (>6 litres) and also encourage further uptake of Automatic Manual Transmissions (AMT) at the expense of manual transmissions.
• Diesel will remain as the dominant fuel type for HDVs with ~85% HDVs powered by Diesel Internal Combustion Engines in 2030.
• It is expected that City Buses will have greater levels of hybridisation and there will be a variety of technical solutions for City Buses, including fully electric, as inner city air quality concerns and legislation increases.
• Emissions legislation will continue to develop in the various regions, with increasing harmonisation between the standards. There is a trend towards increasing number of regulated pollutants, over a larger number of tests and an increased duration (life) that the vehicle must meet the targets. Some regions are beginning to use CO₂ / fuel efficiency regulations and it is expected that this trend will spread to other regions over time

• HDVs represent an opportunity to cost effectively decarbonise the UK energy system across a range of abatement and cost levels
• In the first instance, the ETI’s efficiency projects have shown that a 30% reduction in fuel efficiency across the UK fleet can be achieved with reasonable payback periods
• Properly sourced and managed natural gas when coupled to a low methane slip powertrain can provide further CO₂(equivalent) benefits
• As the UK transitions to a very low CO₂ energy system (circa 2040 to 2050), further ‘carbon priced’ HDV options could become attractive
• The marginal carbon price will be a function ofthe other technologies deployed in the energy system (e.g. CCS versus no CCS), but thresholds can be set using the ETI’s ESME tool
• Barriers exist in the uptake of fuel efficiency technologies and new tools, techniques and policies are required to overcome them –a subject for future work

The brief discusses the contextual nuances of staff travel choices and the potential of policy interventions to encourage sustainable travel modes. Through a detailed review of NHS parking policies and broader academic literature on transport practices. It underscores the need to develop comprehensive trave

• Energy Vectors for HDV
• The Project
• Structure
• Well-to-Terminal
• Terminal-to-Tank
• Tank-to-Motion
• Pathway Analysis
• The Model
• Uptake Scenario
• Fleet Uptake
• Infrastructure
• HMRC Fuel Duty – Cost to the Fleet
• Overall Conclusions

The 2006 Energy Review stated that the Government intended to raise awareness of transport and climate change issues, and the approach would include, “developing initiatives on eco-safe driving”.1 This proposed Quick Hit would see energy-efficient driving, also known as eco-driving or eco-safe driving, incorporated into the practical driving test, to reinforce advice currently covered by the theory test. Furthermore, it would inform drivers about alternative fuels and efficient vehicle technology, and incorporate this new information into the theory test. While knowledge of issues such as alternative fuels would not affect the ability of a person to drive, driving lessons and the driving test present a suitable opportunity to raise awareness amongst drivers and positively influence their choices before habits are formed.

This Quick Hit outlines how limiting the speed limit on motorways and dual carriageways to 60 mph or even merely better enforcing the current 70 mph limit could be one of the most equitable, cost-effective and potentially popular routes to achieve reductions in carbon emissions. If implemented, it could also have the potential to slow traffic growth and influence the vehicle market with further carbon reduction benefits, in addition to optimising current road network capacity and bringing significant safety benefits.

The replacement of incandescent lamps with LED (light emitting diode) lights in traffic signals in the UK could reduce the demand for electricity by up to 70%. Additionally, the move could also offer substantial savings to highway authorities through less frequent replacement of lamps and, consequently, staff maintenance time.

The UK has an estimated 420,000 traffic and pedestrian signal heads, installed and managed by individual highway authorities. Each head contains two, three, or four 50W lamps, although for the majority of the time only one of these is lit up. These traffic signals currently use an estimated 101.7m kWh of electricity per year and cause the release of nearly 14,000 tonnes of carbon (around 50,000 tonnes of CO2). The number of traffic signals in the country continues to grow at around 3% a year – Transport for London estimated an increase of 17.5% in the capital alone between 2000 and 2005.

Quick Hits are a series of proposed initiatives developed by the Demand Reduction theme of the UK Energy Research Centre (www.ukerc.ac.uk). They are intended to make a useful contribution towards reducing carbon emissions by 2010, and are designed to be relatively easy for the Government or local authorities to implement. Legislative changes or expenditure needed would be small in nature, hence the title Quick Hits.

Car-sharing using car clubs is a successful way of reducing vehicle usage and ownership amongst those who join, and has proven to be effective in several countries. This proposed Quick Hit would reduce carbon emissions from vehicle use through the creation of a coherent, national network of car clubs, ensuring that in the long term there is at least one in every large town and city in the UK. Data collected from existing car clubs suggests that me

• Vehicle electrification
• Users and Vehicles
• Energy supply
• Project aims
• Project structure
• Modelling framework
• Narratives (scenarios)
• Stage 1 initial analysis
• Stage 1 research with consumers
• Stage 1 research with fleets
• Stage 2

• Substantial challenges associated with widespread roll-out of low carbon vehicles; shift from a “problem for the network” to an “opportunity through integration of vehicles as part of a wider system” can yield benefits for all actors in the system, including:
  • increased uptake of low-emission vehicles, managing charging and refuelling, and optimising the system design
• Analysis and solutions must be holistic (considering all parts of the system together, including users)
• Robust trials in Stage 2 will generate data to test solutions and inform analysis, and will add unique value:
• Trial with mass-market users (i.e. people from the majority of the vehicle user and fleet operator markets)
• Addressing widely-applicable plug-in vehicles (BEVsand PHEVs) suitable for wide range of users
• Holistic system design

Evidence breifing from ESRC drawing upon research from the UK Energy Research Centre, outlined in the paper Modelling the uptake of plug-in vehicles, examines the timing, scale and impacts of the uptake of plug-in vehicles in the UK car market from a consumer perspective. The results show the importance of accounting for the varied and segmented nature of the car market, social and environmental factors, as well as considering how different uptake scenarios affect wider lifecycle emissions.

This paper comprises a review of technology roadmaps on sustainable energy use for transport, including road, rail, shipping and aviation. The paper summarises the environmental impacts of ‘renewable’ energy use for transport and the advances in knowledge and technology required to mitigate negative environmental impacts and to ensure environmental sustainability. It will assess the extent to which these issues are addressed by roadmaps from both Europe and North America (roadmaps are indicated by number in parenthesis) and will highlight omissions and apparent gaps in knowledge.

The transport sector remains at the centre of any debates around energy conservation, exaggerated by the stubborn and overwhelming reliance on fossil fuels by its motorised forms, whether passenger and freight, road, rail, sea and air.

The very slow transition to alternative fuel sources to date has resulted in this sector being increasingly and convincingly held responsible for the likely failure of individual countries, including the UK, to meet their obligations under consecutive international climate change agreements.

Electrification of transport is largely expected to take us down the path to a zero carbon future (CCC, 2019; DfT, 2018). But there are serious concerns about future technology performance, availability, costs and uptake by consumers and businesses. There are also concerns about the increasing gap between lab and real world performance of energy use, carbon and air pollution emissions. Recently, the role of consumer lifestyles has increased in prominence (e.g. IPCC, 2018) but, as yet, has not been taken seriously by the DfT, BEIS or even the CCC (2019).

Developed under the auspices of UKERC the Transport Energy Air pollution Model (TEAM) has been designed to address these concerns and uncertainties in exploring pertinent questions on the transition to a zero carbon and clean air transportation future.

TEAM is a strategic transport, energy, emissions and environmental impacts systems model, covering a range of transport-energy-environment issues from socio-economic and policy influences on energy demand reduction through to lifecycle carbon and local air pollutant emissions and external costs.

TEAM is a major update of UK Transport Carbon Model of 2010. To use the updated model for research purposes, please contact Christian Brand, noting that due to its size (the complete suite of modelling databases uses about 500MB of storage space) the model can only be made available by request.

The transport sector remains at the centre of any debates around energy conservation, exaggerated by the stubborn and overwhelming reliance on fossil fuels by its motorised forms, whether passenger and freight, road, rail, sea and air.

The very slow transition to alternative fuel sources to date has resulted in this sector being increasingly and convincingly held responsible for the likely failure of individual countries, including the UK, to meet their obligations under consecutive international climate change agreements.

Electrification of transport is largely expected to take us down the path to a zero carbon future (CCC, 2019; DfT, 2018). But there are serious concerns about future technology performance, availability, costs and uptake by consumers and businesses. There are also concerns about the increasing gap between lab and real world performance of energy use, carbon and air pollution emissions. Recently, the role of consumer lifestyles has increased in prominence (e.g. IPCC, 2018) but, as yet, has not been taken seriously by the DfT, BEIS or even the CCC (2019).

Developed under the auspices of UKERC the Transport Energy Air pollution Model (TEAM) has been designed to address these concerns and uncertainties in exploring pertinent questions on the transition to a zero carbon and clean air transportation future.

TEAM is a strategic transport, energy, emissions and environmental impacts systems model, covering a range of transport-energy-environment issues from socio-economic and policy influences on energy demand reduction through to lifecycle carbon and local air pollutant emissions and external costs.

TEAM is a major update of UK Transport Carbon Model of 2010. This report contains the detailed appendices relating to TEAM :

• Appendix A: Vehicle Stock Model Variables and Data Tables
• Appendix B: Direct Energy and Emissions Model Data Tables
• Appendix C: Life Cycle and Environmental Impacts Model further specifications

To use the model for research purposes, please contact Christian Brand, noting that due to its size (the complete suite of modelling databases uses about 500MB of storage space) the model can only be made available by request.

The aim of this paper is to provide a comprehensive overview of the current and potential future contribution that the transport sector makes to the UK’s emissions of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). The aim is to develop an understanding of:

• The scale, composition and security of official baseline and projected figures for CO2 emissions from the transport sector to 2010 and beyond.
• The source of the official emissions projections, the assumptions currently used to calculate these figures and the uncertainty associated with them.
• The research needed to identify appropriate policy packages and CO2 emission targets for the UK transport sector for 2050.

The focus of this paper is on UK surface transport, although the discussion on emissions projections includes aviation. Aviation has also been discussed in a previous UKERC seminar.

• Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) generated in the Sahara to be imported to theUK;
• Wind energy generated in the Outer Hebrides to be imported to the UK; and
• Wind energy generated in the Orkney Islands to be exported to Norway

• Electricity transmission represents the least cost solution if electrical energy is required at the demand site
• Chemical energy carriers do however compare favourably with electricity transmission where they can be used directly

• Electricity transmission represents the least cost solution if electrical energy isrequired at the demand site
• Chemical energy carriers do however compare favourably with electricitytransmission where they can be used directly
• The use of electro-chemical energy storage media (i.e. a Zinc-Air Battery/shipconcept) is unlikely to represent an economically viable concept as the cost ofelectricity delivered is over six times that of the baseline transmission option

• The direct and immediate transfer of energy tothe point where it will be used via electricity networks or pipelines, i.e. transmission; or
• The generation and storage of energy in a mobile device that can be transported further down the supply chain where it can either be used continuously or intermittently as required, i.e. a transportable energy solution.

• hydrogen;
• hydrocarbons produced via the Fischer-Tropsch process;
• ammonia;
• zinc air batteries; and
• aluminium.

• Targeted a 3-4% fuel efficiency benefit and hence green house gas benefit from this project whilst exceeding emissions standards
• SCR fitted to every truck and large off-highway machine sold in the EU and many newer cars
• ETI requested a SCR system capable of achieving a 98% reduction in NO_x whilst not exceeding the space requirement and delivering a superior cost to own to the end use
• SCR technology must be applicable across a range of vehicle types and usage cycles
• Light usage vehicles and machines are the most challenging
• Lots of developmental solutions –little science based engineering.
• Achieved project objectives(3-4% GHG benefit at acceptable cost and package size) – applicable to any diesel engine!
• And many side benefits...

This seminar brought together some 25 experts including policy makers, scientists and tourism stakeholders to focus on the relationship between travel, climate change and tourism, and to explore the questions below. It examined the scope for the tourism sector to respond positively to the challenges of climate change, with an expansion in tourism activities that are not reliant on flying.

In the face of these challenges and opportunities, the workshop explored:

• The broader context: how is tourism likely to be affected positively and negatively by a changing climate and a changing environment, both in the UK and at destinations for outbound tourists?
• How is the market likely to respond to measures taken to deter the growth in air travel? What might be the differing consequences for the industry and the environment of different types of measure - for example, measures primarily aimed at long haul or short haul flights?
• What scope is there for the tourism sector to adapt positively to climate change identifying new business opportunities whilst contributing to the UKs targets for CO2 reduction?
• What Government actions or policies might be needed to support the sector in responding positively to the challenges of climate change?
• What further research is needed to inform policy and underpin the development of strategies for sustainable UK tourism?

This seminar brought together some 25 experts including policy makers, scientists and tourism stakeholders to focus on the relationship between travel, climate change and tourism, and to explore the questions below. It examined the scope for the tourism sector to respond positively to the challenges of climate change, with an expansion in tourism activities that are not reliant on flying.

This document is only the Executive summary of the meeting.

Bridging the gap between short-term forecasting and long-term scenario models, the UK Transport Carbon Model (UKTCM) is a strategic transport, energy, emissions and environmental impacts model, covering a range of transport-energy-environment issues from socio-economic and policy influences on energy demand reduction through to lifecycle carbon emissions and external costs.

Developed partly under the auspices of the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) the UKTCM can be used to develop transport policy scenarios that explore the full range of technological, fiscal, regulatory and behavioural change policy interventions to meet UK climate change and energy security goals.

This UKERC Research Landscape provides an overview of the competencies and publicly funded activities in energy efficiency (transport)research, development and demonstration (RD&D) in the UK. It covers the main funding streams, research providers, infrastructure, networks and UK participation in international activities.

UKERC ENERGY RESEARCH LANDSCAPE: ENERGY EFFICIENCY TRANSPORT

• Section 1: An overview which includes a broad characterisation of research activity in the sector and the key research challenges
• Section 2: An assessment of UK capabilities in relation to wider international activities, in the context of market potential
• Section 3: Major funding streams and providers of basic research along with a brief commentary
• Section 4: Major funding streams and providers of applied research along with a brief commentary
• Section 5: Major funding streams for demonstration activity along with major projects and a brief commentary
• Section 6: Research infrastructure and other major research assets (e.g. databases, models)
• Section 7: Research networks, mainly in the UK, but also European networks not covered by the EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 8: UK participation in energy-related EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 9: UK participation in wider international initiatives, including those supported by the International Energy Agency

This report from the Technology and Policy Assessment (TPA) function of the UK Energy Research Centre examines the merits of a range of different policies that offer the prospect of CO2 emissions reduction from road transport. It addresses the following key question: What policies are effective at reducing carbon emissions from surface passenger transport?

This report does not undertake new modelling or empirical research; rather it provides a thorough review of the current state of knowledge on the subject, guided by experts and in consultation with a range of stakeholders. The project team undertook a systematic search for every report and paper related to the assessment question. Experts and stakeholders were invited to comment and contribute through an expert group. A team of expert consultants was commissioned to categorise, review and distil the evidence. This tightly specified search revealed over 500 reports and papers on the subject, each of which was categorised and assessed for relevance.

• Innovation opportunities exist in fuel cell system designs and production methods
• Innovations are also being pursued in hydrogen storage to enable use in large, long-range vehicles
• Opportunities to reduce fuel consumption by up to 35% through improved vehicle design (unrelated to engine) have been explored for trucks in the US
• Further design and demonstration work should be carried out on zero emission trucks, particularly on larger, long-range configurations