SUSTAINABLE OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT IN LEBANON Transport Sector
Innovative Vehicle and Bus Technologies Needed for Sustainable Mobility in Greater Beirut Area
Transport Experts: Project Managers: Marc Haddad, PhD Rola Sheikh, UNDP Charbel Mansour, PhD Michel-Ange Medlej, MOEW
International Beirut Energy Forum September 26, 2018 Current state and projection of transport energy use in Lebanon: significant growth
According to the business as usual Energy use/year projection of Lebanon’s energy use and GHG emissions/year +2,500,000 emissions: Fleet vehicle number vehicles(1) • Energy consumption and emissions expected to double by 2040 as 1,200,000 compared to levels of 2010. vehicles
500,000 • Gasoline is the dominant fuel with vehicles 83.5%.
10,000 • Lebanon’s vulnerability to energy Gg CO2(1) security will increase due to additional need to import gasoline and diesel. 5,500 3.5 Mtoe(1) Gg CO2 1,500 2 Mtoe • Lebanon will not be able to meet 1 Mtoe Gg CO2 the INDC commitment to the UNFCCC to reduce its GHG 1995 2010 2040 emissions.
(1) Forecasted numbers are calculated using a model developed for Lebanon, based on the population and GDP growth (Source: Mansour et al. 2015, National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report and Mitigation Analysis for the Transport Sector in Lebanon).
HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 2 Current proposals for shifting to sustainable mobility
SODEL Project 2017: MOEW, UNDP, LPA V/S
Assess the use of alternative fuel-vehicle Conventional Alternative technologies fuel vehicles fuel vehicles
SODEL Project 2018: MOEW, UNDP, LPA
Assess the use of alternative fuel-bus technologies
Revitalizing the mass Environmentally sound transit systems technologies
HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 3 Objectives of the SODEL Study
1 What is the best way to use Lebanon’s natural gas in the transport sector? • Directly in passenger cars, taxis and buses? • Indirectly in power plants to generate electricity for electric vehicles? • A mix of both strategies?
2 Which other fuels can also be feasible for Lebanon’s transport sector? • Oil-based? • Natural-gas? • Biofuels? • Electricity?
3 Which vehicle and bus technologies is the cleanest and cheapest for Lebanon? • Gasoline and diesel vehicles? • Compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles? • Ethanol and biodiesel vehicles? • Hybrid, plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles?
4 What should the government strategy be? • Laws and regulations? • Incentives and disincentives? • Action plan?
HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 4 Project outline
I. Assessment of alternative fuel-bus II. Infrastructure assessment and fuel-vehicle technologies
. Define the various options for the use of natural . Assess the existing and potential fuel-supply gas and other low-carbon fuels as applicable to infrastructure relevant to the identified bus and the Lebanese transport sector. vehicle technologies. . Identify the corresponding bus and vehicle technologies.
IV. Cost-benefit analysis III. Environmental assessment
. Identify the cost value of the identified bus and . Conduct a Well-To-Wheel energy and emissions vehicle technologies in order to support setting a analysis for the identified energy chain beneficial transport policy, favoring cleaner over pathways. more polluting technologies.
HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 5 Study Methodology: Energy consumption and emissions at all stages of each fuel process
A well-to-wheel assessment of fuel and vehicle technologies in Lebanon is conducted. The objective is to evaluate their fuel use, environmental impacts and costs.
Well Fuel point of entry to Lebanon Fuel consumption in vehicles Wheel
Calculation of total energy Calculation of total emissions consumption for each process for each process
HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 6 Study Methodology: Costs
A cost-benefit assessment is carried out to evaluate the economic impacts of the fuel-vehicle technologies on the car users, the government and the private sector, for the near- (2020), medium- (2030) and long-terms (2040). Following are the cost components considered.
Near-term 2018-2020 Medium-term 2018-2030 Long-term 2018-2040 HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 7 Results for cars: Consumption, emissions and costs of each fuel and vehicle technology
Electric and hybrid vehicles are the best performers:
• Electric vehicles save 53% of energy consumption compared to gasoline vehicles if natural gas is used to produce clean electricity in power plants.
• Electric vehicles contribute to improve air quality in urban areas with their zero emissions.
• Hybrid vehicles save 28% of fuel consumption and emissions.
• If tax incentives are given to buy electric and hybrid vehicles, users can save 10% to 15% of total vehicle cost over the 10- year vehicle lifespan.
(1) 72 g/km of GHG emitted from the power plant, using natural gas as fuel. (2) Vehicle cost includes vehicle ownership cost, operating cost and operation subsidy. HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 8 Results for cars: Infrastructure costs and foregone revenues
Natural Gas Hybrid Electric
Infrastructure Cost by 2040 (Million USD)
Foregone Revenues (Million USD)
80-143 0 0 29-380 81-146 36-455
• Infrastructure cost for natural-gas vehicles and electric vehicles are of comparable scale (USD 80-146 M), which means it is more effective to develop an infrastructure for electric vehicles since they provide superior energy, emissions and cost savings for users, the same infrastructure investment cost. • Natural gas vehicles are of interest only for mass transit services. • Hybrids are the vehicle technology of choice if no infrastructure investment is to be made. • Electric are preferred when it comes to maximizing energy and emissions savings, making them the preferred fuel- vehicle technology in the medium and long term HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 9 Potential bus technologies as applicable for the Lebanese transport sector
Severe congestion conditions avg. velocity: 6 km/h idle time: 67% of trip time
Peak traffic conditions avg. velocity: 11 km/h idle time: 36% with frequent acceleration and deceleration
Off-peak traffic conditions avg. velocity: 20 km/h idle time: 21%
BRT service conditions avg. velocity: 36 km/h idle time: 23%
Auxiliaries power excluding Climate control auxiliaries climate control auxiliaries power
Diesel and CNG buses 9,000 W 13,400 W Hybrid and electric buses 5,250 W 14,000 W
HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 10 Results for buses: Consumption
Diesel CNG Series Hybrid Parallel Hybrid Electric
350 without Climate Control 300
250 222 200 149 150 105 105 111 88 100 72 75 69 61 52 49 47 38 50 31 24 30 31 26
12 Fuel Consumption Fuel (lge/100km) 0 Severe Peak Off-Peak BRT Congestion
Diesel CNG Series Hybrid Parallel Hybrid Electric
350 294 with Climate Control 300
250 204 200 171 143 142 150 114 104 100 92 100 74 74 71 70 45 47 42 31 39 36
50 17 Fuel Consumption Fuel (lge/100km) 0 Severe Peak Off-Peak BRT Congestion
HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 11 Results for buses: GHG Emissions
TTW GHG emissions without use of climate control auxiliaries. Diesel CNG Series Hybrid Parallel Hybrid Electric
6,000 without Climate Control 5,000
4,000 3493
3,000 2457 2064 2,000 1670 3744 1419 1213 2449 728 1,000 1871 699
TTW TTW GHG Emissions (g/km) 1619 1259 1135 644 597 0 Severe Peak Off-Peak BRT Congestion
WTT GHG emissions of electric bus technologies TTW GHG emissions with use of climate control auxiliaries. under the 2015 and 2030 electricity mixes. Diesel CNG Series Hybrid Parallel Hybrid Electric Electric (Mix15) Electric (Mix30)
6,000 6,000 5553 with Climate Control with Climate Control 5,000 4770 5,000
4002 4,000 4,000 3240 3420 3,000 2653 3,000 2436 2395 4957 1995 1724 1668 2,000 2,000 1397 1443 3330 907 972 842
1,000 2396 2329 1,000 WTT WTT GHG Emissions (g/km) TTW TTW GHG Emissions (g/km) 1554 1625 784 838 0 0 Severe Peak Off-Peak BRT Severe Congestion Peak Off-Peak BRT Congestion HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 12 Results for buses: Environmental-to-cost performance of bus technologies relative to diesel bus
SEVERE CONGESTION OPERATION BRT OPERATION
HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 13 Results for buses: Costs
Severe Congestion Peak Off-Peak BRT operation 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20% Total Cost Savings of Electric Bus Compared to Diesel Bus Diesel to Compared Bus Electric of Savings Cost Total 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bus Purchase Subsidy
HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 14 Results for buses: Consumption, Emissions and Costs of each fuel and bus technology
Similar to passenger cars, electric and hybrid buses are the best performers: • Electric buses save 65% of energy consumption compared to diesel buses if natural gas is used to produce electricity in power plants. • Electric buses contribute to improve air quality in urban areas for their zero emissions. • Hybrid buses saves 25% of fuel consumption and 21% of emissions. • If incentives on bus purchase cost are given to bus operators, electric bus can save between 8% and 30% compared to Diesel bus over the 12-year bus service life, depending on the bus average velocity. (30% inside Beirut under severe congestion, 8% under BRT operation)
(1) 1,259 g/km of GHG emitted from the power plant, using natural gas as fuel. HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 15 Strategy Roadmap
2030 – 2040
Long Term Actions • Expand electricity charging infrastructure o Additional investment costs 2020 – 2030 o High energy and emissions savings
Medium Term Actions • Convert power plants to natural gas for clean charging of electric vehicles and buses • Build electivity charging infrastructure • Build small-scale CNG infrastructure for mass transit o New investment costs o Additional energy and emissions savings 2018 – 2020
Near Term Actions: • Remove import taxes on hybrid cars and buses o No investment costs o Immediate, but moderate levels, of energy and emissions savings
HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 16 Thank you for your attention
Marc HADDAD [email protected] Charbel MANSOUR [email protected]
HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 17 Strategy Roadmap in Detail
Medium Term Actions: Build electricity charging infrastructure 1 Build small-scale CNG infrastructure for and use NG to generate electricity. 2 mass transit (taxi, bus)
Infrastructure Foregone Revenues Infrastructure Foregone Revenues
Invest Invest $25-$57 M $36-$455 M $26-57 M zero
Fuel Emissions Costs Fuel Emissions Costs
Save Save 53% 64% 7.8% -20% 5.6% 3.7%
2018-2020 2030-2040
2020-2030 Near Term Actions: Long Term Actions: Remove import taxes on hybrids Expand electricity charging infrastructure
Infrastructure Foregone Revenues Infrastructure Foregone Revenues
Invest Invest No new investment $29-$380 M $56-$89 M zero
Fuel Emissions Costs Fuel Emissions Costs
Save Save 28.6% 29% 14% 53% 64% 9.5%
HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 18 Policy Recommendations Action plan for transition to fuel efficient passenger cars in the Lebanese Transport sector
Type Priority sequence Measures
1 Exemption from custom and Create a car scrappage program excise fees, registration fees, Extend loan period and reduce based on swapping current Create market and road usage fees at loan interest. passenger cars with hybrid and Economic and Give incentives registration. electric vehicles financial Adopt a Bonus-Malus tax policy where polluters pay more measures 2 Reduce gradually maximum age of annual road-usage fees, and where taxes are estimated imported pre-owned vehicles and Transition based on fuel efficiency and/or emissions rather than maximum mileage. Put Restrictions engine displacement.
3 Create a car termination plant that deals with Market Create an industry for recycling car parts and Dispose of old the car termination process after the swap in development components cars the scrappage program
Update decree 6603/1995 relating to 4 Update the vehicle inspection program with special Policy, legal and standards on permissible levels of exhaust requirements for inspection of hybrid cars, and mandate Regulate car fumes and exhaust quality to cover all types of regulatory catalytic converters on conventional gasoline vehicles imports vehicles
Institutional/ Set up a mechanical inspection unit at the port 5 of Beirut in charge of checking up the organizational Plug the leaks emissions and safety standards of imported capacity pre-owned cars before entering the country
Establish awareness Social 6 campaign to educate awareness Educate about new technologies & correct old perceptions
Initiative 7 Create Mobility monitoring and Monitor the Monitoring Indicators validation progress (MMI) framework
HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 19 Policy Recommendations Action plan for deployment of efficient mass transit system in the Lebanese Transport sector
Type Priority sequence Measures
1 Design a bus network Ensure sufficient Exempt mass transit Create employee package covering all boroughs number of transit buses (and spare parts) for taxi drivers including Develop supply within GBA and reserve buses with proper from custom/excise fees, social benefits, insurance, Economic and chain lanes for bus operation powertrain technology and registration fees retirement plans, etc. financial measures 2 Establish smart card ticketing schemes with Shift travel appropriate reduced demand tariffs
Optimize the operation management of the bus transit system: conserve a clear and Market 3 regular bus operation, implement real-time information system, deploy personalized development Deploy effective travel planning tools, implement transit signal priority, set up stringent maintenance infrastructure and cleanliness program , construct relevant maintenance and repair workshops
4 Set clear regulations specifying the operation Policy, legal and Draft new amended laws for increasing parking Set regulatory maneuvers of private bus operations and taxi regulatory space and reserving lanes for buses framework owners
Institutional/ 5 Develop technical expertise among TMO staff organizational Manage and high level management capacity demand 6 Social Stimulate Provide information on CO2, fuel and cost awareness passengers savings comparing to passenger cars demand
Project 7 Create Mobility monitoring and Monitor the Monitoring Indicators validation progress (MMI) framework
HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 20 Assessment framework for the identified fuel-vehicle technologies
GHG emissions GHG emissions intensity Vehicle GHG emissions (CO2 eq. g/MJ of fuel) (CO2 eq. g/t.km) (CO2 eq. g/km)
Pollutants emissions Pollutants emissions Pollutants emissions (g/MJ of fuel) (g/t.km) (g/km)
Feedstock-related activities: Fuel-related activities: Vehicle-related activities: Feedstock recovery, Fuel production, Refueling and operation processing, storage and transportation, storage transportation and distribution Well-to-Tank Tank-to-Wheel
Consumption of total Energy intensity of used Vehicle energy energy resources resources consumption (oil, electricity, renewable, etc.) (diesel, electricity, NG, etc.) (gasoline, diesel, NG, etc.) (MJ/MJ of fuel) (MJ/t.km) (MJ/km)
Evaluated GHG emissions: CO2, CH4 and N2O Evaluated pollutants emissions: VOCs, CO, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, SOx
HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 21 CO2 emissions versus energy use of the assessed fuel-vehicle technologies
24 Gasoline and ethanol ICEV More CO2 emitting Gasoline ICEV (fleet avg) E10 ICEV 22
20 Gasoline ICEV (fleet min) E10 ICEV (imp E10) E85 ICEV (imp E85)
Diesel and biodiesel ICEV LPG ICEV CNG ICEV 18 B20 ICEV EV PP10 B20 ICEV (imp B20) Diesel ICEV CNG ICEV (LNG feedstock) Diesel PHEV60 Gasoline PHEV60 16 E10 HEV LNG ICEV HEV/PHEV Gasoline PHEV20 Gasoline HEV CNG/LNG/LPG ICEV 14 Diesel PHEV20 E10 HEV (imp E10) E85 HEV (imp E85) Gasoline PHEV20 PP20 B20 HEV Gasoline PHEV20 PP30 B20 HEV (imp B20) Gasoline PHEV60 PP20 12 Diesel HEV
WTW CO2 Emissions (kg/100km)Emissions CO2 WTW Diesel PHEV20 PP20 Diesel PHEV60 PP20 Diesel PHEV20 PP30 Gasoline PHEV60 PP30 10 EV PP20 Diesel PHEV60 PP30 EV 8 EV PP30 More energy consuming 6 100 150 200 250 300 350 WTW Energy Use (MJ/100km) HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 22 CO2 emissions versus energy use savings of the assessed fuel-vehicle technologies
70% More emissions savings EV PP30 EV 60%
50% Diesel PHEV60 PP30 EV PP20 Gasoline PHEV60 PP30 Diesel PHEV20 PP30 HEV/PHEV Diesel PHEV60 PP20 40% Diesel PHEV20 PP20 Gasoline PHEV60 PP20 Diesel HEV Gasoline PHEV20 PP30 B20 HEV (imp B20) B20 HEV Gasoline PHEV20 PP20 30% E85 HEV (imp E85) Gasoline HEV Diesel PHEV20 PP10 E10 HEV (imp E10) CNG/LNG/LPG ICEV Gasoline PHEV20 PP10 20% LNG ICEV Diesel PHEV60 PP10 E10 HEV CNG ICEV (LNG feedstock) Gasoline PHEV60 PP10 Diesel ICEV
EV PP10 B20 ICEV (imp B20) WTW CO2 Emissions Savings Emissions CO2 WTW 10% B20 ICEV
LPG ICEV CNG ICEV Diesel and biodiesel ICEV
E85 ICEV (imp E85) More energy savings 0% Gasoline ICEV -25% -15% -5% 5% 15% 25% 35% 45% 55% 65% E10 ICEV (imp E10)
-10% E10 ICEV Gasoline and ethanol ICEV
Gasoline ICEV (fleet avg) -20% WTW Energy Use Savings HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 23 Costs and benefits from the car users’ perspective: Environmental-to-cost performance of fuel-vehicle technologies relative to gasoline ICEV for yearly mileage of 12,000 km
0.20 Gasoline: 1 USD/liter EV EV PP10 EV PP30 NG: 0.5 USD/lge EV PP20 0.18 Electricity: 23 USC/kWh
0.16
0.14 Diesel PHEV60 Gasoline PHEV60
0.12
HEV/PHEV Diesel PHEV20 0.10 Gasoline PHEV20
0.08
B20 HEV Diesel HEV (kg CO2 eq./veh.km) CO2 (kg 0.06 E85 HEV Gasoline HEV E10 HEV 0.04 Diesel and biodiesel ICEV CNG/LPG ICEV B20 ICEV LNG ICEV
Saved TTW GHG emissions compared to gasoline ICEV gasoline to TTWcompared emissionsGHG Saved CNG ICEV 0.02 Diesel ICEV LPG ICEV E85 ICEV Gasoline ICEV 0.00 -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Cost savings compared to gasoline ICEV HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 24 Costs and benefits from the car users’ perspective: Environmental-to-cost performance of fuel-vehicle technologies relative to gasoline ICEV for yearly mileage of 30,000 km
0.20 EV Gasoline: 1 USD/liter EV PP10 EV PP30 NG: 0.5 USD/lge EV PP20 0.18 Electricity: 23 USC/kWh
0.16
0.14 Diesel PHEV60 Gasoline PHEV60
0.12
HEV/PHEV Diesel PHEV20 0.10 Gasoline PHEV20
0.08
(kg CO2 eq./veh.km) CO2 (kg B20 HEV Diesel HEV
0.06 E85 HEV Gasoline HEV Diesel and biodiesel ICEV E10 HEV 0.04 CNG/LPG ICEV
Saved TTW GHG emissions compared to gasoline ICEV gasoline to TTWcompared emissionsGHG Saved B20 ICEV LNG ICEV CNG ICEV 0.02 Diesel ICEV LPG ICEV E85 ICEV Gasoline ICEV 0.00 -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Cost savings compared to gasoline ICEV HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 25 Government foregone revenues and saved WTW GHG emissions over the near, medium and long-terms
Low market penetration of alternative fuel vehicles 129,000 tonnes/year 95,000 74,000 tonnes/year 58,500 tonnes/year tonnes/year
34 M USD 39.3 M USD 36.2 M USD 29.3 M USD
HEV PHEV20 PHEV60 EV
High market penetration of alternative fuel vehicles 230,000 tonnes/year 167,000 132,500 tonnes/year 105,500 tonnes/year tonnes/year
511 M USD 455 M USD 442 M USD 381 M USD
HEV PHEV20 PHEV60 EV HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 26 Infrastructure investment costs and saved WTW GHG emissions over the near, medium and long-terms 129,000 Low market penetration of alternative fuel vehicles 74,000-95,000 tonnes/year 58,500 tonnes/year tonnes/year
12,800 11,000 11,000 tonnes/year tonnes/year tonnes/year
98 M USD No needed M USD M USD 80.1 M USD 81.3 81.3 19.6 M USD investment CNG L-CNG LPG HEV PHEV EV
High market penetration of alternative fuel vehicles 230,000 tonnes/year 132,000-167,000 105,500 tonnes/year tonnes/year
23,000 tonnes/year 19,500 19,500 tonnes/year tonnes/year
174 M USD 143 M USD 145 M USD 145 M USD
35 M USD No needed investment CNG L-CNG LPG HEV PHEV EV
HADDAD & MANSOUR | IBEF 2018 | 27