Economic valuation of road transport emissions.

Scenario on the island of Lanzarote. Spain.

Thesis presented
resented by Pedro Pablo Ramírez Sánchez
With a view to obtaining the PhD Degree in Engineering Sciences and
Technology (“Docteur
Docteur en Sciences de l’Ingénieur et Technologie”)
Technologie
Academic year 2023
23-2024

Supervisor: Professor Alassane Ballé Ndiaye

(Universitéé Libre de Bruxelles)
Co-supervisor: Professor Roberto Rendeiro Martín-Cejas
Martín
(Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria)

Thesis jury:

Marie Françoise GODART (Université libre de Bruxelles)

Patrick HENDRICK (Université libre de Bruxelles)
Bernard LEDUC (Université
Université libre de Bruxelles
Bruxelles)
Abstract

Atmospheric pollution is one of the major problems in modern society, especially in urban
areas where the air quality causes several problems in health situation of citizens.
With the exception of sulphur oxides, road transport is the stronger polluter in the transport
sector. Considering that an important part of emissions occur in urban areas, it is evident
because road transport emission is one of the most important challenges in modern societies.
In these circumstances, public regulators have developed policy instruments for sustainable
transport. The most important principle of environmental policies is the "polluter pays
principle", which was first adopted in 1970 in Japan and nowadays, is the main argument for
the implementation of different environmental policies by the authorities.
Nevertheless, the complexity of the emissions and the different aims considered by the
regulation, global warming Vs air quality, different pollutants involved, etc., has provoked
perverse effects in some cases and “shift effect” in others. The most famous case in this regard
was the 2015 "Dieselgate" case involving Volkswagen.
In Europe, on 14th of July, 2021, the European Commission has presented the “Fit for 55
package” where the EU1 is working on the revision of its climate, energy and transport-related
legislation, in order to align current laws with the 2030 and 2050 ambitions. A number of new
proposals are also included in the package. Nevertheless, it is important to remark that “Fit for
55 package” is a proposition from the European Commission to the European States. Then
there are likely to be tough negotiations between the member states. The difference point of
view in the European countries has been showed in The COP2 26 UN Climate Change
Conference, which took place from 31 October to 12 November 2021.
It is important to consider that the complexities of road transport include passenger cars but
also the freight transport where the substitution of combustion engines is even more
complicated. On the one hand, it is an interesting remark that in the “Fit for 55 package” the
bio-fuels are included, on the other hand, the regulation includes a review clause in 2026 and
the possible need to revise the emission reduction targets in the light of progress made and
also taking into account technological developments.
Taking into account the different situation not only in Europe but also in the rest of the world,
the EU population is less than 6% the of world population share, we can conclude that the
replacement of combustion engines will be much slower than is believed.
The present research focuses on the economic valuation of road transport emissions, to be
applied as a tool for calculating emission taxes on fuel prices. Emissions have to be considered
as a whole and not as individual pollutants, in order to avoid a "pendulum effect".
The methodology developed in our research will calculate the price of emissions objectively on
the basis of the abatement price of them, and not on the basis of the health effects they may
have. This is to avoid distortions arising from the per capita income of different populations.
Consequently, our methodology is focused on emissions and not on air quality because the
same emissions may also produce different effects depending on geographical and

1
EU: European Union.
2
COP: ‘Conference of the Parties’. In the climate change sphere, ‘the Parties’ are the governments
which have signed the UN Framework Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC).[1]
i
environmental conditions. We therefore consider that emissions and air quality are two
different perspectives of the same issue. They are complementary and not mutually exclusive.
On the first step we quantified road transport emission using COPERT (COmputer Programme
to calculate Emissions from Road Transport). On the second step, because electric power is the
strongest alternative in land transport, we analysed and quantified the emission associated
with electricity production in the selected scenario. From the electricity production abatement
cost curves, estimated according to the cost of BAT (Best Available Techniques), the
abatement cost of the selected pollutants has been calculated. Finally, by “mutatis mutandis”
we obtained a "shadow price" for each selected pollutant in road transport.
As a Likely scenario we have chosen to study the island of Lanzarote, in the Canary Islands, (a
Spanish overseas region) to develop our research. The reasons for choosing this scenario lies in
the advantages it presents. On the one hand, there is good data available and, on the other
hand, since it is an island, it is a closed area, so we can use certain data to calibrate our model.
In short, it will allow us to have a more robust model.
The aim of this research is the development of a useful tool in the current transformation of
road transport, promoting a technological change and avoiding possible perverse effects on
environmental policies.

ii
INDEX

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... 1
List of figures ................................................................................................................................. 5
List of tables .................................................................................................................................. 7
List of abbreviations. (Incomplete list. A final revision is required. Shown as formats.) .............. 9
Chapter I. Contextualisation and situation ................................................................................... 9
1. General Introduction. Context of the situation in Europe. ................................................... 1
1.1 Context of Europe in a globalised world. ............................................................................ 3
1.1.1 European vehicle production. ...................................................................................... 3
1.1.2 European population in the world. .............................................................................. 4
1.2.3 The real size of Europe in the world ............................................................................ 5
1.2.4 European contribution to global GHG emissions ......................................................... 6
1.2.5 Energy in Europe ........................................................................................................ 11
1.2 Current situation in the European fleet. ..................................................................... 16
1.3 Current environmental policy in EU. “Fit for 55 package”. ......................................... 19
1.4 Electric cars in the European context................................................................................ 20
1.4.1 Current situation in Europe. ....................................................................................... 20
1.4.2 Emissions associated with electric cars...................................................................... 22
1.5 Conclusion of Chapter I ..................................................................................................... 23
Chapter II. Environmental regulation in transport and its effects. ............................................. 25
2. Environmental policies in transport. State of The Art......................................................... 25
2.1 Vehicle standards ........................................................................................................ 25
2.2 Taxes on purchase and ownership of a vehicle........................................................... 30
2.3 Subsidies to efficient vehicles ..................................................................................... 33
2.4 Low emission zone ...................................................................................................... 33
2.5 Scrappage incentives ................................................................................................... 34
2.6 Emission taxes ............................................................................................................. 34
2.7 Fuel taxes..................................................................................................................... 35
2.8 Summary of perverse effects. ..................................................................................... 35
2.9 Conclusion of Chapter II .............................................................................................. 36
Chapter III. Emission costing. ...................................................................................................... 37
3. Methodology. ...................................................................................................................... 37
3.1 Definition of a scenario with all the necessary data. .................................................. 39

iii
 3.2 Study and modelling of road transport. ...................................................................... 41
3.3 Quantification of road transport emission by COPERT (COmputer Programme to
calculate Emissions from Road Transport).............................................................................. 45
3.3.1 Copert calculation algorithm............................................................................... 48
3.3.2 Results obtained by COPERT ............................................................................... 50
3.4 Quantification of emissions from electricity production in the selected scenario. .... 55
3.4.1 Emission factor method. ..................................................................................... 56
3.4.2 Power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012. ....................................... 56
3.4.3 Fuel consumption in power generation .............................................................. 59
3.4.4 Results ................................................................................................................ 60
3.5 Cost of emissions from electricity production in the selected scenario. .......................... 72
3.5.1 Estimation of the abatement cost curve for NOx ....................................................... 75
3.5.2 Estimation of the abatement cost curve for PM ........................................................ 90
3.5.3 Estimated cost for CO2. ............................................................................................... 94
3.5.4 Cost function according to the different scenarios. ................................................... 96
3.6 environmental costs and taxes currently applied. Comparison with the methodology
proposed. ................................................................................................................................ 99
3.6.1 Cost of emissions according the damage .......................................................... 100
3.7 Conclusion of Chapter III ................................................................................................. 104
Chapter IV. Summary and global conclusion. ........................................................................... 106
4. Global Conclusion. ............................................................................................................. 106
References................................................................................................................................. 108
Annex I: List of scientific publications: ...................................................................................... 114
Annex II: COPERT results by source. ......................................................................................... 116
Annex III: COPERT results by driving mode. .............................................................................. 157
Annex IV: Description of BAT. ................................................................................................... 209

iv
List of figures

Figure 1-1: GHGE in 1990 and 2015 in EU-28. (EUROSTAT) ......................................................................... 2

Figure 1-2: Transport sector in total emissions of the main air pollutants. (EEA) ........................................ 2
Figure 1-3 : World vehicle production. In million units, % share. 2006 - 2021. (ACEA) ................................ 3
Figure 1-4 : World population distribution in 2018 (eurostat). .................................................................... 4
Figure 1-5 : Mercator projection VS the true size of countries. (https://www.visualcapitalist.com) ........... 5
Figure 1-6 : Fossil CO2 emissions of the major emitting economies, 1970-2021 (in Gt). (JRC, 2022). .......... 6
Figure 1-7 : Environmental Kuznets Curve for Sulphur Emission. (Stern DI. The Environmental Kuznets
Curve). .......................................................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 1-8 : Distribution of greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union (EU-27) in 2021, by sector.
(https://www.statista.com/). ....................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 1-9 : railway lines in use in Europe in 2020 which were electrified. ................................................ 10
Figure 1-10 : Gross Inland Consumption in Europe 2020. Energy mix (%) – Primary products only.
(Eurostat). ................................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 1-11 : Gross Inland Consumption in European countries 2020. Energy mix (%) – Primary products
only. (Eurostat). .......................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 1-12 : “Energy mix” and “Power energy mix” in the world.............................................................. 13
Figure 1-13 : Net electricity generation in the EU by fuel type (2022)........................................................ 14
Figure 1-14 : Electricity production by source in France and Poland. ......................................................... 14
Figure 1-15 : Estimated impact of different factors on the reduction of CO2 emissions from public heat
and electricity generation in the EU-27, 1990–2005 (EEA)......................................................................... 15
Figure 1-16 : Estimated impact of different factors on the reduction of SO2 emissions from public heat
and electricity generation in the EU-27, 1990–2005 (EEA)......................................................................... 16
Figure 1-17 : Estimated impact of different factors on the reduction of NOx emissions from public heat
and electricity generation in the EU-27, 1990–2005 (EEA)......................................................................... 16
Figure 1-18: New passenger car registrations by fuel type. (ACEA) ........................................................... 17
Figure 1-19: Market share of alternatively powered cars sales by country in 2020. (ACEA) ...................... 18
Figure 1-20: Market share of battery electric car sales by country in 2020. (ACEA) .................................. 18
Figure 1-21: Average age of the EU vehicle fleet in 2020. (ACEA) .............................................................. 19
Figure 1-22 : Distribution of electric car charging points across the EU. (ACEA 2021) ............................... 21
Figure 1-23 : Carbon Footprint for XC40 ICE and XC40 Recharge, with different electricity-mixes in the use
phase used for the XC40 Recharge. (VOLVO). ............................................................................................ 22
Figure 1-24 : Total cumulated amount of GHG emissions, depending on total kilometres driven, from
XC40 ICE (ICE in the diagram, dashed line) and XC40 Recharge (with different electricity mixes in the use
phase). (VOLVO). ........................................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 3-1 : Methodology. Conceptual map. .............................................................................................. 39
Figure 3-2 : : Evolution of the population in Lanzarote (1988 - 2012). ....................................................... 40
Figure 3-3 : Composition of the fleet by category on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012 ............................... 41
Figure 3-4 : Composition of the fleet by fuel type on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012 ............................... 42
Figure 3-5 : Annual average daily traffic on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012 ............................................. 44
Figure 3-6 : Flow chart of the application of the baseline methodology .................................................... 46
Figure 3-7 : : Temperature, RH and RVP input data in COPERT .................................................................. 47
Figure 3-8 : CO2 emissions. COPERT results. ............................................................................................... 52
Figure 3-9 : NOx emissions. COPERT results. .............................................................................................. 53
Figure 3-10 : PM2.5 emissions. COPERT results.......................................................................................... 53
Figure 3-10 : PM10 emissions. COPERT results........................................................................................... 54
Figure 3-12 : PM (exhaust). COPERT results. .............................................................................................. 54

v
Figure 3-13 : Share of the different technologies in energy production on the island of Lanzarote in 2012.
.................................................................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 3-14 : Comparison between installed generation capacity and demand coverage on the Island of
Lanzarote in 2012. ...................................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 3-15: Marginal Abatement Cost Curve ............................................................................................ 73
Figure 3-16 : Abatement technologies considered in diesel engines .......................................................... 82
Figure 3-17 : abatement cost curve fit for diesel engines of Lanzarote power plant in 2012..................... 83
Figure 3-18 : Abatement technologies considered in gas turbines. ............................................................ 86
Figure 3-19 : abatement cost curve fit for gas turbines of Lanzarote power plant in 2012 ....................... 87
Figure 3-20 : NOx abatement technologies considering the weighted contribution of the different
production technologies at the Lanzarote thermal power plant in 2012. .................................................. 88
Figure 3-21 : Electrostatic precipitator technology (ESP) for PM abatement in Diesel Engines. ................ 93
Figure 3-22 : evolution of the price of emission allowances over the last ten years. ................................. 94
Figure 3-23 : Different stages of the EU ETS and their periods of implementation. ................................... 95

vi
List of tables

Table 1-1 : Population projections (in thousands) by continent from 2025 to 2100.Medium scenario.
(United Nations) ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Table 1-2 : CO2 emissions data of the major emitting economies, 2021. Joint Research Centre (JRC),
European Commission. ................................................................................................................................. 7
Table 1-3 : Glossary : Country codes. Eurostat. .......................................................................................... 13
Table 2-1 : Fuel consumption gap: Manufacturers declaration vs. real drive test. (ADAC. Allgemeiner
Deutscher Automobil-Club) ........................................................................................................................ 28
Table 2-2 : Emission in different types of vehicles. (ADAC. Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club)......... 29
Table 2-3 : Taxes on acquisition ................................................................................................................. 32
Table 2-4 : Taxes on ownership .................................................................................................................. 33
Table 2-5 : SUMMARY OFF THE PERVERSE EFFECTS LINKED TO ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES ............................................. 35
Table 3-1 : Subdivision categories for diesel passenger cars. ..................................................................... 43
Table 3-2 : Automotive fuels. Lanzarote 2012 ............................................................................................ 47
Table 3-3 : Speed on different types of roads. Lanzarote 2012 .................................................................. 48
Table 3-4 : Estimated fuel consumption. Lanzarote 2012 .......................................................................... 50
Table 3-5 : Global Warming Potentials....................................................................................................... 51
Table 3-6 : Estimated annual CO2 equivalent emissions from road transport on the island of Lanzarote in
2012 ............................................................................................................................................................ 51
Table 3-7 : Emissions of other pollutants from road transport on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012. .......... 52
Table 3-8 : Summary of the results obtained by COPERT ........................................................................... 55
Table 3-9 : Emissions per litre of different pollutants. Lanzarote 2012 ...................................................... 55
Table 3-11: Installed generation capacity by energy source ...................................................................... 57
Table 3-12 : Coverage of electricity demand in 2012. ................................................................................ 57
Table 3-13 : Electricity Generating Units (EGU) installed in the thermal power plant “Punta Grande”
(Lanzarote) on 31th of December 2012 ...................................................................................................... 59
Table 3-14 : Fuel consumption in the Thermal power station. ................................................................... 60
Table 3-15 : Annual CO2 estimated emission in power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012 .... 63
Table 3-16 : Annual CH4 estimated emission in power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012 .... 64
Table 3-17 : Annual N2O estimated emission in power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012 .... 65
Table 3-18 : Annual CO2 equivalent estimated emission in power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in
2012 ............................................................................................................................................................ 66
Table 3-19 : Annual NOx estimated emission in power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012 .... 68
Table 3-20 : Annual PM2.5 estimated emission in power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012 69
Table 3-21 : Annual PM10 estimated emission in power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012 . 70
Table 3-22 : Annual TSP estimated emission in power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012 ..... 71
Table 3-23 : Summary of estimated emissions from power generation on the island of Lanzarote in 2012
.................................................................................................................................................................... 72
Table 3-24 : Cost data of the technique "Low NOx combustion concept for diesel engines" ..................... 76
Table 3-25: Operating cost of EGR technology in the different EGUs ......................................................... 77
Table 3-26: Operating cost of “Water/Steam addition” technology in the different EGUs ........................ 79
Table 3-27 : Operating cost of SCR technology in the different EGUs ........................................................ 80
Table 3-28 : summary of NOx abatement techniques for diesel engines. .................................................. 81
Table 3-29 : Summary of NOx abatement techniques for gas turbines. ..................................................... 86
Table 3-30 : NOx abatement technologies considering the reduction over total emissions....................... 87
Table 3-31 : Different NOx abatement technologies ranked in order of increasing cost and showing the
cumulative percentage reduction. .............................................................................................................. 88
Table 3-32 : General performance of an ESP .............................................................................................. 90

vii
Table 3-33 : Cost of Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) technology in the different EGUs .............................. 91
Table 3-34 : General performance f bag filters........................................................................................... 92
Table 3-35 : Cost of “Bag Filter” technology in the different EGUs ............................................................ 92
Table 3-36 : Road transport emissions from different fuels ....................................................................... 97
Table 3-37 : different taxes per tonne of pollutant with different values of αi .......................................... 97
Table 3-38 : Emission tax to be applied to each tonne of petrol and diesel (€2021). ................................. 98
Table 3-39 : taxes applied to 1000 litre of petrol and diesel in different European countries (2019) ...... 100

viii
List of abbreviations.

2D: Two dimensions

ACEA: European Automobile Manufacturers' Association
ADAC: Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club
BAT: Best Available Techniques
BEVs: Battery Electric Vehicles
CAFE: Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CAFE: Clean Air For Europe
CBA: Cost–Benefit Analysis
CO: Carbon Monoxide
COP: Conference of the Parties
COPERT: COmputer Programme to calculate Emissions from Road Transport
EF: Emission Factor
EGR: Exhaust-gas recirculation
EGU: Electricity Generating Unit
EKC: Environmental Kuznets Curve
EPA : United States Environmental Protection Agency
E-PRTR: European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register
ESP: Electrostatic precipitator
ETS: emissions trading system
EU: European Union
FCVs: FuelCell Vehicles
GDP PPP: Gross Domestic Product converted to international dollars using Purchasing
Power Parity rates
GDP: Gross Domestic Product
GHG: Greenhouse Gas
GHGE: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GNP: Gross National Product
GWP: Global Warming Potential
HEVs: Hybrid Electric Vehicles
ICE: Internal Combustion Engine
JRC: Joint Research Centre (is the Commission's science and knowledge service)
Kg: Kilogram
LEZ: Low Emission Zone
LNB: Low-NOX burners
LPG: Liquid Petroleum Gas
LULUCF: Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry
MACC: Marginal Abatement Cost Curves
NEDC: New European Driving Cycle
NMHC: Non-Methane Hydrocarbons (NMHC)
OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PHEVs: Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles
PM: Particulate Matter
PPP: Polluter Pays Principle

ix
PRTR: Pollutant Release and Transfer Register
R&D: Research and Development
SCR: Selective catalytic reduction
T&E: Transport and Energy
TEN-T: Trans-European TransportNetwork
THC: Total Hydrocarbon
Tj: Terajoule
TSP: Total Suspended Particles
VOLY: Value Of a Life Year
VSL: Value of a Statistical Life
WHO: World Health Organization
WLTP: Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure
ZLEV: Zero- and Low-Emission Vehicles

x
Chapter I. Contextualisation and situation

1. General Introduction.
On the one hand, the automotive industry is one of the most important sectors in the EU,
involving different sectors like manufacturing, transport, sales, services, etc. According to the
European commission data the sector provides direct and indirect jobs to 13.8 million
Europeans, representing 6.1% of total EU employment. The turnover generated by the
automotive industry represents over 7 % of the EU’s GDP3[2].

The EU is among the world's biggest producers of motor vehicles (21% of world motor vehicle
production in 2021). The automotive sector represents the largest private investor in research
and development (R&D) with a 32% share of total R&D expenditure in the UE (2020 data). This
industry is also a vital source of government revenue. According to ACEA4 Fiscal income from
motor vehicles in major European markets is €375 billion annually. Collecting €2,890 per
vehicle annually (according to 2021 data), Belgium has the highest tax revenue[3]. On the
other hand, the road transport is the most important polluter in European urban areas.
According to a European Commission press release published in 2017, 23 out of 28 Member
States air quality standards were still being exceeded – in total in more than 130 cities across
Europe, being NO2 (nitrogen dioxide) and PM10 (particulate matter) the most problematic
pollutants[4].
When we talk about air emissions, most people think only about CO2 emissions and global
warming, obviating the real dimension about this subject. According to the Environmental
Protection Agency of the United States (EPA), under the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air
Act it is necessary to regulate sources emitting major amounts of 188 toxic air pollutants[5].
The importance of this issue lies in the potential human health and environmental effects that
exposure to these pollutants under certain conditions cause. At this point, it is important to
clarify that contrary to general opinion, CO2 does not cause any damage to health. This gas has
an important effect in global warming (it’s the principal cause) but has not toxicity at all in its
atmospheric concentrations. In the second article of the REGULATION (EC) No 166/2006 OF
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 18 January 2006 concerning the
establishment of a European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register and amending Council
Directives 91/689/EEC and 96/61/EC, like a definition of pollutant we can read: “a substance or
a group of substances that may be harmful to the environment or to human health on account
of its properties and of its introduction into the environment”. Also in this Regulation, in the
annex III, the CO2 appears listed like a pollutant [6]. In subsequent regulations, CO2 has
continued to be considered a pollutant.

3
GDP: Gross domestic product. ) Is the monetary value of all finished goods and services made within
a country during a specific period.
4
ACEA: European Automobile Manufacturers' Association

1
The next pie chart shows the GHGE (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) in 1990 and 2015 in EU
EU-28
expressed like a percentage of total emissions
emissions[7].

Figure 1-1: GHGE in 1990 and 2015 in EU-28. (EUROSTAT)

In this kind of data it is possible to find some differences in the di

different
fferent sources, mainly due to
the considerations in the transport sector. In some statistics the emissions from international
aviation and maritime shipping are not included or are only included from bunker fuels.
Anyway, it’s clear that the increasing im importance
portance from the transport sector (unique increasing
sector) in GHGE.
The next bar chart represents the share in percentages of the different transport modes in the
total emissions of the main air pollutants in EU in 2017[8].

Figure 1-2: Transport sector in total emissions of the main air pollutants. (EEA)

In the Fig. 2 we can observe immediatel

immediately,
y, that except for sulphur oxides, road transport is the
stronger polluter in the transport sector. In this circumstance it is especially important
considering that a big part of the road transport emissions take place in urban areas. This has a
strong impact
act on air quality and consequently on human health. According to the European
Commission, more than 400,000 citizens die prematurely in the EU each year as a result of
poor air quality. Millions more suffer from respiratory and cardiovascular diseases ca caused by
air pollution. Persistently high levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) caused almost 70,000

2
premature deaths in Europe in 2013. This was almost three times the number of deaths by
road traffic accidents in the same year[4].

1.1 Context of Europe in a globalised world.

As this thesis has been developed in a European university, it is important to contextualise the
European situation in terms of emissions and population in the world, as well as its specific
weight as a car manufacturer.

1.1.1 European vehicle production.

According to data from ACEA [3], world vehicle production is shown in the following bar chart.

Figure 1-3 : World vehicle production. In million units, % share. 2006 - 2021. (ACEA)

1. Includes Hong Kong and Taiwan

5
2. Includes Turkey and CIS countries

On the one hand the bar-chart shows clearly the European importance in the world vehicle
production in share terms and also in production units. On the other hand, while China’s
emergence is striking, we see that Europe maintains its global importance as a vehicle

5
Commonwealth of Independent States. (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan).[9]

3
manufacturer. In the year 2021, we can observe the decrease in net production due to the
COVID lockdown effect.

1.1.2 European population in the world.

The European role as a vehicle manufacturer is even more significant, in relative terms, given
Europe’s importance in the world’s population.
The figure below shows the percentage distribution of the world population in 2018

Figure 1-4 : World population distribution in 2018 (eurostat).

According eurostat, the EU had 450 million inhabitants in 2018, accounting for 5.9% of the
world population (7.6 billion inhabitants). The 75% of the EU population lived in urban area
(the world average was 55%). In economic terms the EU generated 18.6% of the world GDP in
2018. This represented the second largest share after the United States (24%) and ahead of
China (15.9%). Services contributed 72.7% of the total gross value added in the EU economy
[10].
The specific weight of Europe will decline in the coming years, while Africa will be the scene of
the next demographic explosion. The table bellow shows the projection in the medium
scenario according to United Nations data [11].

4
Table 1-1 : Population projections (in thousands) by continent from 2025 to 2100.Medium scenario. (United
Nations)

1.2.3 The real size of Europe in the world

For many people, the Earth as they know it, with European continent situated in the center
and with the size of countries showed by the map, it is heavily informed by the Mercator
projection. However, with any map projection style, the big challenge lies in depicting a
spherical object as a 2D graphic. Mercator’s projection gives user a warped sense of the true
size of countries, exaggerating the real size the further countries are from the equator. For this
reason, the African continent is the more affected in relation with the others.
As the figure below shows, northern nations such as Canada and Russia have been artificially
“pumped up” in the minds of many people around the world. Mercator’s map inadvertently
also pumps up the sizes of Europe and North America. Visually speaking, Canada and Russia
appear to take up approximately 25% of the Earth’s surface, when in reality they occupy a
mere 5% [12].

Figure 1-5 : Mercator projection VS the true size of countries. (https://www.visualcapitalist.com)

5
This "visual effect" goes beyond mere curiosity, its effect could remain in the general
subconscious and distances us from the real importance of Europe in the world.

1.2.4 European contribution to global GHG emissions

Although this thesis does not focus on GHG emissions, these are the most relevant in
environmental regulation. On the other hand, there is an extensive GHG database that allows a
comparison of the situation in different countries.
The graph below shows the evolution of CO2 emissions of the main emitting economies in the
period 1970-2021.

Figure 1-6 : Fossil CO2 emissions of the major emitting economies, 1970-2021 (in Gt). (JRC, 2022).

China's performance is particularly striking in comparison with the consolidated economies.

India's case is likely to be similar to China's in the coming years, as both are emerging
economies.
According the environmental kuznets curve (EKC), “in the early stages of economic growth
degradation and pollution increase, but beyond some level of income per capita (which will
vary for different indicators) the trend reverses, so that at high-income levels economic growth
leads to environmental improvement”[13].
An example of an Environmental Kuznets Curve for sulphur emissions is shown in the figure
below.

6
 Figure 1-7 : Environmental Kuznets Curve for Sulphur Emission. (Stern DI. The Environmental Kuznets Curve).

According to this theory, emissions are likely to decline in emerging economies in the long
term. However “the statistical analysis on which the environmental Kuznets curve is based is
not robust. There is little evidence for a common inverted U-shaped pathway which countries
follow as their income rises”[13].
We can conclude that the EKC is a very useful hypothetical relationship as an explanatory
factor, but by no means a scientific proof.
The table shows the share of emissions in 2021 in the world according to data published by the
European Commission [14]. It is important to clarify that each country’s contribution to
international aviation and international shipping is not included.

Table 1-2 : CO2 emissions data of the major emitting economies, 2021. Joint Research Centre (JRC), European
Commission.

Share in CO2 emissions CO2 emissions per

CO2 emissions Population
global per capita unit of GDP PPP
Mt CO2/yr (Million)
% t CO2/cap/yr t CO2/kUSD/yr

China 32.90 12,466.32 8.73 0.50 1,428.00

USA 12.60 4,752.08 14.24 0.23 333.78

EU27 7.30 2,774.93 6.25 0.14 443.68

India 7.00 2,648.78 1.90 0.29 1,397.00

Russia 5.10 1,942.54 13.52 0.48 143.64

Japan 2.90 1,084.69 8.60 0.21 126.11

7
It is important to clarify the meaning of the acronym “GDP PPP” used in table 1-1. The
definition of “GDP PPP” is Gross Domestic Product converted to international dollars using
Purchasing Power Parity rates. An international dollar has the same purchasing power over
GDP as the U.S. dollar has in the United States [15].
A simplified example of “purchasing Power Parity” would be the “Big-Mac index”, widely used
in the informal economic literature, where the index is the ratio between the different prices
of McDonalds Big-Mac. A standardised basket of services and goods is used to calculate PPP
rates.
Analysing table 1-1 we can see that although while China is the first polluter, according to its
population, USA and Russia have a greater responsibility. Analysing according to economic
output (CO2 emission per unit of GDP PPP), the most efficient is the EU27 in contrast to china
and Russia.
A more in-depth analysis by type of economy, services versus primary sector and
manufacturing, would be necessary. In any case, the objective of this paragraph is to obtain a
first approximation of the European situation in the world.
Focusing on Europe, the distribution of its greenhouse gas emissions in the different sectors is
shown in the pie chart below [16].

Figure 1-8 : Distribution of greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union (EU-27) in 2021, by sector.
(https://www.statista.com/).

Figure 1-7 does not include the LULUCF (Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry) sector. On
the other hand, it is immediate to observe that the most important emissions sector is energy
supply (24.6%) followed by transportation (21.3%) and industry (20.6%). Thus, energy-related
GHG emissions are dominant, at over 66.5%.
According to data from 2019, road transport in Europe represents around 95% of CO2
emissions from transport [17]. Taking into account this percentage and also considering the
data shown in figure 1-7 and table 1-1, we can conclude that European road transport

8
emissions represent approximately 20.24% of EU-27 GHG emissions and 1.48% of global
emissions.
In this context, reducing emissions from road transport is an interesting target for reducing
European emissions in a global context. Within the framework of current technologies, the
electrification of the European fleet seems to be the main way forward in line with current EU
environmental policies. It is important to consider that fleet electrification to reduce emissions
depends to a large extent on the energy mix of each European country. This issue will be
discussed in the next sub-section.
To reflect on the time needed for the European fleet to switch from combustion to electric
power, the following bar chart shows the percentage of the railway lines in use in Europe in
2020 which were electrified, by country [18].

9
Figure 1-9 : railway lines in use in Europe in 2020 which were electrified.
(https://www.statista.com/).

10
The average of electrified lines in the EU-27 in 2020 was 56.6%. Looking at this bar chart, the
heterogeneity between European countries is clear. In the European Union, the highest
number of electrified railway lines is found in Luxembourg, with 91%, in contrast with Ireland,
with only 2.8%. Belgium is in a good position with 87.7% and Germany, Europe's leading
economy, has only 53.2% of electrified lines.
It is clear that the electrification of road transport will be more complicated than that of
railway.

1.2.5 Energy in Europe

An important element to consider in GHG emissions is the energy mix. Energy mix refers to all
direct uses of energy, such as transportation and housing, and should not be confused with
power generation mix, which refers only to generation of electricity [19]. According the
Eurostat data [20], the energy mix in 2020 was as shown in the pie chart below.

Figure 1-10 : Gross Inland Consumption in Europe 2020. Energy mix (%) – Primary products only. (Eurostat).

*Others: manufactured gases, peat and peat products, oil shale and oil sands.
The energy mix is not homogeneous across European countries, as the following bar chart
shows.
There are large differences between European countries, as shown in the bar chart below.

11
 Figure 1-11 : Gross Inland Consumption in European countries 2020. Energy mix (%) – Primary products only.
(Eurostat).

Figure 1-10 clearly shows the large differences between European countries. According to GHG
emissions calculation, only the nuclear, renewable and bio-fuel energies would be considered
zero-emission energies.

12
In order to be able to clearly read figure 1-10, the European country codes are listed in the
table below [21].

Table 1-3 : Glossary : Country codes. Eurostat.

Belgium (BE) Greece (EL) Lithuania (LT) Portugal (PT)

Bulgaria (BG) Spain (ES) Luxembourg (LU) Romania (RO)
Czechia (CZ) France (FR) Hungary (HU) Slovenia (SI)
Denmark (DK) Croatia (HR) Malta (MT) Slovakia (SK)
Germany (DE) Italy (IT) Netherlands (NL) Finland (FI)
Estonia (EE) Cyprus (CY) Austria (AT) Sweden (SE)
Ireland (IE) Latvia (LV) Poland (PL)

As mentioned at the beginning of this subsection, there is a big difference between “energy
mix” and “power generation mix”. The difference between both concepts is perfectly
illustrated in the following graph on energy in the world.

Figure 1-12 : “Energy mix” and “Power energy mix” in the world.
(https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix).

Given that one of the alternatives to the combustion vehicle is the electric one, attention
should be paid to the power generation mix. The following sunburst chart shows the share of
different types of fuel in electricity generation in the EU.

13
 Figure 1-13 : Net electricity generation in the EU by fuel type (2022).
(Council of the European Union).

In 2022, 39.4% of electricity was generated from renewable energy sources (wind: 15.9%;
Hydro: 11.3%; Solar: 7.6%; Biomass: 4.4%; Geothermal: 0.2%), 38.7% from fossil fuels (Gas:
19.6%; Coal: 15.8%; Oil: 1.6%; Other: 1.7%) and 21.9% from nuclear power [22]. On the basis of
these data it is clear that electric cars are not necessarily zero emission cars.
As happens with the energy mix, there are also large differences between European countries
with the electric generation mix. The next graph shows the large difference between France
and Poland in electric generation.

Figure 1-14 : Electricity production by source in France and Poland.

(https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix).

14
According to the data in the graph above, in 2022 in France, nuclear power represents 63.3%.
The total of “low carbon sources” is 87.85% [23]. Poland is in the opposite situation, with
69.21% of electricity production coming from coal. The total of “low carbon sources” in Poland
is 21% [23]. The reason for choosing France and Poland in this comparison lies, on the one
hand, in the difference between the two electricity generation mixes, on the other hand, both
countries are large (in terms of population and surface area) within the EU.

To conclude this subsection, it is interesting to know the path followed in the electricity sector
to reduce emissions. In EU-27, in the period 1990 – 2005, the main factors in reducing CO2
emissions from electricity and heat generation are the improvement in efficiency and fuel
switching (from coal to gas), and to a much lesser extent — the change in the contribution of
renewables in certain years [24]. The following bar-chart shows this situation.

Figure 1-15 : Estimated impact of different factors on the reduction of CO2 emissions from public heat and
electricity generation in the EU-27, 1990–2005 (EEA).

For SO2 and NOX emission reductions, the dominant factor appears to be the use of
abatement technology, as it accounts for the most significant difference between the
hypothetical line and the actual level of emissions [24]. The situation for both pollutants is
shown by the bar-chart graphs bellow.

15
Figure 1-16 : Estimated impact of different factors on the reduction of SO2 emissions from public heat and electricity
generation in the EU-27, 1990–2005 (EEA).

Figure 1-17 : Estimated impact of different factors on the reduction of NOx emissions from public heat and electricity
generation in the EU-27, 1990–2005 (EEA).

The difference in the importance of abatement techniques depending on the pollutant will be
an important aspect to consider in the development of the methodology proposed in this
Thesis.

1.2 Current situation in the European fleet.

In view of the European Commission’s proposals, it is interesting to pay attention to the

European car market sales.
The next chart (Fig.1-17) shows the new passenger car registrations by fuel type in percentage
of categories in the period 2018-2021 in Europe.

16
 Figure 1-18: New passenger car registrations by fuel type. (ACEA)

The meanings of the subscripts in Figure 1-17 are:

2. Includes fuel cell electric vehicles.

3. Includes extended-range electric vehicles.
4. Includes full and mild hybrids.
5. Includes natural gas, LPG and ethanol vehicles.

The most striking points are the sales of zero-emission cars:

 5.4% of all cars sold in 2020 were battery electric (+5.1 percentage points since
2014).[25]
 Fuel cell vehicles accounted for a small share (0.01%) of total EU car sales in 2020.[25]
 18% of all new cars sold in the EU in 2021 had a plug. [26]

It is important to clarify that the only zero emission cars are battery electric and fuel cell cars.
There are other new technologies, but these other technologies are linked to combustion
engines. The distribution of the market is not homogeneous in the different European
countries, with a clear heterogeneity between countries.

17
 Figure 1-19: Market share of alternatively powered cars sales by country in 2020. (ACEA)

It is important to note that there is a significant correlation between GDP and new
technologies cars sales, as we can see in the map below.

Figure 1-20: Market share of battery electric car sales by country in 2020. (ACEA)

In the van market in 2020, the situation was even more conventional, with 92.4% diesel-
engined in the EU (a slight increase compared to 2019 with 91.7 %). In 2021, diesel van
registrations were 90.2% (only 3% of van registrations were electrically-chargable)[26].

18
Zero emission technologies in trucks remain anecdotal. In buses, 31.2% of new registrations in
2021 were “alternatively-powered” (10.5% alternative fuels, 10.1% hybrid electric and 10.6%
electrically-chargable)[26].
Other important factor to take in account is the average age of the European fleet, showed in
the figure 1-6. It is important pay attention in the heterogeneity between countries according
to the GDP. It is also important to note that the average age of the European fleet has
increased in recent years in all vehicle categories[26].

1. Light commercial vehicles up to 3.5t

2. Medium and heavy commercial vehicles over 3.5t
3. Buses and coaches over 3.5t

Figure 1-21: Average age of the EU vehicle fleet in 2020. (ACEA)

Considering the total number of vehicles in use in the EU in 2021, 99.2% of passenger cars, 99.4% of
light commercial vehicles, 99.9% of medium and heavy commercial vehicles and 98.7% of buses had a
combustion engine [27]. The reason why there is a higher percentage of electric buses than other
categories is that public incentives are the main factor of electric penetration. In the case of buses,
shorter distances and predictable routes with access to charging are another factor facilitating their
deployment.

1.3 Current environmental policy in EU. “Fit for 55 package”.

On 14th of July, 2021, the European Commission has presented “COMMUNICATION FROM THE
COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC

19
AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 'Fit for 55': delivering the
EU's 2030 Climate Target on the way to climate neutrality”.
Under the called “Fit for 55 package”, the EU is working on the revision of its climate, energy
and transport-related legislation, in order to align current laws with the 2030 and 2050
ambitions. A number of new proposals are also included in the package.
The most striking proposals related to road transport can be summarised with the following
items.
 From 2026, road transport will be covered by emissions trading, putting a price on
pollution, stimulating cleaner fuel use, and re-investing in clean technologies.[28]
 Zero emissions from new cars by 2035[28]
 By 2050, nearly all cars, vans, buses as well as new heavy-duty vehicles will be zero-
emission.[29]
The Council adopted its general approach on the proposal in June 2022. An agreement with
the European Parliament was reached in October 2022. The regulation was adopted by the
Council in March 2023.[30]
It is important to remark that “in 2026, the Commission will assess the progress made towards
achieving the 100% emission reduction targets and the need to review these targets taking
into account technological developments, including with regard to plug-in hybrid technologies
and the importance of a viable and socially equitable transition towards zero emissions.”[31].
Consequently, a modification of the dates and/or targets is possible and foreseeable.
The Council also agreed to put an end to the regulatory incentive mechanism for zero- and
low-emission vehicles (ZLEV) as of 2030 [31].
On the other hand, it is an interesting remark that in the “Fit for 55 package” are included the
bio-fuels, for this reason this measures are also the opposition of some environmental sectors.
Laura Buffet, T&E Energy Director, said: "The EU is failing to right the wrongs of a disastrous
green fuels policy caused by heavy reliance on crop biofuels.”[32]
Taking into account the different aspects shown in this section, the average age of the EU
vehicle fleet, the situation not only in Europe but also in the rest of the world (in some cases
with more difficulties to access new technologies). We can conclude that the topic proposed
for our research is fully current and necessary. It is also a useful tool in the current
transformation, promoting a technological change.

1.4 Electric cars in the European context.

In this subsection we will show the general aspects that there are necessary for the
electrification of the European car fleet. It is not the aim of this research to study
electrification, but on the other hand it is interesting to have a global view on road transport.
In this sense, it is obvious that electrification is probably the most important change in the
current scenario.

1.4.1 Current situation in Europe.

The electrification of the car fleet involves different economic and social aspects. In subsection
1.2, the importance of the purchasing power of citizens (due to the cost of electric vehicles)

20
was shown. On the other hand, the type of housing (flat, villa, etc.) and whether the housing is
rented or owned (due to the possibility of private charging points) is also important.
In 2019, 46% of the EU population lived in flats, while just over a third (35%) of the population
lived in detached houses and almost one fifth (19%) lived in semi-detached or terraced houses.
Flats were the most common residence type in 14 Member States, notably in Latvia (where
66% of people lived in flats), Spain (65%) and Estonia (61%). Member States with the smallest
share of their population residing in flats were Ireland (8%) and the Netherlands (21%).
In contrast, more than two-thirds of the population lived in detached houses in Croatia (68%),
followed by Slovenia (66%), Hungary and Romania (both 65%) and Denmark (54%). The
Netherlands and Ireland were the only EU Member States where more than half of the
population lived in a semi-detached house (58% and 53% respectively) in 2019 [33].
The figure below shows the current situation about the public charging points6.

Figure 1-22 : Distribution of electric car charging points across the EU. (ACEA 2021)

Figure 1-23 shows that 70% of the EU charging points are located in three countries (29.7%
Netherlands, 20.4% France and 19.9% Germany) [35].
There are only some 225,000 public charging points available across the entire EU, and just
one in nine is a fast charger. Ten countries do not have a single charging point for every 100

6
A public charging point is defined as a charging point with nondiscriminatory access. By this definition,
charging points at supermarket parking lots or in openly accessible parking garages are included within
public charging [34].

21
kilometre of main roads. Only four EU member states have more than 10 chargers per 100 km
[35]. These figures are specially relevant because they represent the viability of electric
movility without range anxiety. According to an ACEA publication on the core TEN-T (Trans-
European TransportNetwork) corridors will be needed 184 charging points for every 100km for
passenger cars and 51 chargers for trucks [34].
The EU-27 estimates that by 2030, approximately €280 billion need to be invested in installing
charging points (hardware and labor), upgrading the power grid, and building capacity for
renewable energy production for EV charging. A total investment of approximately €1,000
billion by 2050 in charging infrastructure (public and nonpublic), grid upgrades, and renewable
energy sources are necessary to complete the transformation to electric road mobility in EU-27
[34]. According to the data presented in the general introduction to this section, the income
from motor vehicles (€375 billion annually) would disappear at the same time. Consequently,
the financial capacity of states is also an important element to consider.

1.4.2 Emissions associated with electric cars

Electric cars are commonly wrongly called “zero-emission cars”. This is a mistaken because the
emissions of electric cars depend on the power generation mix. As demonstrated in section
1.2.4, they are not zero-emission. Consequently, when we are talking about electric cars, it is
more correct to talk about delocalised emissions.
On the other hand, there are studies that also consider the emissions inherent in the
manufacture of the vehicle. In this regard, we find interesting the comparison carried out by
the manufacturer Volvo in 2020 on its xc40 model in internal combustion and electric versions
[36]. The graph below shows the results of the carbon footprint report. The results are shown
in tonnes CO2-equivalent per functional unit over a service life of 200,000 km.

Figure 1-23 : Carbon Footprint for XC40 ICE and XC40 Recharge, with different electricity-mixes in the use phase
used for the XC40 Recharge. (VOLVO).

According to the methodology described in the report of VOLVO, the Carbon Footprint of a
XC40 ICE is 58 tonnes CO2e, whereas the footprint for the XC40 Recharge is between 27–54

22
tonnes CO2e. The reason for the variation in the XC40 Recharge result is because different
electricity mixes with varying carbon intensity in the use phase have been analysed. The size of
the variation illustrates the impact of the choice of electricity mix on the result [36].
The figure below shows the number of kilometres needed to be driven in order to reach break-
even for the XC40 Recharge with different electricity mixes in the use phase compared to the
XC40 ICE.

Figure 1-24 : Total cumulated amount of GHG emissions, depending on total kilometres driven, from XC40 ICE (ICE
in the diagram, dashed line) and XC40 Recharge (with different electricity mixes in the use phase). (VOLVO).

According to the results of VOLVO’s report, the XC40 ICE model will have the same footprint as
the XC40 Recharge model at 47,000 km with “wind electricity mix”, 84,000 km with “EU28
electricity mix or 146,000 km with “Global electricity mix”.
At this point, it is important to take into account the heterogeneity of the different European
mixes depending to the country as was shown in section 1.2.4 of this research.
It is also important to note that, as seen in section 1.2, the introduction of electric vehicles is
higher in countries with a high GDP. It is precisely in these countries that the average lifetime
of cars is shorter, so they will travel less kilometres.

1.5 Conclusion of Chapter I

Although Europe has an important role in today's world, this role will decrease in the coming
years. Contrary as shows the Mercator map (showed in section 1.2.3) we are very far to be the
centre of world.
In terms of GHG emissions our percentage contribution will have a drastic decleane and not
only for the success of the European mitigation policy. As we have shown in section 1.2.4 there
are correlations between economic development, population and GHG emissions. Therefore,
in coming years even if china emissions decrease, global emissions will increase for the

23
incipient India economic development and some later for the demographic evolution and also
economic development of Africa (according data showed in sections 1.1.2 and 1.2.4).
As a result, with an overall increase, Europe's share of global emissions will be lower.
Consequently, European road transport emissions, which currently account for approximately
1.48% of global emissions, will be significantly lower.
While mitigation policies are highly desirable, perhaps, in view of global realities, we should
redouble our efforts in climate change adaptation policies.

The “fit for 55 package” measures for road transport are mainly focused on the electrification
of road transport. An important element in the electrification of road transport is public
incentives for electric cars. These incentives also have a "perverse effect" such as the reduction
of public transport as happened in Norway in 2022 [37]. On the other hand, due to the higher
price of electric cars, a drop in incentives will lead to a drop in sales as was also the case in
Norway in 2023 [37].
Section 1.2.5 shows that the electric car means delocalisation of emissions and not a zero-
emission car. Emissions depend on the electricity generation mix and in some cases, such as
Poland, are highly dependent on coal (which emits high CO2 emissions). In other cases, such as
France, they depend heavily on nuclear power. In this case, the question would be whether we
really assume that a nuclear-powered electric car is more environmentally friendly than an
internal combustion car.
Assuming that electric cars will use only renewable energy is not at all realistic because they
are extremely variable. For example, solar energy will never provide an overnight charging. For
this reason, the emissions of electric cars depend on the electricity generation mix, as shown in
section 1.4.2. In the example shown, the emissions of the car in Poland would be higher than
in the “reharge global” scenario. Consequently, the same solution is not the best in every
situation.
In this sense, we could say that “fit for 55 package” is too rigid, as it does not take into account
the heterogeneity of the European electricity generation mix. On the other hand, in order to
really reduce emissions and not relocate them, it would be advisable to focus on public
transport policies.

In conclusion, according to the different data analysed in this chapter, it is clear that internal
combustion cars will continue in the coming years in Europe and even more so in other regions
of the world. It is clear that we are in a technological change but it is also evident that this
change will be complicated because it depends on several factors (economical development,
distances to be covered, electricity generation mix, etc). Technological change in road
transport is more complicated than in rail transport, where technological change is still in
process, as we have seen in figure 1-10. In this sense, a correct environmental policy can be
very useful in facilitating technological change, avoiding the possible perverse effects.

24
Chapter II. Environmental regulation in transport and its effects.

In this chapter, the different environmental policies are presented, analysing some of the
perverse effects they generate. It also contextualises some of these policies in the European
context. The chapter concludes by summarising the different perverse effects and proposing a
good practice guide using policy mixes.

2. Environmental policies in transport. State of The Art.

As far as environmental economic policies are concerned, probably the most important
principle is “Polluter Pays”; this Principle was taken on in 1970 in Japan by an amendment
according to which the enterprises are economically responsible for the damage caused to the
community[38].
This Principle later was adopted by OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development) as analytical basis in environmental policies. From there it has become present
in international law, here there are some examples:

 Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm

Declaration, 1972). Principle 22.[39]
 The Rio declaration on environment and development (1992). Principle 13.[40]
 Treaty on European Union (Maastricht 1992). Title XVI. Article 130r.2[41]
 Kyoto Protocol (1997)[42]
 Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and of the Treaty establishing
the European Community (2002). Article 174.2[43]
 Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004
on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of
environmental damage.[44]
 Consolidated version of The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2012).
Title XX. Article 191.2[45]

This principle must be the principal argument to implementation of different environmental

policies by authorities.
There are three types of policy instruments for sustainable transport: physical policies (policies
with a physical infrastructure like public transport, new roads, etc), soft policies (non-tangible
measures like car sharing, tele-working, etc) and knowledge policies (technological
innovations)[46].
In this section we will focus on the most commonly used environmental policies and the
potential perverse effect they can have.

2.1 Vehicle standards

It is the definition of acceptable and mandatory limits for safety, exhaust emissions and fuel
efficiency of the new vehicles sold. It is important to highlight that standards allow not only for
improvements in vehicle motor technology, but that there are also other technological

25
improvements (fuel-efficient tyres and air conditioning, traffic management and ecodriving)
and an increased use of biofuels[46]
Although vehicle standards may reduce fuel consumption and consequently CO2 emissions,
they will also reduce the cost of driving creating a stronger incentive to drive. This ‘‘rebound
effect’’ of additional driving could be as large as the benefits[46].
In US, the most relevant, was the introduction of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE),
enacted by Congress in1975 and still in place as of 2009 [46].
In Europe there are basically two standards, the most significant and known about is the Euro
normative (Euro I, Euro II, ….., Euro 6, etc) that introduce emission limits for diesel and petrol
vehicles. This normative regulates emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), total hydrocarbon (THC),
non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM). This
policy had started in 1970 with the Directive 70/220/EEC.
The other one is to limit the carbon dioxide, REGULATION (EC) No 443/2009 OF THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 April 2009, setting emission performance
standards for new passenger cars as part of the Community’s integrated approach to reduce
CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles. At this point it is important to clarify that this
normative puts a limit for the average of the cars manufactured for the company, not in each
car separately. The emissions are limited under a standard cycle, so this policy is strongly
linked to the test procedure used. Currently, the vehicle standard policy is referred to WLTP
(Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure) applied from September 2017. Before
the WLTP the standard used was NEDC standard (New European Driving Cycle) designed in the
1980s.
The driving cycle is crucial for the manufacturers because they are the measurement reference
to homologate the cars under the vehicle standard. The dilemma about the utilization of the
driving cycle is the gap between them and the real driving conditions. That is the principal
reason of the substitution of NEDC by WLTP, nearer to real driving.
The change in the declared CO2 emissions from NEDC to WLTP has not been the same in the
different categories, like a measurement tool has been used the ratio WLTP/NEDC. According
to this ratio, the category that has been affected the most is the HEVs with values from 1.23 to
1.37 and that which benefitted the most is the PHEVs with a ratio value of 1. Even the BEV and
FCV vehicles have been affected because, the WLTP to NEDC RATIO for BEVs and FCVs refer to
the electric energy consumption. The peculiar trend in the results for PHEVs because the WLTP
to NEDC CO2 emissions ratio strongly depends on the capacity of the electric battery, so with a
redesign in the batteries capacity the PHEV category will not be affected[47].
An important perverse effect is a growing gap between vehicle standard and real driving
conditions. One of the principal objectives of vehicle standard is to encourage the fuel
economy and the emissions as a consequence. However, the objective of the authorities does
not necessarily coincide with the results obtained, which could imply an inefficiency of this
measure.
The average gap across all brands in Europe is quickly growing. The average gap has grown up
to 42% in 2015 from 28% in 2012[48].
The carmakers are focused on the test of new cars, designing the relation speeds of gearbox,
injection systems, etc in the test conditions that it is not necessarily the optimal in real
conditions. Like an extreme example of this situation there is the “dieselgate scandal” in 2015,
where Volkswagen has used devices to defeat the test. The European obligatory rules on

26
carbon emissions required car manufacturers to limit their car fleet to a maximum of 130
grams of CO2 per km in 2015, and the situation will become even more complicated with a
maximum of 95 grams by 2021. The Commission has proposed more stringent CO2 limits for
2025 in July 2017.
Deceptive fuel consumption figures costs the typical driver in Europe around €549 a year in
additional fuel bills compared to the official claims[48].
Another element that has produced a gap and made a difference is the actual cycle test
optimal driving mode and the driving mode of each individual consumer. In this sense it’s
expected to improve the situation by the development of autonomous driving technologies.
The gap between manufacturer and real drive data are not homogeneous in different types of
cars. To show the difference between different technologies we have collected some random
models from the ADAC (Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club)[49] . The data collected is
shown in the tables 2-1 and 2-2 [50].
It’s really interesting to pay attention to the gap in the different vehicles types showed in the
table 2-1; we can see how the PHEVs vehicles present the strongest gap with an important
difference. The efficiency of this kind of car is linked to the user behaviour, presenting the best
efficiency when the batteries have been charged on grid and it is under this condition that the
driving tests are normally done. So depending on the user, the gap in this category can be
increased more.

We have commented on how the PHEVs are not affected by the change from the NEDC cycle
to WLTP, due to the WLTP/NEDC CO2 emissions ratio strongly depends on the capacity of the
electric battery. The manufacturer has increased the capacity of them for this reason. It is
interesting to consider that batteries with bigger capacity can increase the efficiency under an
environmental responsible user. In contrast, the inefficiency can be increased by an
irresponsible user (bigger batteries means a heavier car).

So, for these reasons, the spread of the PHEVs could be considered as a perverse effect under
certain circumstances.

27
Table 2-1 : Fuel consumption gap: Manufacturers declaration vs. real drive test. (ADAC. Allgemeiner Deutscher
Automobil-Club)

manufacturer ADAC Gap

Power
Model car type of car Cosumption consumption consumption
(Kw)
L/100 Km L/100 Km %
Audi A3 Sportback
1.5 TFSI cod sport S Gasoline 110 5 6,4 28,00%
tronic (7-Gang)
Alfa Romeo Giulietta
Gasoline 88 6,2 7,5 20,97%
1.4 TB 16V
Mercedes GLA 220
Style 4MATIC 7G- Gasoline 135 6,5 7,5 15,38%
DCT
Citroen C4 BlueHDi
Diesel 110 4,1 4,9 19,51%
150 Stop&Start Shine
BMW X1 sDrive18d
Diesel 110 4,5 5,4 20,00%
xLine Steptronic
Peugeot 308 SW 2.0
BlueHDi 180 GT Diesel 130 4,6 5,9 28,26%
EAT8
VW Passat Variant
Diesel 140 4,3 5,2 20,93%
2.0 TDI
VW Passat Variant
PHEVs 160 1,7 3,8 123,53%
GTE DSG
Porsche Panamera 4
PHEVs 340 2,5 5,3 112,00%
E-Hybrid PDK
BMW 225xe
iPerformance Active
PHEVs 165 2 6,3 215,00%
Tourer M Sport
Steptronic
Hyundai IONIQ
PlugIn-Hybrid PHEVs 104 1,1 2,5 127,27%
Premium
Toyota Prius 1.8
HEVs 90 3,3 4,1 24,24%
Hybrid Executive
Lexus CT 200h
HEVs 100 3,8 5,4 42,11%
Executive Automatic
Hyundai IONIQ
HEVs 104 3,9 5,1 30,77%
Hybrid Premium

28
Table 2-2 : Emission in different types of vehicles. (ADAC. Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club).

P (number of
type of Power HC CO NOx PM
Model car particulates per
car Kw mg/Km mg/Km mg/Km mg/Km
Km)
Audi A3
Sportback 1.5
Gasoline 110 9 1044 8 0,1 3,0765x1011
TFSI cod sport S
tronic (7-Gang)
Alfa Romeo
Giulietta 1.4 TB Gasoline 88 29 3246 9 1,6 16,4246x1011
16V
Mercedes GLA
220 Style
Gasoline 135 13 395 11 0,5 3,5206x1011
4MATIC 7G-
DCT
Citroen C4
BlueHDi 150
Diesel 110 2 83 168 0,4 0,04748x 1011
Stop&Start
Shine
BMW X1
sDrive18d xLine Diesel 110 24 31 139 0,3 2,97512x1011
Steptronic
Peugeot 308 SW
2.0 BlueHDi 180 Diesel 130 2 14 41 0,3 0,02951x 1011
GT EAT8
VW Passat
Diesel 140 2 13 84 0,5 0,06931x 1011
Variant 2.0 TDI
VW Passat
Variant GTE PHEVs 160 13 1258 11 1 17,8988x1011
DSG
Porsche
Panamera 4 E- PHEVs 340 26 441 32 3,4 26,4777x1011
Hybrid PDK
BMW 225xe
iPerformance
PHEVs 165 13 1395 44 3,2 25,2859x1011
Active Tourer M
Sport Steptronic
Hyundai IONIQ
PlugIn-Hybrid PHEVs 104 22 2228 8 0,4 9,83975x1011
Premium
Toyota Prius 1.8
Hybrid HEVs 90 4 40 5 0,2 2,22183x1011
Executive
Lexus CT 200h
Executive HEVs 100 3 85 22 0,4 3,56289x1011
Automatic
Hyundai IONIQ
HEVs 104 23 3090 3 0 29,3351x1011
Hybrid Premium

Data Source: ADAC (Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club).

29
In table 2-2, we can observe how the diesel car presents the biggest emission in NOx (this is the
reason new EU policies are focused in the regulation of this technology), nevertheless diesel
cars present the best results in PM (Particulate Matter) and HC (Hydrocarbons) results. To
analyze the particulate emission data is interesting considering the total emission (mg/Km) and
the number of particles. The size of the particles are directly linked to their potential for
causing health problems. Small particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter pose the
greatest problems, because they can get deep into your lungs, and some may even get into
your bloodstream[51]. For this reason it is interesting to compare the column of PM emission
(mg/Km) with the last column (number of particles per Km). A great number of particles
indicate an emission of smaller particles.
Analyzing the PM data, we can observe how the diesel car presents the best result and on the
other side are the PHEVs vehicles with an enormous difference. PHEVs presents worse results
than gasoline cars in NOx, and as we have commented in previous sections it is important to
considerer that PHEVs data is more optimistic than diesel and gasoline cars. In the real
emission test the emission of this type of car are strongly linked to mode driving selected and
the user behaviour if the batteries have been charged.
So, the spread of the PHEVs could be considered as a perverse effect under PM emission
perspective. If the PHEVs are going to substitute a significant part of gasoline cars, looking at
NOx emissions data, it is also possible that with this pollutant we are going to have another
perverse effect.

2.2 Taxes on purchase and ownership of a vehicle.

Many countries use this economic instrument. However, according to several authors, it is a
perverse incentive that induces a longer tenure. This induces overconsumption of older and
more polluting models. On the other hand, purchase and ownership taxes also increase
business costs of a country and harm its competitiveness [52]. In Europe, each country applies
this policy under different criteria, and even in some countries there are different criteria
applied in the different regions. The CO2 emission is the most common criterion in this policy.
This circumstance has encouraged diesel cars and actually also PHVs due to their theoretical
consumption in a standard cycle. Thus, Tables 2-3 and 2-4 [53] summarise the different policies
applied by each European country according to the data from ACEA [54]. CO2 emission and fuel
consumption have been considered in the same category because both units are strongly
linked by stoichiometric relationship. About taxes on acquisition, only eight European
countries do not apply any tax related to any factor (the taxes are related to administrative
license and are not significant). The most common element considered is the CO2 emissions.
This circumstance benefits diesel cars and PHEVs. This could be considered as a perverse
effect. Only one country (Denmark) applies a tax reduction for safety equipment.
Only six countries in the European Union tax second-hand acquisition. The non-adoption of
this measure is a disincentive for fleet renovation and induces ownership for older cars (more
polluting models). This second-hand acquisition tax is only related to vehicle age in three
countries (Belgium, Hungary and Slovakia). Surprisingly, this tax only increases depending on
the age of the car in one region of Belgium (Flanders region).
Analysing taxes on ownership, the tax based on CO2 is also the most commonly used
encouraging diesel cars and PHEVs. Four countries (Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia) do

30
not apply any ownership tax. On the contrary, they do apply acquisition taxes. Neither
ownership taxes incentives maintenance on older cars. In the same trend, this is considered
when tax decrease depends on the age of the car (Croatia and Hungary). Only Malta increases
the ownership tax depending on the age and Italy with tax related to the emission standard
has a similar effect. The differentiation in type of fuel in tax policy is still in the minority.
The focus on CO2 emissions causes an increase in others pollutants as seen in the diesel
increase in the European fleet. This also encourages some other technologies with enormous
discrepancies between theoretical and real emissions.
The meanings of the subscripts in Tables 2-3 and 2-4 are:

2. Brussels-Capital Region of Belgium. In this region, the “registration tax related to age”,
decreases depending on the age of the car.
3. Flemish Region of Belgium. In this region, the “registration tax related to age”,
increases depending on the age of the car.
4. Walloon Region of Belgium.
5. Tax related to age. The tax decreases depending on the age of the car.
6. There are tax policies related to the consumption of cars with different values in
gasoline and diesel cars. This policy is indirectly related to CO2 emissions.
7. Tax reduction depending on safety equipment.
8. Tax related to value.
9. Annual tax related to exhaust emissions standards.
10. Length and value.
11. Tax related to age. The tax increases depending on the age of the car.
12. Gross Vehicle Weight.

31
Table 2-3 : Taxes on acquisition

First Registration tax Taxes on Registration Registration

registration related to CO2 the tax related to tax related to Registration Registration Registration
tax emissions acquisition exhaust engine tax related tax related tax related to
independent and/or fuel of second- emissions capacity or to fuel type to age other factors
to any factor consumption hand cars standards power
Austria X
Belgium X2,3 X X2 X1 X2 X1,2
Bulgaria X
Croatia X
Cyprus X X
Czech R. X X
Denmark X5 X5 X6,7
Estonia X
Finland X X X7
France X
Germany X
Greece X X X7
Hungary X X X X X4
Ireland X
Italy X X
Latvia X
Lithuania X
Luxembourg X
Malta X X9
Netherlands X X
Poland X
Portugal X X
Romania X
Slovakia X X X4
Slovenia X X
Spain X
Sweden X
U.K. X

32
Table 2-4 : Taxes on ownership

Annual circulation tax based Annual circulation Annual tax related to Annual tax
on CO2 emissions and/or fuel tax related to fuel cylinder capacity and/or related to other
consumption type engine power factors
Austria X
Belgium X X X
Bulgaria X
Croatia X X4
Cyprus X
Czech R. X
Denmark X
Estonia
Finland X
France X
Germany X X
Greece X
Hungary X X4
Ireland X
Italy X X8
Latvia X X11
Lithuania
Luxembourg X X
Malta X X10
Netherlands X X X11
Poland
Portugal X X
Romania X
Slovakia
Slovenia X
Spain X
Sweden X X
U.K. X

2.3 Subsidies to efficient vehicles

The designing of subsidies needs to be carefully matched to technological information and
information about the specific local characteristics; care must be taken not to inadvertently
create perverse incentives[55].
Subsidies are very important for EVs, with a real price not competitive in comparison with IC
cars. As an example sales dropped in Denmark in 2016 after the incentive reduction[56].
In the Electric vehicles section we have shown the different efficiency in the different types of
EVs, principally perverse in PHEVs that in some cases can be very pollutant (when the Internal
Combustion Engine is used to charge the batteries). An example of the perverse effect
generated, has been recently published by the BBC the situation in the United Kingdom, where
government-subsidised plug-in cars may never have been charged [57]. Possibly the situation
in others countries will be similar.

2.4 Low emission zone

The objective of this policy is improving the air quality in urban areas controlling the access
where only some vehicles are permitted.
This policy encourages the commercialization of some types of cars like EVs, so if the
regulators do not have a deep knowledge about the pros and cons of them, this can produce
some perverse effects.

33
In the case of PHEVs, one of the modes used is to charge the batteries with the IC engine. This
mode has been designed just to access the LEZ (Low Emission Zone) and presents a strong
perverse effect in peripheral zones, where the car presents an overconsumption (with
correspondent over-emission). This situation would present some controversy if the over
emission happens in an economic depressed zone just to access richer areas. Furthermore, it is
important to take into account the transboundary nature of pollution, even more if we
consider the secondary pollutants.

2.5 Scrappage incentives

The aim of this economic instrument is a voluntary accelerated vehicle retirement. The
immediate benefit that this policy aims at is an earlier scrappage of some vehicles and a
consequent reduction in fuel consumption due both to the higher fuel efficiency of newer
vehicles, and to a reduction in the number of vehicles if the old ones are not replaced[58].
However, point out that scrappage incentives may lead some individuals to keep their vehicles
longer so as to reach the age at which they become eligible for the scrappage scheme[59].
Different European countries has applied scrappage programs, normally this programs has
temporally or fund limit. The temporally program and the not coordinating whit other policies
can rest efficiency of this measure.

2.6 Emission taxes

Emission taxes are the first best instrument to correct emission externalities and induce the
optimal driving behaviour and vehicle’s purchase and usage choice [58]. As long as a car
remains parked with its engine off, it produces zero emissions.[60]
An optimal automobile emissions tax would vary according to fuel type, the emissions
standard under which a car was produced, and its technical fuel efficiency, even if such a tax
was not feasible, a uniform fuel tax would still be a good, even if not optimal, policy [60].
However, under current technology, direct charging for emissions is not feasible due to the
lack of cost effectiveness and impracticability of monitoring techniques [59]. Implementation
of an emission tax would require monitoring of actual pollution generated by each vehicle on
circulation [61].
Would be really easy design a tax in relationship with carbon emission, because there are a
direct correlation between petrol/diesel and CO2 emission, but is not the same for the others
polluters. Nevertheless no such policy for CO2 emissions in road transport has been
implemented anywhere in the world to date [46].
There is need to impose a tax on emission source strongly due to the fact that many
contemporary scholars proposed to taxation based on the actual emissions test, and car
types/engines”.[62]

34
2.7 Fuel taxes
There are different fuel taxes but it’s not directly linked with the emissions. Only the CO2 has
been considered in some way. Nonetheless, fuel taxes have been cited as an extremely
effective climate policy instrument.

2.8 Summary of perverse effects.

The principal aim in European transport policies has been the CO2 mitigation. As a result, there
has been an enormous growth of diesel cars in some countries, and now the principal problem
in air quality of urban areas is the NOx from them. Now the principal aim is the NOx reduction,
but probably that will mean an increasing level in HC and others pollutants.
Table 2-5 [53] summarises the perverse effects argued in this paper according to different
environmental policies.

Table 2-5 : SUMMARY OFF THE PERVERSE EFFECTS LINKED TO ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES

Policies Possible perverse effect

 The gap between vehicle standard and real
driving conditions
Vehicle  Generating a “pendulum shift effect”
Standards  Infringement to the PPP (Polluter Pays
Principle)

 Tax related CO2 emissions benefits to diesel

cars and PHEVs
Taxes on  No tax on second hand acquisition with
Purchase of increase depending on the age which induces
a Vehicle ownership on older cars
 Apply Taxes on purchase discourage buying
new and more efficient cars

Taxes on
 Do not apply any ownership tax incentive
Ownership
maintenance on older cars
of a Vehicle

Subsidies to  Subsidise PHEVs when the Internal

Efficient Combustion Engine can be used to charge the
Vehicles batteries or when they are not plugged

Low
Emission  Encourage vehicles with inefficient driving
modes promoting relocation of emission
Zone

Scrappage  The temporary program without coordination

Incentives with other policies can reduce efficiency

Fuel taxes  Actual taxes are not linked to the

environmental effect

35
Actual policies are generating a “pendulum shift effect”, thus it would be necessary to
considerer the emissions like a whole and not pollutants individually. Furthermore, the
emission taxes applied to the vehicles is on the total car price. Hence, the not polluter
components (security system, comfort, sound system, etc.) are supporting an environmental
tax when their activity is not polluting (Infringement to the Polluter Pays Principle). Normally
the new technologies are applied to luxury vehicles, so this imperfection can harm sector
competitiveness.

2.9 Conclusion of Chapter II

The need both to lessen the use of natural non-renewable resources and to slow down the
global warming imply radically different economic planning to the current pattern[63]. In this
sense, it is necessary to highlight that emission taxes are the first best instrument to correct
emission externalities.
We can summarize that probably a good combination and integration of policies can lead to
positive side-effects and synergies. Next, we propose as a good practice guide the following
combined policies:

 We recommend not putting acquisition taxes on new cars (to motivate acquisition of
new cars, so they are more efficient).
 We recommend putting acquisition taxes on second-hand vehicles, increasing taxes
related to the age of the car (discourages the ownership of older cars).
 We recommend put ownership taxes related to the age of the car, increasing taxes
with the age of the car (discourages the ownership of older cars).
 Vehicle standard must consider the vehicles in the most inefficient “driving mode” (to
encourage manufacturers to offer only the most efficient driving modes).
 Subsidies for “efficient vehicles” must consider they are in the most inefficient “driving
mode” (to encourage manufacturers to offer only the most efficient driving modes).
 In the low emission zone, we recommend to consider the “efficient cars” in the most
inefficient “driving mode” they can offer. (To encourage manufacturers to offer only
efficient driving modes).
 We recommend that public administrators promote public parking in border areas,
connecting them to the Low Emission Zone with public transport.
 It is evident that emissions are produced by fuel consumption, so emission taxes would
be implemented in fuel tax. This implementation needs to develop methods to
estimate emissions (considering emissions like a whole to avoid the pendulum shift
effect) and quantify their environmental cost. Taxes on fuel encourage a rational use
of the vehicle.

This Thesis focuses on the latter policy proposal.

36
Chapter III. Emission costing.

The objective of this chapter is to show the proposed methodology for estimating the fuel tax
to be applied to each litre of petrol and diesel for road transport. The proposed tax should be
calculated on the basis of the emissions generated.

3. Methodology.
The research proposal is the economic valuation of road transport emissions, to be applied as
emission taxes on fuel prices like “Pigovian tax7” to internalise the pollution generated by road
transport. To develop a methodology to associate emission taxes to emission packages would
be simple with carbon dioxide emission, because there is a stoichiometric ratio between each
fuel and CO2 emission and a market price for this pollutant. It is not the same for the others
pollutants. We must look at emissions as a whole and not as individual pollutants, to avoid a
“pendulum effect”, as we have shown in previous section.
We can assume that is not possible to monitor pollution generated by each vehicle separately,
but nevertheless, we can calculate the average of the sector using methodologies to estimate
total emissions by emission factors and activity data like COPERT (COmputer Programme to
calculate Emissions from Road Transport). After that, it is simple to obtain the average
emission in the different pollutants per fuel litre consumption. We can assume this average
like the “second-best” (term used in economics to describe something that you have to accept
even though you would have preferred something else) to calculate emissions per user [65].
Subsequently, after estimating the road emissions it would be necessary to estimate the
“shadow price” (monetary value assigned to currently unknowable or difficult-to-calculate
costs) of the emissions. There are several studies on average and marginal air pollution, costs
[66]. ExternE project, and CAFE CBA (Clean Air For Europe Cost–benefit analysis) developed in
Europe are examples of this. Probably, it would be necessary to confront different studies and
harmonize a global methodology.
The current fuel taxes are de facto emission taxes, in so far as they alter the relative prices of
driving and put a price on the production of emissions [60], but their non-correlation with the
emissions of the different pollutants may lead to undesirable effects. The aim is for the
amount of the tax to be correlated with the cost of emissions of the pollutants we want to
regulate.
Due to the different pollutants involved, we propose as a cost function an aggregate function
as shown below:

𝐸 = 𝑇 ∙𝐸 (3.1)

Where,
Etax is the Emission tax,

7
A Pigovian (Pigouvian) tax is a tax assessed against private individuals or businesses for engaging in
activities that create adverse side effects for society. [64]

37
 Tpi is the tax assigned to pollutant “i” in Euros (will be obtained from electricity
generation).
Epi is the emission of pollutant “i” in tonnes (will be obtained from road transport).

Taking into account the complexity of the methodology and the data available, the research
has been focused in some specific pollutants. We have selected the pollutants according to
their importance8 and the level of development of the techniques and available data to
develop our research. The pollutants selected have been Carbon dioxide (CO2), Nitrogen oxides
(NOx) and Particulate matter (PM).

Accordingly, the cost function (3.1) will look as follows:

𝐸 = 𝑇 ∙𝐸 +𝑇 ∙𝐸 +𝑇 ∙𝐸 (3.2)

Consequently, the challenge of our research will be to be able to calculate the different
parameters of our cost function.
According to some authors “the other major factor driving the failure of a uniform SBO tax to
address local pollution externalities is the skewness in the externality distribution. The harms of
local pollution can vary by the geographic area where the pollutants are emitted”[68].
To avoid this problem, we will calculate the price of emissions objectively on the basis of the
price of them and not on the basis of the health effects they may have.
We consider it is important to pay attention to the difference between emission and air
quality. The same emission can produce different effects depending on geographical and
environmental conditions. We therefore consider that emission and air quality are two
different perspectives on the same issue. They are complementary and not mutually exclusive.
The steps for calculating emissions and their cost are summarised below:

 Definition of a scenario with all the necessary data.

 Study and modelling of road transport.
 Quantification of road transport emission using COPERT (COmputer Programme to
calculate Emissions from Road Transport).
 Because electric power is the strongest alternative in land transport, we analysed and
quantified the emission associated with electricity production in the selected scenario.
 From the electricity production abatement cost curves, estimated according to the
cost of BAT (Best Available Techniques), the abatement cost of the selected pollutants
is calculated.
 Applying the principle “mutatis mutandis”9 we obtain a "shadow price"10 for each
selected pollutant in road transport.

8
In 2017, 23 out of 28 Member States air quality standards were still being exceeded – in total in more
than 130 cities across Europe, being NO2 (nitrogen dioxide) and PM10 (particulate matter) the most
problematic pollutants[67]
9
Mutatis mutandis (which translates literally as "things having been changed that have to be changed")
is used in the specialized fields of law, philosophy, and economics when analogous situations are
discussed, it appears in other contexts, too, where analogy occurs,….[69]

38
After the application of this methodology it will be possible to calculate the emission tax per
litre of petrol and diesel. Subsequently, it will be possible to make comparisons with current
taxes, compare the proposed pollutant prices with the prices calculated from an air quality
perspective, etc.
The proposed methodology is summarised in a conceptual map below.

Definition of a scenario with all the necessary data

Study and modelling of Quantification of electric power

road transport emission

Estimation of the
Quantification of road
“mutatis mutandis” abatement cost of selected
transport emission
pollutants

Obtaining the shadow price of the

selected pollutants in road
transport

Figure 3-1 : Methodology. Conceptual map.

The different stages of our research are described in more detail in their own sub-section
below.

3.1 Definition of a scenario with all the necessary data.

Since an analogy wilthereforl be drawn between the road transport and power energy sectors,
it will be necessary to have data for both sectors in the same year. Therefore, in order to

10
Shadow price, or shadow pricing, is the real economic price of projects, activities, goods, and services
that have no market price. It also includes projects, etc. for which prices are difficult to estimate. The
shadow price is the opportunity cost, i.e., what somebody had to give up when they made a choice.[70]

39
 develop our methodology, it is necessary to establish a scenario in which it is possible to
obtain all the necessary data.
The area we have chosen to study is the island of Lanzarote, in the Canary Islands, a Spanish
overseas region.
The reasons for choosing this scenario lie in the advantages it presents. On the one hand, there
is good data available and, on the other hand, since it is an island, it is a closed area, so we can
use certain data to calibrate our model. In short, it will allow us to have a more robust model.
At the moment, with the actual state of our research, the calculation has been made according
to 2012 data. It is important to clarify that the scenario data has been selected form available
data. The aim of this research is to develop a new calculation method and the scenario only
serves to show the results as an example.

The main characteristics of our scenario can be summarised as follows.

 Surface: 845.93 Km2.

 Economy: The predominant importance of the tertiary sector of the economy stands out
(84%). The tourism and trade sector is the most important (46%), followed by financial
and administrative activities (21%).[71]
 Population: Due to the importance of the tourism sector, with more than two million
tourists a year [71], there is a large gap between the resident and de facto population on
the island.

The following line graph shows the difference between the resident and de facto population:

Figure 3-2 : : Evolution of the population in Lanzarote (1988 - 2012).

In black: resident population. In blue: average tourists. In green: de facto population.
Source: “Plan insular de transporte y movilidad sostenible de Lanzarote y la Graciosa”

 Vehicle fleet: 129,597 vehicles. (Its categorisation and characteristics will be described
in more detail in the next section).

40
3.2 Study and modelling of road transport.

In this sub-section we will estimate the parameters of road transport use in order to establish
the basis for calculating the emissions associated with this sector. Variables such as
population, economic activity, road network, etc., will need to be taken into account.
This sub-section is therefore closely related to the next one. It is also important to note that
we have used fuel consumption as a calibration element in our methodology, so there is an
iterative process between this subsection and the next one.
The results of this part of the methodology will be the input to the next part in the first
iteration.
In this subsection, we will summarise the data used, highlighting the most significant ones. Our
main starting data will be as follows:

 Composition of the vehicle fleet.

In our scenario there are a total of 129,597 vehicles. These vehicles will be disaggregated
according to their characteristics.
As an example, the following pie chart shows the composition of the fleet by category on the
Island of Lanzarote in 2012:

Sector: Heavy Duty

Sector: Mopeds
Trucks
3,409
1,568
2.63%
1.21%

Sector: Buses Sector: Motorcycles

333 4,812
0.26% 3.71%
Sector: Light Commercial
Vehicles
29,194
22.53% Sector: Passanger Cars
Sector: Light Commercial Vehicles
Sector: Heavy Duty Trucks
Sector: Buses
Sector: Passanger Cars
90,281 Sector: Mopeds
69.66% Sector: Motorcycles

Figure 3-3 : Composition of the fleet by category on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012
Data source: National Institute of Statistics. Spain

41
According to the fuel type, the composition of the fleet will be as shown in the pie chart below.

DIESEL
36,815
28.41%

PETROL
PETROL
92,782
71.59% DIESEL

Figure 3-4 : Composition of the fleet by fuel type on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012
Data source: National Institute of Statistics. Spain

However, a further disaggregation will be necessary. For the following sub-section, the
breakdown according to type of fuel, vehicle category (passenger car, light commercial, bus,
etc), engine capacity, vehicle age (to establish Euro technology), etc. will be necessary.
As an example of the high level of disaggregation that will be necessary, the subdivision
categories for diesel passenger cars are shown in a table below.

42
Table 3-1 : Subdivision categories for diesel passenger cars.
Source: COPERT (COmputer Programme to calculate Emissions from Road Transport)
Category Fuel Segment Euro Standard
Passenger Cars Diesel Mini Euro 4
Passenger Cars Diesel Mini Euro 5
Passenger Cars Diesel Mini Euro 6 up to 2016
Passenger Cars Diesel Mini Euro 6 2017-2019
Passenger Cars Diesel Mini Euro 6 2020+
Passenger Cars Diesel Small Conventional
Passenger Cars Diesel Small Euro 1
Passenger Cars Diesel Small Euro 2
Passenger Cars Diesel Small Euro 3
Passenger Cars Diesel Small Euro 4
Passenger Cars Diesel Small Euro 5
Passenger Cars Diesel Small Euro 6 up to 2016
Passenger Cars Diesel Small Euro 6 2017-2019
Passenger Cars Diesel Small Euro 6 2020+
Passenger Cars Diesel Medium Conventional
Passenger Cars Diesel Medium Euro 1
Passenger Cars Diesel Medium Euro 2
Passenger Cars Diesel Medium Euro 3
Passenger Cars Diesel Medium Euro 4
Passenger Cars Diesel Medium Euro 5
Passenger Cars Diesel Medium Euro 6 up to 2016
Passenger Cars Diesel Medium Euro 6 2017-2019
Passenger Cars Diesel Medium Euro 6 2020+
Passenger Cars Diesel Large-SUV-Executive Conventional
Passenger Cars Diesel Large-SUV-Executive Euro 1
Passenger Cars Diesel Large-SUV-Executive Euro 2
Passenger Cars Diesel Large-SUV-Executive Euro 3
Passenger Cars Diesel Large-SUV-Executive Euro 4
Passenger Cars Diesel Large-SUV-Executive Euro 5
Passenger Cars Diesel Large-SUV-Executive Euro 6 up to 2016
Passenger Cars Diesel Large-SUV-Executive Euro 6 2017-2019
Passenger Cars Diesel Large-SUV-Executive Euro 6 2020+

43
A similar breakdown is required for each category and fuel type.

 Population.
It is necessary to take into account the resident and de facto population, the distribution of the
population of the territory, the age distribution and the average household size.
 Economy.
We have taken into account the unemployment rate, the number of enterprises and the
tourism capacity broken down by territory.
 Activity centres.
We have taken into account the location of the hospital, health centres, schools, ports, the
airport, etc.
 Road network.
We have taken into account the characteristics of the road network (capacity, speed, etc.), and
its annual average daily traffic.
In the following image, we can see a road map of the island, showing the broadness of the
layout in proportion to the use of the roads.

Figure 3-5 : Annual average daily traffic on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012
Source: “Cabildo de Lanzarote”

 Mobility data.
We have taken into account the data from the 2012 mobility survey of the resident and tourist
population. This survey has provided data on the distribution and modal split of users.
As indicated at the beginning of this sub-section, the results of this part of the methodology
will be the input for the next part in the first iteration.

44
The results obtained are shown below:
 Data on the composition of the vehicle fleet (broken down by category, engine capacity,
fuel type and age).
 Activity data (mileage per vehicle type and mileage per road class).
 Driving conditions (average speed per vehicle type and per road).

3.3 Quantification of road transport emission by COPERT (COmputer

Programme to calculate Emissions from Road Transport)

We have calculated emissions from road transport according to the EMEP11/EEA12

methodology, which is harmonised with the IPCC13. For this we will use the COPERT software
(COmputer Programme to calculate Emissions from Road Transport), more specifically,
COPERT4 version 11.2. This software is available at https://www.emisia.com/.
This is free software developed by the University of Thessaloniki and financed by EEA.
COPERT’s methodology is considered as Tier 314 methods.
As mentioned, the results of the previous subsection will be the input for this part of the
methodology, but they are not the only ones. Other parameters will also be needed as shown
in the following conceptual map.

11
European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme
12
European Environnment Agency.
13
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC was created to provide policymakers with
regular scientific assessments on climate change, its implications and potential future risks, as well as to
put forward adaptation and mitigation options.[72]
14
Tier 3 methods go beyond the above; these may include using facility level data and/or sophisticated
models. Examples might include the use of PRTR data or data from emission trading schemes for
industrial emissions or models like COPERT for road transport emissions.[73]

45
 Figure 3-6 : Flow chart of the application of the baseline methodology
Source: “COPERT Methodology and emission factors”

We will focus on those inputs that are also necessary and have not been calculated in the
previous section.

 Temperature, Relative Humidity and Gasoline “Reid Vapour Pressure” (RVP).

Evaporative losses are closely related to these parameters. Mean emission factor for
diurnal losses of gasoline powered vehicles equipped with metal tanks, depending on
average monthly ambient temperature, temperature variation, and fuel volatility
(RVP)[74]
The meteorological data has been taken from the State Meteorological Agency.
Given the surface and orography of the island, we can consider these data as
representative of the whole island.
We have taken the RVP value of petrol from the technical data sheet of the supply
companies. There are differences in this value between the summer and winter periods.

The values entered into the programme are shown below.

46
 Figure 3-7 : : Temperature, RH and RVP input data in COPERT

 Annual fuel consumption

This data is especially useful in our methodology because our scenario is an island. For
this reason, the fuel consumption will be used like a calibrating element to redefine
the driving conditions and mileage in each vehicle type. This will be possible because
COPERT will give the % deviation between the fuel consumption estimated by the
programme and the fuel consumption entered as data.
The annual fuel consumption on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012 is shown below.

Table 3-2 : Automotive fuels. Lanzarote 2012

Source: Government of the Canary Islands. (Units: Tonnes)
Automotive fuels (Tonnes)
Lanzarote 2012
Petrol 36,592
Diesel 41,844

To obtain the final result, a total of 4 iterations were necessary.

The percentage deviation between the fuel consumption estimated by the programme and
the fuel consumption entered as data was -0.25% for petrol and +3.149 for diesel. The
larger deviation in the case of diesel is justified because the data entered correspond to
the sales of petrol stations. Some transport companies have their own supply points.

 The fuel specifications

These have been obtained from the technical data sheet of the supplying companies.

 Mileage per vehicle type

In the previous subsection the breakdown of the vehicle fleet has been shown in
detail. We now discuss how the mileage of each of these vehicle types has been
considered and the adjustment process.

47
 In the document "EC4MACS" (European Consortium for Modelling Air Pollution and
Climate Strategies), there are estimated mileage values according to vehicle type and
age in different European countries.
These values and the data in the previous section allow us to estimate the mileage by
vehicle type. These values are modified according to the calibration adjustment with
fuel consumption.

 Driving conditions.
It has been estimated according the "EC4MACS" (European Consortium for Modelling
Air Pollution and Climate Strategies) average data and according to the data of
previous subsection.

Table 3-3 : Speed on different types of roads. Lanzarote 2012

Speed Km/h
Category Urban Rural highway
Passenger Cars 30 60 100
Light Commercial Vehicles 30 60 90
Heavy Duty Trucks 20 60 80
Buses 20 60 90
Mopeds 30 50 Not applicable
Motorcycles 30 60 100

3.3.1 Copert calculation algorithm.

This part has been extracted in its entirety from the document:” COPERT III. Computer
programme to calculate emissions from road transport. Methodology and emission factors”:
On the basis of the entries summarised above, total emissions can be calculated by means of
the equation:
𝐸 = 𝐸 + 𝐸 +𝐸
Where,
ETOTAL: total emissions (g) of any pollutant for the spatial and temporal resolution of the
application.
EHOT: emissions (g) during stabilised (hot) engine operation.
ECOLD: emissions (g) during transient thermal engine operation (cold start).
EVAP: emissions (g) from fuel evaporation. Emissions from evaporation are only relevant
for NMVOC species from gasoline powered vehicles.
.
Therefore, as far as driving conditions are concerned, total emissions can be calculated by
means of the equation:

𝐸 =𝐸 +𝐸 +𝐸
Where,

EURBAN, ERURAL, EHIGHWAY: total emissions (g) of any pollutant for the respective driving situation.

48
  Hot emissions.
By ‘Hot emissions’ we mean by convention the emissions occurring under thermally stabilised
engine and exhaust after treatment conditions.
𝐸 ; , , =𝑁 ∙ 𝑀, ∙𝑒 ; , ,
Where,
EHOT; i,j,k: emissions of the pollutant i in [g], produced in the reference year by vehicles of class j
driven on roads of type k with thermally stabilised engine and exhaust after
treatment system
Nj: number of vehicles [veh.] of class j in circulation at the reference year
Mj,k: mileage per vehicle [km/veh] driven on roads of type k by vehicles of class j
eHOT; i, j, k: average fleet representative baseline emission factor in [g/km] for the pollutant i,
relevant for the vehicle class j, operated on roads of type k, with thermally stabilised engine
and exhaust after treatment system.
i: pollutants
j: vehicle class
k: road class driving

 Cold emissions
Cold starts, compared with the ‘hot emissions’, result in additional emissions. They take place
under all three driving conditions, however, they seem to be most likely for urban driving.
The cold emissions are introduced into the calculation as additional emissions per km by using
the following formula:
𝐸 ;, =𝛽, ∙𝑁 ∙𝑀 ∙𝑒 ; , ∙ (𝑒 /𝑒 | , − 1)
Where,
ECOLD;i,j: cold start emissions of the pollutant i (for the reference year), caused by
vehicle class j,
βi,j: fraction of mileage driven with cold engines or catalyst operated below the light-off
temperature,
Nj: number of vehicles [veh.] of class j in circulation in vehicle class j,
Mj: total mileage per vehicle [km/veh.] in vehicle class j,
eCOLD / eHOTǀi,j : cold over hot ratio of pollutant i emissions, relevant to vehicles of class
j.

 Carbon dioxide emissions

CO2 emissions are estimated on the basis of fuel consumption only, assuming that the
carbon content of the fuel is fully oxidised into CO2. The following formula is applied:

𝐹𝐶 ,
𝐸 , , = 44,011 ∙
12,011 + 1,008 𝑟 : ,
Where,

𝐸 , , = CO2 emission for vehicle class j and fuel m,

49
FC , = fuel consumption of all vehicle classes j operating on fuel type m.
𝑟 : , = the ratio of hydrogen to carbon atoms in the fuel “m” (~1,8 for gasoline and ~2,0 for
diesel).

3.3.2 Results obtained by COPERT

Copert will give emissions for a total of 117 pollutants, which can be aggregated into vehicle
categories, driving modes, hot or cold emissions, etc.
We show a summary of the results obtained for the pollutants selected for our research
Carbon dioxide (CO2), Nitrogen oxides (NOx) and Particulate matter (PM). All the results are
available in Annex II and III.
The fuel consumption estimated by COPERT is shown below

Table 3-4 : Estimated fuel consumption. Lanzarote 2012

Source: COPERT results. (Units: Tonnes)
Automotive fuels
Lanzarote 2012
Petrol 36,500.36479
Diesel 43,161.86882

Section 3.2 mentions that the percentage deviation between the fuel consumption estimated
by the programme and the fuel consumption entered as data was -0.25% for petrol and +3.149
for diesel. The larger deviation in the case of diesel is justified by the fact that the data entered
corresponds to the sales of petrol stations. Some transport companies have their own supply
points. We have used fuel consumption to calibrate our model. Therefore, we can conclude
that we have obtained a robust model.
It is important to note that it is the estimated fuel consumption that will be taken into account
when calculating the amount of pollutant per litre of each fuel type.
Disaggregating the results for the selected pollutants into fuel types, we have obtained the
following results.

3.3.2.1 Greenhouse gases emissions

GHG15 emissions shall be estimated according to the IPCC methodology. “Gases that trap heat
in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases”[75]. However, according to the IPCC
methodology, the GHGs considered are a basket of four main gases and two groups of gases
[76].The gases are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and sulphur
hexafluoride (SF6); the groups of gases are Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and Perfluorocarbons
(PFCs) [77].
As each of these gases has its own "warming level", the global warming potential (GWP) of
each of them with respect to CO2 has been calculated. This is known as the "CO2 equivalent".
The table below shows the GWP of greenhouse gases relative to carbon dioxide over a 100-
year period. According to the IPCC guidelines [58] and the “REGULATION (EU) No 517/2014 OF

15
Greenhouse gas

50
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL” of 16 April 2014 [78]. In summary, CO2 is
used as the reference unit for greenhouse gases.

Table 3-5 : Global Warming Potentials

Source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
Global Warming Potential (GWP)
Greenhouse Gases (GHG)
(Time Horizon 100 years)
carbon dioxide (CO2) 1
methane (CH4) 25
nitrous oxide (N2O) 298
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)16 12 – 14,800
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)17 7,390 – 12,200
sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) 22,800

The emissions of these gases will be related to the type of activity. In the case of road
transport, the gases assessed are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O)
[79].
COPERT also calculates the additional CO2 emissions from the use of air conditioning in
passenger cars and light commercial vehicles.
The final results of GHG emissions are shown in the table below. The results have been
separated according to the origin of diesel and petrol.

Table 3-6 : Estimated annual CO2 equivalent emissions from road transport on the island of Lanzarote in 2012

Estimated annual CO2 equivalent emissions from road transport on the island of Lanzarote in 2012

CO2 CO2
Total CO2
CO2 CH4 equivalent N2O equivalent % Total
Fleet CO2_AC equivalent
(tonnes) (tonnes) from CH4 (tonnes) from N2O CO2
(tonnes)
(tonnes) (tonnes)
Petrol 113,545.74 17.74 443.46 2.26 674.14 3,285.94 117,949.28 45.80
Diesel 136,016.99 1.85 46.36 3.40 1,011.73 2,518.95 139,594.04 54.20
TOTAL 249,562.74 19.59 489.82 5.66 1,685.87 5,804.89 257,543.32 100.00

The diesel fleet accounts for 54.2% of total CO2 emissions, being only 28.41% of the fleet. In
any case, it should be taken into account that the vast majority of public and freight transport,
with the highest mileage, is diesel.

The contribution of the different vehicle categories and driving mode is represented in
percentage terms in the figure bellow. The pie charts only represent CO2 emissions, but
according to the data in table 3-6, the differences with the total CO2 equivalent are not
significant.

16
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are a group of 19 gases, each with their own GWP
17
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are a group of 7 gases, each with their own GWP

51
 Figure 3-8 : CO2 emissions. COPERT results.

We can see that the highest CO2 emissions are from passenger cars followed by light
commercial vehicles. In terms of driving mode, urban driving is the highest emitter.

3.3.2.2 Other pollutants emissions

The following table shows the others pollutants considered. The results are disaggregated into
petrol and diesel, this disaggregation will be necessary in order obtain the proposed fuel tax. It
is also interesting to see the percentage of each pollutant generated by fuel type.

Table 3-7 : Emissions of other pollutants from road transport on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012.

Estimated annual emissions from road transport on the island of Lanzarote in 2012
PM PM
NOx NOx PM2.5 PM2.5 PM10 PM10
Fleet exhaust exhaust
(tonnes) % (tonnes) % (tonnes) %
(tonnes) %
Petrol 197.4962 24.44 5.8713 13.07 9.3480 17.48 1.3887 4.06
Diesel 610.7220 75.56 39.0425 86.93 44.1191 82.52 32.8445 95.94
TOTAL 808.2182 100.00 44.9138 100.00 53.4671 100.00 34.2333 100.00

At this point it is important to clarify that PM2.5 are particles up to 2.5 micrometres (0.001 mm)
in diameter and PM10 are particles up to 10 micrometres in diameter. Consequently, PM2.5 is
included in PM10. “PM exhaust" is the particulate matter emitted from the exhaust pipe of the
vehicle.
The particles are generated by the tailpipe, tyres, brakes, and there are also secondary
particles (formed from the primary pollutants, e.g. in the case of PM2.5: SO2 for sulphate
aerosol, NOx for nitrate aerosol, etc.[80]). For this reason we can see how PM exhaust
emissions are lower than PM10.

52
The contribution of the different vehicle categories and driving modes to the emissions of
other pollutants is represented in percentage terms in the figures bellow.

Figure 3-9 : NOx emissions. COPERT results.

Figure 3-10 : PM 2.5 emissions. COPERT results.

53
 Figure 3-11 : PM10 emissions. COPERT results.

Figure 3-12 : PM (exhaust). COPERT results.

We can see how the “light commercial” category is the main emitter with 44.33% of NOx
emissions and even more in PM emissions (57.28% of PM2.5; 53.10% of PM10 and 66.34% of PM
exhaust).

3.3.2.3 Summary of the results obtained by COPERT

The following table summarises the data obtained from COPERT. We have also added the fuel
density, obtained from the technical supplier's data sheet.

54
Table 3-8 : Summary of the results obtained by COPERT
Fuel consumption
Total CO2 PM
Fuel NOx PM2.5 PM10 estimated by Density
equivalent exhaust
type (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) COPERT (Kg/l)
(tonnes) (tonnes)
(tonnes)
Petrol 117,949.284 197.4962 5.8713 9.3480 1.3887 36,500.365 0.7475
Diesel 139,594.035 610.7220 39.0425 44.1191 32.8445 43,161.869 0.8325

From the data in table 3-8 it is possible to obtain the amount of each pollutant for each litre of
fuel. The results are shown in the following table.

Table 3-9 : Emissions per litre of different pollutants. Lanzarote 2012

Petrol Diesel

CO2
2.41551 2.69247
(kg/l)
NOx
0.00404 0.01178
(kg/l)
PM10
0.00019 0.00085
(kg/l)
PM2.5
0.00012 0.00075
(kg/l)
PM (exhaust)
2.84402E-05 0.00063
(kg/l)

It is important to highlight that, due to the lower fuel consumption of diesel engines, the
emissions per km (in a car of the same category) will be lower in CO2 for the diesel. In the case
of NOx and particulate matter, emissions per km will be higher for diesel engines.

3.4 Quantification of emissions from electricity production in the selected

scenario.

In this sub-section we will show the quantification of emissions from electricity production on
the island of Lanzarote in 2012.
Power generation is the only sector regulated by the EU ETS18 on the island of Lanzarote, so,
on the one hand, there is a sufficiently proven methodology to estimate its emissions and, on
the other hand, the different abatement technologies are established.
It is important to note that we are going to make the comparison between electricity
production and combustion cars because nowadays with the emergence of electric cars we
can consider that one sector is the perfect substitute for the other.

18
EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). The EU ETS is a cornerstone of the EU's policy to combat
climate change and its key tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions cost-effectively. It is the world's
first major carbon market and remains the biggest one.[81]

55
The reason for setting our scenario in 2012 lies in the available data. In this thesis we propose
an alternative methodology for the economic valuation of emissions. To this end, the more
disaggregated the data, the more robust our model will be.

3.4.1 Emission factor method.

The aim will be to estimate emissions from power generation in as much detail as possible,
which depends on the available data.
Emission factors19 shall be used to estimate emissions. The general equation for emissions
estimation is:

𝐸𝑅
𝐸 = 𝐴 ∙ 𝐸𝐹 ∙ 1 −
100
Where:

E = emissions
A = activity rate
EF = emission factor
ER = overall emission reduction efficiency, %

In this case, we will estimate at Tier 220, using data on fuel consumption, power generation and
production process. For this purpose, emissions shall be calculated according to the
“EMEP/EAA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook” [83]. The EMEP methodology refers to
the IPCC for greenhouse gases, for this reason, the results have been classified into the
categories “greenhouse gases” and “other pollutants”.

3.4.2 Power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012.

In the development of this subsection we will use the data published by the Government of
the Canary Islands [84].
In 2012, the installed generation capacity (in gross electrical output21) on the island of
Lanzarote was 203.3 Mw. The following table shows the installed generation capacity
according the different energy sources.

19
An emissions factor is a representative value that attempts to relate the quantity of a pollutant
released to the atmosphere with an activity associated with the release of that pollutant. In most cases,
these factors are simply averages of all available data of acceptable quality, and are generally assumed
to be representative of long-term averages for all facilities in the source category.[82]
20
A tier represents a level of methodological complexity. Usually three tiers are provided: tier 1 is the
simple (most basic) method; tier 2 the intermediate; and tier 3 the most demanding in terms of
complexity and data requirements. Tiers 2 and 3 are sometimes referred to as higher tier methods and
are generally considered to be more accurate.[83]
21
Gross electrical output means the total electrical output from an electric generating unit before
making any deductions for energy output used in any way related to the production of energy.[85]

56
Table 3-10: Installed generation capacity by energy source
Source: Government of the Canary Islands. (Units: Mw)
Installed generation capacity on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012.
Different energy sources.
Power (Mw)
Energy Source %
(gross electrical output)
Petroleum and Products 213.9 92.9
(*)
Wind Energy 8.775 3.8
Photovoltaic(*) 7.665 3.3
Total of Renewable 16.4 7.1
TOTAL 230.3 100
(*) Considering only grid-connected installations.
As we can see, combustion energy represents 92.9% of the installed power. Nevertheless,
generation from different sources does not necessarily coincide with installed generation due
to the variability of renewable energy production. Table 3-8 shows the coverage of demand
according to the different sources.

Table 3-11 : Coverage of electricity demand in 2012.

Source: Government of the Canary Islands. (Units: Mwh)
Coverage of electricity demand in 2012. Share of the different sources and
technologies in terms of gross energy
Gross energy
Energy source %
Mwh
Large Diesel Engines 788,568 91.59
Gas turbines 36,424 4.23
Total thermal energy 824,992 95.82
*
Wind power 29,922 3.48
*
Photovoltaic 6,039 0.70
Total Renewable 35,961 4.18
TOTAL 860,953 100.00
(*) Considering only grid-connected installations.

In the pie chart below we can observe the data shows in the table above.

57
 Wind power Photovoltaic
3,5% 0,7%
Gas turbines
4,2%

Large Diesel Engines

Gas turbines
Wind power
Photovoltaic

Large Diesel
Engines
91,6%

Figure 3-13 : Share of the different technologies in energy production on the island of Lanzarote in 2012.

The following Figure shows the difference between installed generation and demand coverage.
The difference is due to the inherent variability of renewable production sources.

Comparison between installed generation capacity and demand coverage

Installed generation capacity on the Island of Coverage of electricity demand on the Island of
Lanzarote in 2012. Lanzarote in 2012.
Total
Renewable Total Renewable
7,1% 4,18%

Total Thermal Total Thermal

92,9% 95,82%

Figure 3-14 : Comparison between installed generation capacity and demand coverage on the Island of Lanzarote in
2012.

According to 2020 data, the share of renewable has increased to 15% of installed generation
capacity. However, installed thermal power capacity has also increased by 18.5 Mw. [86]. This
anecdotal fact shows the complicated situation of small and isolated grids in the face of the
introduction of renewable energy.
Due to the objective of our study, we will focus on the thermal power configuration. The
different EGUs22 are installed in the thermal power plant "Punta Grande".
This configuration is shown in the table below.

22
EGU: electricity generating unit.

58
Table 3-12 : Electricity Generating Units (EGU) installed in the thermal power plant “Punta Grande” (Lanzarote) on
31th of December 2012
Source: Government of the Canary Islands. (Units: Mwh)

Electricity Generating Units (EGU) installed in the thermal power plant “Punta Grande”
(Lanzarote) on 31th of December 2012
Total Power
Power (Mw)
Nº of (Mw)
EGU Technology (gross electrical
Units (gross electrical
output)
output)
Diesel 1,2 & 3 3 4-stroke diesel engine 7.52 22.56
Diesel 4 & 5 2 2-stroke diesel engine 15.5 31
Diesel 6 1 2-stroke diesel engine 24.0 24
Diesel 7 & 8 2 4-stroke diesel engine 18.4 36.8
Diesel 9 & 10 2 4-stroke diesel engine 18.5 37
Total installed diesel engine power 151.36
Gas Turbine 1 1 Gas turbine 25 25
Gas Turbine 2 1 Gas turbine 37.5 37.5
Total installed gas turbine power 62.5
Total power installed in the thermal power plant “Punta Grande” 213.86

3.4.3 Fuel consumption in power generation

Fuel consumption depends on the production of electricity, the different technologies used for
this purpose and the operating mode of each of the technologies used. These factors will
determinate the emission generated and depending on the available data it will be possible to
estimate emissions in Tier 1, 2 or 3.
Two different types of fuel were used for power generation on the island of Lanzarote in 2012,
fuel oil and diesel. On the island of Lanzarote, gas turbines only use diesel oil, while diesel
engines use diesel oil at start-up and fuel oil in normal operation. This 'fuel switching' is due to
the temperature required in diesel engines to use fuel oil (caused by its density).
Consequently, the diesel consumption of diesel units will depend to a large extent on the start-
up cycles of these units, either due to breakdowns or demand requirements.
It is important to highlight that one of the major reasons for setting our scenario in 2012 is that
it has been possible to obtain the fuel consumption of the different EGU's separately. This data
has been obtained from the Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR) and this level of
detail is not publicly available. This quality of data is extremely necessary to can develop the
next section of this research.
The following table shows fuel consumption at the Lanzarote Thermal Power Plant in 2012, by
electricity generation unit and fuel type.

59
 Table 3-13 : Fuel consumption in the Thermal power station.
Source: PRTR. (Units: Tonnes)
Annual fuel consumption in power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012
Power Annual fuel consumption Annual
EGU (Mw) Technology Fuel Oil Diesel Fuel Oil Diesel hours
(t) (t) (%) (%) working
Diesel-1 7.52 4-stroke diesel engine 2,038.056 630.947 76.4 23.6 1,643
Diesel-2 7.52 4-stroke diesel engine 3,447.467 383.754 90.0 10.0 2,351
Diesel-3 7.52 4-stroke diesel engine 3,411.6 420.151 89.0 11.0 2,362
Diesel-4 15.50 2-stroke diesel engine 17,763.248 399.425 97.8 2.2 6,195
Diesel-5 15.50 2-stroke diesel engine 17,722.896 64.032 99.6 0.4 6,122
Diesel-6 24.00 2-stroke diesel engine 23,535.326 75.609 99.7 0.3 5,303
Diesel-7 18.00 4-stroke diesel engine 19,850.98 37.192 99.8 0.2 5,176
Diesel-8 18.00 4-stroke diesel engine 23,845.546 64.969 99.7 0.3 6,232
Diesel-9 18.00 4-stroke diesel engine 21,255.511 49.81 99.8 0.2 5,517
Diesel-10 18.00 4-stroke diesel engine 22,654.4 92.88 99.6 0.4 5,917
Gas turbine-1 23.45 Gas turbine 0 6,072.676 0.0 100.0 518
Gas turbine-2 37.50 Gas turbine 0 10,878.016 0.0 100.0 647
Total Consumption 155,525.03 19,169.461

3.4.4 Results

As mentioned in the sub-section 3.4.1, the EMEP methodology refers to the IPCC for
greenhouse gases. For this reason, the results has been separated into the categories
"greenhouse gases" and "other pollutants" due to the characteristics and calculation
methodologies implicit in each of them. In both cases, the level of accuracy will depend on the
available data.

3.4.4.1 Greenhouse gases emissions

The GHG emissions will be estimated according to the IPCC methodology explained and
referenced in section 3.3.2.1 (GHG emissions from road transport). Accordingly, all GHGs will
be considered according to their equivalence in "CO2 equivalent" shown in table 3-5.
In the case of Energy Industries, the gases assessed are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4)
and nitrous oxide (N2O) [79].
The IPCC methodology was last updated in 2019, but for stationary combustion, there has
been no change since 2006. With this methodology emissions of each greenhouse gas from
stationary sources can be estimated with three different tiers of accuracy. The level chosen will
depend on the available data.
The requirements for each tier are summarised below[87].

60
 “Tier 1 Approach.

Applying a Tier 1 emission estimate requires the following for each source category and fuel:

• Data on the amount of fuel combusted in the source category

• A default emission factor

The following equation is used:

𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 , = 𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ∙ 𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 ,

Where:

Emissions GHG, fuel = emissions of a given GHG by type of fuel (kg GHG)
Fuel Consumption fuel = amount of fuel combusted (TJ)
Emission Factor GHG, fuel = default emission factor of a given GHG by type of fuel (kg gas/TJ). It
includes the oxidation factor.

 Tier 2 Approach.

Applying a Tier 2 approach requires:

• Data on the amount of fuel combusted in the source category;

• A country-specific emission factor for the source category and fuel for each gas.

 Tier 3 Approach.

The Tier 1 and Tier 2 approaches of estimating emissions using an average emission factor for a
source category and fuel combination throughout the source category. In reality, emissions
depend on the:

• Fuel type used,

• Combustion technology,
• Operating conditions,
• Control technology,
• Quality of maintenance,
• Age of the equipment used to burn the fuel.

In a Tier 3 approach this is taken into account by splitting the fuel combustion statistics over
the different possibilities and using emission factors that are dependent upon these
differences.”

Estimation of carbon dioxide emissions.

The estimation has been done according to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. It is important to note
that the default oxidation factor is assumed to be 1 (in the IPCC 1996 methodology the value

61
of the oxidation factor was 0.99), unless better information is available. The oxidation factor is
included with the emission factor, which simplifies the worksheet [87].
We have consulted the Spanish National Greenhouse Gas Inventory to obtain the country-
specific emission factor for the source category and fuel of each gas [88]. However, the
emission factors applied are exactly the same as those in the IPCC guidelines. For this reason,
we can consider that our estimate will be Tier 1.
Table 3-12 shows the estimated CO2 emissions on the island of Lanzarote in 2012. The
estimate has been calculated disaggregated by each of the different electricity generation
units (EGU).
Calculations have been made according to IPCC net calorific values (in Terajoules23 per
Gigagrams24)[77] and CO2 emission factor (in Kilograms per Terajoule)[87].

23 12
Tj: Terajoule: 10 joules.
24 9
Gg: Gigagram: 10 grams.

62
Table 3-14 : Annual CO2 estimated emission in power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012
Annual CO2 estimated emission in power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012
Fuel Oil Diesel CO2 Default
Net calorific CO2
EGU Consumption Consumption Emission
value (Tj/Gg) (tonnes)
(tonnes) (tonnes) Factor (Kg/Tj)
2,038.056 40.4 77,400 6,372.920
Diesel-1
630.947 43.0 74,100 2,010.386
Total Diesel - 1 8,383.306
3,447.467 40.4 77,400 10,780.091
Diesel-2
383.754 43.0 74,100 1,222.755
Total Diesel - 2 12,002.847
3,411.600 40.4 77,400 10,667.937
Diesel-3
420.151 43.0 74,100 1,338.727
Total Diesel - 3 12,006.664
17,763.248 40.4 77,400 55,544.966
Diesel-4
399.425 43.0 74,100 1,272.688
Total Diesel - 4 56,817.654
17,722.896 40.4 77,400 55,418.787
Diesel-5
64.032 43.0 74,100 204.025
Total Diesel - 5 55,622.812
23,535.326 40.4 77,400 73,594.023
Diesel-6
75.609 43.0 74,100 240.913
Total Diesel - 6 73,834.936
19,850.980 40.4 77,400 62,073.220
Diesel-7
37.192 43.0 74,100 118.505
Total Diesel - 7 62,191.725
23,845.546 40.4 77,400 74,564.069
Diesel-8
64.969 43.0 74,100 207.011
Total Diesel - 8 74,771.079
21,255.511 40.4 77,400 66,465.133
Diesel-9
49.810 43.0 74,100 158.710
Total Diesel - 9 66,623.842
22,654.400 40.4 77,400 70,839.403
Diesel-10
92.880 43.0 74,100 295.944
Total Diesel - 10 71,135.346
Gas turbine-1 0.000 6,072.676 43.0 74,100 19,349.368
Gas turbine-2 0.000 10,878.016 43.0 74,100 34,660.622
Total 155,525.030 19,169.461 547,400.201

63
In the same manner, we estimate CH4 emissions. For this we have used the CH4 emission factor
(in Kilograms per Terajoule)[87]. The values shown in the table 3-5 (Global Warming
Potentials) has been used to calculate the CO2 equivalent emission.
The results are shown in the table below.

Table 3-15 : Annual CH4 estimated emission in power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012
Annual CH4 estimated emission in power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012
CH4 Default
Fuel Oil Diesel Net calorific CO2
Emission CH4
EGU Consumption Consumption value equivalent
Factor (tonnes)
(tonnes) (tonnes) (Tj/Gg) (tonnes)
(Kg/Tj)
2,038.056 40.4 3 0.247 6.175
Diesel-1
630.947 43.0 3 0.081 2.035
Total Diesel - 1 0.328 8.210
3,447.467 40.4 3 0.418 10.446
Diesel-2
383.754 43.0 3 0.050 1.238
Total Diesel - 2 0.467 11.683
3,411.600 40.4 3 0.413 10.337
Diesel-3
420.151 43.0 3 0.054 1.355
Total Diesel - 3 0.468 11.692
17,763.248 40.4 3 2.153 53.823
Diesel-4
399.425 43.0 3 0.052 1.288
Total Diesel - 4 2.204 55.111
17,722.896 40.4 3 2.148 53.700
Diesel-5
64.032 43.0 3 0.008 0.207
Total Diesel - 5 2.156 53.907
23,535.326 40.4 3 2.852 71.312
Diesel-6
75.609 43.0 3 0.010 0.244
Total Diesel - 6 2.862 71.556
19,850.980 40.4 3 2.406 60.148
Diesel-7
37.192 43.0 3 0.005 0.120
Total Diesel - 7 2.411 60.268
23,845.546 40.4 3 2.890 72.252
Diesel-8
64.969 43.0 3 0.008 0.210
Total Diesel - 8 2.898 72.462
21,255.511 40.4 3 2.576 64.404
Diesel-9
49.810 43.0 3 0.006 0.161
Total Diesel - 9 2.583 64.565
22,654.400 40.4 3 2.746 68.643
Diesel-10
92.880 43.0 3 0.012 0.300
Total Diesel - 10 2.758 68.942
Gas turbine-1 0.000 6,072.676 43.0 3 0.783 19.584
Gas turbine-2 0.000 10,878.016 43.0 3 1.403 35.082
Total 155,525.030 19,169.461 21.322 533.062

64
Using the N2O emissions factor (in Kilograms per Terajoule)[87] has been estimated N2O
emissions. With the values shown in the table 3-11 (Global Warming Potentials) has been
calculated the CO2 equivalent emission.
The results are shown in the table below.

Table 3-16 : Annual N2O estimated emission in power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012
Annual N2O estimated emission in power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012
N2O Default
Fuel Oil Diesel Net calorific CO2
Emission N2O
EGU Consumption Consumption value equivalent
Factor (tonnes)
(tonnes) (tonnes) (Tj/Gg) (tonnes)
(Kg/Tj)
2,038.056 40.4 0.6 0.049 14.722
Diesel-1
630.947 43.0 0.6 0.016 4.851
Total Diesel - 1 0.066 19.573
3,447.467 40.4 0.6 0.084 24.903
Diesel-2
383.754 43.0 0.6 0.010 2.950
Total Diesel - 2 0.093 27.853
3,411.600 40.4 0.6 0.083 24.644
Diesel-3
420.151 43.0 0.6 0.011 3.230
Total Diesel - 3 0.094 27.874
17,763.248 40.4 0.6 0.431 128.313
Diesel-4
399.425 43.0 0.6 0.010 3.071
Total Diesel - 4 0.441 131.384
17,722.896 40.4 0.6 0.430 128.022
Diesel-5
64.032 43.0 0.6 0.002 0.492
Total Diesel - 5 0.431 128.514
23,535.326 40.4 0.6 0.570 170.008
Diesel-6
75.609 43.0 0.6 0.002 0.581
Total Diesel - 6 0.572 170.589
19,850.980 40.4 0.6 0.481 143.394
Diesel-7
37.192 43.0 0.6 0.001 0.286
Total Diesel - 7 0.482 143.680
23,845.546 40.4 0.6 0.578 172.249
Diesel-8
64.969 43.0 0.6 0.002 0.500
Total Diesel - 8 0.580 172.748
21,255.511 40.4 0.6 0.515 153.540
Diesel-9
49.810 43.0 0.6 0.001 0.383
Total Diesel - 9 0.517 153.923
22,654.400 40.4 0.6 0.549 163.645
Diesel-10
92.880 43.0 0.6 0.002 0.714
Total Diesel - 10 0.552 164.359
Gas turbine-1 0.000 6,072.676 43.0 0.6 0.157 46.689
Gas turbine-2 0.000 10,878.016 43.0 0.6 0.281 83.635
Total 155,525.030 19,169.461 4.264 1,270.821

65
Once we have estimated the total amount of greenhouse gases, we can calculate the total
amount expressed as CO2 equivalent emission.
The results are shown in the table below.

Table 3-17 : Annual CO2 equivalent estimated emission in power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012
Annual CO2 equivalent estimated emission in power generation on the Island of Lanzarote
in 2012
CO2 CO2
Total CO2
CO2 CH4 equivalent N2O equivalent
EGU equivalent
(tonnes) (tonnes) from CH4 (tonnes) from N2O
(tonnes)
(tonnes) (tonnes)
Total Diesel - 1 8,383.306 0.328 8.210 0.066 19.573 8,411.089
Total Diesel - 2 12,002.847 0.467 11.683 0.093 27.853 12,042.384
Total Diesel - 3 12,006.664 0.468 11.692 0.094 27.874 12,046.230
Total Diesel - 4 56,817.654 2.204 55.111 0.441 131.384 57,004.149
Total Diesel - 5 55,622.812 2.156 53.907 0.431 128.514 55,805.233
Total Diesel - 6 73,834.936 2.862 71.556 0.572 170.589 74,077.081
Total Diesel - 7 62,191.725 2.411 60.268 0.482 143.680 62,395.674
Total Diesel - 8 74,771.079 2.898 72.462 0.580 172.748 75,016.289
Total Diesel - 9 66,623.842 2.583 64.565 0.517 153.923 66,842.330
Total Diesel - 10 71,135.346 2.758 68.942 0.552 164.359 71,368.647
Gas turbine-1 19,349.368 0.783 19.584 0.157 46.689 19,415.641
Gas turbine-2 34,660.622 1.403 35.082 0.281 83.635 34,779.339
Total 547,400.201 21.322 533.062 4.264 1,270.821 549,204.084

It is important to take into account the difference between CO2 emissions and emissions of
the other greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide emissions reflect the entire carbon content of the
fuel minus the unoxidised fraction of carbon retained in ash, particulate matter or soot[89].
This fraction is usually small, which implies that Tier 1 is a very accurate estimate, so the
calculation of CO2 in Tier 3 is not present in the GEI inventories.
For non-CO2 greenhouse gases, emissions are highly dependent on technology and conditions.
Detailed statistics on fuel combustion technology would therefore be needed to make rigorous
estimates of emissions.
According to our estimates, CO2 emissions account for 99.67% of total greenhouse gas
emissions (expressed in CO2 equivalent). This means that, even using Tier 1 data, our
greenhouse gas estimate is consistent and accurate.

3.4.4.2 Other pollutants emissions

As defined in the methodolgy section, the selected pollutants were carbon dioxide (CO2),
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) and Particulate matter (PM). Carbon dioxide (including CO2 equivalent
emissions) has been estimated in detail in the previous subsection. In this subsection, nitrogen
oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) will be estimated.

66
According to the EMEP methodology, if the source category is a key source, a Tier 2 or better
method must be applied. Therefore, Tier 2 will be aplied, as Tier 3 is not possible with the
available data.
For the corresponding calculations, we have taken the emission factors given by the
EMEP/AEMA inventory guide for energy industries[90] for gas turbines using diesel and
reciprocating engines using diesel. For diesel engines using fuel oil, in the absence of data, we
have used the emission factors given by the EMEP/AEMA inventory guide for navigation [91].
The reason for this decision is that the engines used in small isolated power plants are exactly
the same as those used in maritime transport.
All data used and results obtained are shown in the corresponding tables below.
It is important to clarify that the levele of disaggregation used (by production unit, technology
and fuel type) will be necessary for the estimation of abatement costs which will be developed
in the following section.

67
 Estimation of nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions.

Table 3-18 : Annual NOx estimated emission in power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012

Annual NOx estimated emission in power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012

Net NOx
Fuel Oil Diesel NOx Emission
calorific Emission NOx
Consumption Consumption Factor
value Factor (tonnes)
(tonnes) (tonnes) (kg/tonne)
(Tj/Gg) (g/Gj)
Diesel-1 2,038.056 40.4 55.3 112.704
(4-stroke) 630.947 43.0 942 25.557
Total Diesel - 1 138.262
Diesel-2 3,447.467 40.4 55.3 190.645
(4-stroke) 383.754 43.0 942 15.544
Total Diesel - 2 206.189
Diesel-3 3,411.600 40.4 55.3 188.661
(4-stroke) 420.151 43.0 942 17.019
Total Diesel - 3 205.680
Diesel-4 17,763.248 40.4 90.2 1,602.245
(2-stroke) 399.425 43.0 942 16.179
Total Diesel - 4 1,618.424
Diesel-5 17,722.896 40.4 90.2 1,598.605
(2-stroke) 64.032 43.0 942 2.594
Total Diesel - 5 1,601.199
Diesel-6 23,535.326 40.4 90.2 2,122.886
(2-stroke) 75.609 43.0 942 3.063
Total Diesel - 6 2,125.949
Diesel-7 19,850.980 40.4 55.3 1,097.759
(4-stroke) 37.192 43.0 942 1.506
Total Diesel - 7 1,099.266
Diesel-8 23,845.546 40.4 55.3 1,318.659
(4-stroke) 64.969 43.0 942 2.632
Total Diesel - 8 1,321.290
Diesel-9 21,255.511 40.4 55.3 1,175.430
(4-stroke) 49.810 43.0 942 2.018
Total Diesel - 9 1,177.447
Diesel-10 22,654.400 40.4 55.3 1,252.788
(4-stroke) 92.880 43.0 942 3.762
Total Diesel - 10 1,256.551
Gas turbine-1 0.000 6,072.676 43.0 398 103.928
Gas turbine-2 0.000 10,878.016 43.0 398 186.166
Total 155,525.030 19,169.461 11,040.351

68
 Estimation of fine particles with diameter smaller than 2.5 µm (PM2.5) emissions.

Table 3-19 : Annual PM2.5 estimated emission in power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012
Annual PM2.5 estimated emission in power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012
Net PM2.5 PM2.5
Fuel Oil Diesel
calorific Emission Emission PM2.5
Consumption Consumption
value Factor Factor (tonnes)
(tonnes) (tonnes)
(Tj/Gg) (g/Gj) (kg/tonne)
Diesel-1 2,038.056 40.4 4.43 9.029
(4-stroke) 630.947 43.0 21.70 0.589
Total Diesel - 1 9.617
Diesel-2 3,447.467 40.4 4.43 15.272
(4-stroke) 383.754 43.0 21.70 0.358
Total Diesel - 2 15.630
Diesel-3 3,411.600 40.4 4.43 15.113
(4-stroke) 420.151 43.0 21.70 0.392
Total Diesel - 3 15.505
Diesel-4 17,763.248 40.4 4.42 78.514
(2-stroke) 399.425 43.0 21.70 0.373
Total Diesel - 4 78.886
Diesel-5 17,722.896 40.4 4.42 78.335
(2-stroke) 64.032 43.0 21.70 0.060
Total Diesel - 5 78.395
Diesel-6 23,535.326 40.4 4.42 104.026
(2-stroke) 75.609 43.0 21.70 0.071
Total Diesel - 6 104.097
Diesel-7 19,850.980 40.4 4.43 87.940
(4-stroke) 37.192 43.0 21.70 0.035
Total Diesel - 7 87.975
Diesel-8 23,845.546 40.4 4.43 105.636
(4-stroke) 64.969 43.0 21.70 0.061
Total Diesel - 8 105.696
Diesel-9 21,255.511 40.4 4.43 94.162
(4-stroke) 49.810 43.0 21.70 0.046
Total Diesel - 9 94.208
Diesel-10 22,654.400 40.4 4.43 100.359
(4-stroke) 92.880 43.0 21.70 0.087
Total Diesel - 10 100.446
Gas turbine-1 0.000 6,072.676 43.0 1.95 0.509
Gas turbine-2 0.000 10,878.016 43.0 1.95 0.912
Total 155,525.030 19,169.461 691.877

69
 Estimation of fine particles with diameter smaller than 10 µm (PM10) emissions.

Table 3-20 : Annual PM10 estimated emission in power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012
Annual PM10 estimated emission in power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012
Net PM10 PM10
Fuel Oil Diesel
calorific Emission Emission PM10
Consumption Consumption
value Factor Factor (tonnes)
(tonnes) (tonnes)
(Tj/Gg) (g/Gj) (kg/tonne)
Diesel-1 2,038.056 40.4 5.21 10.618
(4-stroke) 630.947 43.0 22.40 0.608
Total Diesel - 1 11.226
Diesel-2 3,447.467 40.4 5.21 17.961
(4-stroke) 383.754 43.0 22.40 0.370
Total Diesel - 2 18.331
Diesel-3 3,411.600 40.4 5.21 17.774
(4-stroke) 420.151 43.0 22.40 0.405
Total Diesel - 3 18.179
Diesel-4 17,763.248 40.4 5.20 92.369
(2-stroke) 399.425 43.0 22.40 0.385
Total Diesel - 4 92.754
Diesel-5 17,722.896 40.4 5.20 92.159
(2-stroke) 64.032 43.0 22.40 0.062
Total Diesel - 5 92.221
Diesel-6 23,535.326 40.4 5.20 122.384
(2-stroke) 75.609 43.0 22.40 0.073
Total Diesel - 6 122.457
Diesel-7 19,850.980 40.4 5.21 103.424
(4-stroke) 37.192 43.0 22.40 0.036
Total Diesel - 7 103.459
Diesel-8 23,845.546 40.4 5.21 124.235
(4-stroke) 64.969 43.0 22.40 0.063
Total Diesel - 8 124.298
Diesel-9 21,255.511 40.4 5.21 110.741
(4-stroke) 49.810 43.0 22.40 0.048
Total Diesel - 9 110.789
Diesel-10 22,654.400 40.4 5.21 118.029
(4-stroke) 92.880 43.0 22.40 0.089
Total Diesel - 10 118.119
Gas turbine-1 0.000 6,072.676 43.0 1.95 0.509
Gas turbine-2 0.000 10,878.016 43.0 1.95 0.912
Total 155,525.030 19,169.461 813.254

70
 Estimation of total suspended particles (TSP) emissions.

Table 3-21 : Annual TSP estimated emission in power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012
Annual TSP estimated emission in power generation on the Island of Lanzarote in 2012
Net TSP TSP
Fuel Oil Diesel
calorific Emission Emission TSP
Consumption Consumption
value Factor Factor (tonnes)
(tonnes) (tonnes)
(Tj/Gg) (g/Gj) (kg/tonne)
Diesel-1 2,038.056 40.4 5.21 10.618
(4-stroke) 630.947 43.0 28.10 0.762
Total Diesel - 1 11.381
Diesel-2 3,447.467 40.4 5.21 17.961
(4-stroke) 383.754 43.0 28.10 0.464
Total Diesel - 2 18.425
Diesel-3 3,411.600 40.4 5.21 17.774
(4-stroke) 420.151 43.0 28.10 0.508
Total Diesel - 3 18.282
Diesel-4 17,763.248 40.4 5.20 92.369
(2-stroke) 399.425 43.0 28.10 0.483
Total Diesel - 4 92.852
Diesel-5 17,722.896 40.4 5.20 92.159
(2-stroke) 64.032 43.0 28.10 0.077
Total Diesel - 5 92.236
Diesel-6 23,535.326 40.4 5.20 122.384
(2-stroke) 75.609 43.0 28.10 0.091
Total Diesel - 6 122.475
Diesel-7 19,850.980 40.4 5.21 103.424
(4-stroke) 37.192 43.0 28.10 0.045
Total Diesel - 7 103.469
Diesel-8 23,845.546 40.4 5.21 124.235
(4-stroke) 64.969 43.0 28.10 0.079
Total Diesel - 8 124.314
Diesel-9 21,255.511 40.4 5.21 110.741
(4-stroke) 49.810 43.0 28.10 0.060
Total Diesel - 9 110.801
Diesel-10 22,654.400 40.4 5.21 118.029
(4-stroke) 92.880 43.0 28.10 0.112
Total Diesel - 10 118.142
Gas turbine-1 0.000 6,072.676 43.0 1.95 0.509
Gas turbine-2 0.000 10,878.016 43.0 1.95 0.912
Total 155,525.030 19,169.461 813.797

71
It is important to note that the PM2.5 category includes particles up to 2.5 µm (micrometer). In
the PM10 category up to 10 µm (then 2.5 µm are included) and TSP are all particles regardless
of their size.
Paying attention to the emission factors, we can see how gas turbines emit all particles in PM2.5
and how the difference in PM10 and TSP in diesel units is practically non-existent.
To conclude this sub-section, the following table shows the aggregate summary of emissions of
"other pollutants" from energy generation on the island of Lanzarote in 2012.

Table 3-22 : Summary of estimated emissions from power generation on the island of Lanzarote in 2012

Summary of estimated emissions from power

generation on the island of Lanzarote in 2012

Total emissions
Pollutant
(Tonnes)
NOx 11,040.351
PM2.5 691.877
PM10 813.254
TSP 813.797

3.5 Cost of emissions from electricity production in the selected scenario.

The central idea of this Thesis is the calculation of cost emissions from electricity production
like a reference for the cars emissions. This apparently absurd idea is justified by the fact that
not using the combustion vehicle implies an “opportunity cost25” in the electric sector. This
would be the application of the legal principle "mutatis mutandis" in environmental policy.
This reasoning has been applied by the Danish authorities in the report: "En
omkostningseffektiv opfyldelse af Danmarks reduktionsforpligtelse" (A cost-effective fulfilment
of the Danish reduction commitment) 2003. In this report the marginal NOX costs were
estimated at DKK 14.5/kg. This value was based on the installation costs of a NOX reduction
system in a coal-fired power plant [93].
On the other side, the Environment Agency for England and Wales is currently deriving
‘benchmark costs’ based on the cost of investments in similar technology that have already
been made [93].
Therefore, we can conclude that the central idea of this thesis is reasonable and perfectly
acceptable.
It is important to note that only combustion sources have been considered in the estimation of
emissions and their associated cost. The reason for this decision is that if renewable sources
are considered, there will be the paradox that more renewable in the energy mix, the lower
the cost emission per kilowatt produced.

25
Opportunity cost is the value of the next-best alternative when a decision is made; it's what is given
up[92]

72
On the other hand, as the two sectors (electricity production and transport) are not necessarily
of similar size in terms of emissions, we will measure emission reductions in percentage terms
rather than in tonnes. This will prevent the gross difference in emissions between the two
sectors in net terms from distorting our proposed model.

According to the pollutant we have used different methodology to estimate cost of emissions
from combustion sources in electricity production.
In the case of the carbon dioxide, there is a market price set by the EU ETS26. It will be the
reference to be used in the different scenarios for this pollutant.
For estimating the cost of particulate matter and nitrogen oxides emissions, we have used the
“Marginal Abatement Cost Curves” (MACC). “A marginal abatement cost curve is defined as a
graph that indicates the cost, associated with the last unit (the marginal cost) of emission
abatement for varying amounts of emission reduction”[95].

The following figure shows its concept and use

Figure 3-15: Marginal Abatement Cost Curve

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Abatement-Costs-Notes-This-figure-shows-the-
marginal-cost-of-abatement-function-for-a_fig1_227357208

26
EU ETS: The EU Emissions Trading Scheme/System currently operates in the 28 EU Member States and
in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway (three countries belonging to the European Economic Area). The
EU ETS is based on a cap and trade system.[94]

73
This figure shows the marginal abatement cost function for a typical pollutant. On the
horizontal axis we have the quantity of pollutant and on the vertical axis the abatement cost.
To define the "Marginal Abatement Cost Curve" (MACC), it is necessary to take all sources of
pollution and rank them from the lowest marginal abatement cost on the left to the highest
marginal abatement cost on the right. This ranking produces the MC curve of monotonically
increasing marginal abatement costs[96].
Point "A" on the horizontal axis will be the allowances granted by the authority (political
decision). The cut between the marginal abatement cost curve and the vertical line above
point "A" will define point "C" with an associated marginal cost "p*". This is the associated
price of the pollutant.
The area OAC is the abatement costs, and the area ACp*B will be the market value of the
permits.

To develop our methodology, the first step will be to define the different mitigation techniques
(BAT) to be applied in power generation.
The Abatement techniques will be considered according to the "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING
DECISION (EU) 2021/2326 of 30 November 2021 establishing best available techniques (BAT)
conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, for
large combustion plants", in order to be realistic with the current framework.
The BATs considered are shown below [97]. (The individual BATs are described in the annex IV
to this document for ease of reading).

BAT 32.In order to prevent or reduce NOX emissions to air from the combustion of HFO and/or
gas oil in reciprocating engines, BAT is to use one or a combination of the techniques given
below.
a. Low-NOX combustion concept in diesel engines
b. Exhaust-gas recirculation (EGR)
c. Water/steam addition
d. Selective catalytic reduction (SCR)

BAT 35.In order to prevent or reduce dust and particulate-bound metal emissions from the
combustion of HFO and/or gas oil in reciprocating engines, BAT is to use one or a combination
of the techniques given below.

a. Fuel choice
b. Electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
c. Bag filter

BAT 37.In order to prevent or reduce NOX emissions to air from the combustion of gas oil in
gas turbines, BAT is to use one or a combination of the techniques given below.

a. Water/steam addition
b. Low-NOX burners (LNB)
c. Selective catalytic reduction (SCR)

74
Once the different techniques have been defined, according to “Best Available Techniques
(BAT) Reference Document for Large Combustion Plants”[98] published in 2017 by JRC of
European Commission and other references, it will be possible to estimate “cost abatement
curves” for selected pollutants. These pollutants are NOx and PM from Diesel engines and NOx
from Gas Turbines in generation plants.
The cost per tonne of the different pollutants has been updated to 2021. The cost has not
been updated to a closer year to avoid the "economic turbulence" resulting from the war in
Ukraine that started in February 2022.

3.5.1 Estimation of the abatement cost curve for NOx

To estimate the NOx abatement cost curve we must consider the BAT 32 (for the reciprocating
engines) and 37 ( for the gas turbines) according the Directive 2010/75/EU of the European
Parliament and of the Council.
It is important remark that the different technologies are not necessary possible to implement
in the Power station of Lanzarote Island (our scenario). In some cases the possibility to
implement a technology depends to the characteristics of the engines (size, age, space
availability, etc). In any case it is important remark that we are proposing a theoretical
methodology in a given scenario. For this reason we have considered the BATs established by
regulation, independently of the possibility of application under real conditions.
In the development of our methodology, for each abatement technology the emission
reduction (expressed as a percentage) and the abatement cost (expressed in 2021 Euros per
tonne) will be required.

Abatement technologies considered in Diesel engines:

 Low-NOX combustion concept in diesel engines

This technique consists of a combination of internal engine modifications (combustion and fuel
injection modifications, etc). According to industry feedback, with its implementation, the NOx
reduction will be close to 30% [98].
There is no clear information on the cost of implementing this technology and it is extremely
complicated to calculate, because we are talking about modifications to the engine and not an
addition to the production process. In any case, as its implementation has as a side effect an
increase in the fuel consumption (1% for every 4-5% of NOx reduced) [98] we can estimate the
operational cost and apply it. For this purpose, we know the prices of fuel oil and diesel used in
power generation according to the Spanish Ministry [99].
In August 2021 the prices were:

 355.15 €/tonne for Fuel Oil (€ in 2021)

 433.95 €/tonne for Diesel (€ in 2021)

75
In our methodology, a potential reduction of 30% and a 6% increase in fuel consumption has
been assumed.

According our data, it will be possible to calculate the operational cost of this technique.

Table 3-23 : Cost data of the technique "Low NOx combustion concept for diesel engines"
Power annual fuel consumption Low-NOX combustion concept in
(Mw) 2012 NOx diesel engines
EGU (gross emissions reduction
Fuel Oil Diesel 6% increase 6% increase
electrical (tonnes) of 30%
(t) (t) in Fuel Oil in Diesel
output) emissions
Diesel-1 7.52 2,038.06 630.95 138.26 122.28 37.86 41.48
Diesel-2 7.52 3,447.47 383.75 206.19 206.85 23.03 61.86
Diesel-3 7.52 3,411.60 420.15 205.68 204.70 25.21 61.70
Diesel-4 15.50 17,763.25 399.43 1,618.42 1,065.79 23.97 485.53
Diesel-5 15.50 17,722.90 64.03 1,601.20 1,063.37 3.84 480.36
Diesel-6 24.00 23,535.33 75.61 2,125.95 1,412.12 4.54 637.78
Diesel-7 18.00 19,850.98 37.19 1,099.27 1,191.06 2.23 329.78
Diesel-8 18.00 23,845.55 64.97 1,321.29 1,430.73 3.90 396.39
Diesel-9 18.00 21,255.51 49.81 1,177.45 1,275.33 2.99 353.23
Diesel-10 18.00 22,654.40 92.88 1,256.55 1,359.26 5.57 376.97
Total 155,525.03 2,218.77 10,750.26 9,331.50 133.13 3,225.08
From this data, we can estimate the price of each tonne reduced with this technique using the
following calculation.

(9,331.50 𝑥 355.15) + (133.13𝑥433.95) 1045.51 €

= (27)
3,225.08 𝑁𝑂𝑥 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒

We can conclude with an estimate for this abatement technique of:

 30% emission reduction

 1,045.51 €/tonne

 Exhaust-gas recirculation (EGR)

This technique consists of recirculation of part of the flue-gas to the combustion chamber to
replace part of the fresh combustion air, having the double effect of cooling the flame
temperature and limiting the O2 content for nitrogen oxidation, thus limiting the NOX
generation.[98]
The reduction rate obtained with this technique depends, on the one hand, on the fuel used
and the type of engine (diesel engine, coal-fired boiler etc). On the other hand, it also depends
on the volume of flue-gas recirculation. It is important to note that a high volume of

27
Expressed in 2021 EUR.

76
recirculated flue gas lead to undesirable effects in the combustion system due to the
composition of the gases (carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapour).
Consequently, there is a large variability on the reduction rate of this technique in the
literature (20-60% according JRC science for policy report)[98]. according to the type of
engines installed, a reduction rate of 30% for the EGR technique has been considered in our
methodology[100].
The operational cost is the other element necessary to develop the proposed methodology. As
mentioned in subsection 3.4.4.2, the diesel engines used in small isolated power plants are
exactly the same as those used in maritime transport. For this reason, in order to obtain the
operating cost for each abatement method, we have also reviewed the available literature for
marine diesel engines. In order to estimate the costs of the different EGU (Electricity
Generation Units) in our scenario (Lanzarote Island), it must be taken into account that
medium speed diesel engines usually run on the four-stroke cycle, while low speed diesel
engines run on the two-stroke cycle [101].
According to “A Review and Economic Analysis of Different Emission Reduction Techniques for
Marine Diesel Engines”[100], the operating cost of EGR technology in the different EGUs in our
scenario will be as shown in the following table, depending on engine power.

Table 3-24: Operating cost of EGR technology in the different EGUs

Operating cost of EGR technology in the different EGUs installed in the thermal power plant “Punta
Grande” (Lanzarote) on 31th of December 2012

Power (Mw) NOx Cost at each reduction

Cost per Kw
EGU (gross electrical Technology emissions EGU of 30%
($ in 2019)
output) (tonnes) ($ 2019) emissions
4-stroke diesel
Diesel-1 7.52 138.26 12 90,240.00 41.48
engine
4-stroke diesel
Diesel-2 7.52 206.19 12 90,240.00 61.86
engine
4-stroke diesel
Diesel-3 7.52 205.68 12 90,240.00 61.70
engine
2-stroke diesel
Diesel-4 15.50 1,618.42 10.5 162,750.00 485.53
engine
2-stroke diesel
Diesel-5 15.50 1,601.20 10.5 162,750.00 480.36
engine
2-stroke diesel
Diesel-6 24.00 2,125.95 10.5 252,000.00 637.78
engine
4-stroke diesel
Diesel-7 18.00 1,099.27 8.6 154,800.00 329.78
engine
4-stroke diesel
Diesel-8 18.00 1,321.29 8.6 154,800.00 396.39
engine
4-stroke diesel
Diesel-9 18.00 1,177.45 8.6 154,800.00 353.23
engine
4-stroke diesel
Diesel-10 18.00 1,256.55 8.6 154,800.00 376.97
engine
Total 1,467,420.00 3,225.08

It will now be necessary calculate the current value in 2021 of the total cost. For this we have
used the “inflation calculator” of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis [102].
The total cost of this abatement technique, expressed in $ 2021 is, 1,555,224.17.

77
This amount must now be expressed in Euros. For this purpose, we have used an official
website of the European Union[103].
The total cost of this abatement technique, expressed in € 2021 is, 1,266,366.07.
From this data, we can estimate the price of each tonne reduced with this technique using the
following calculation.

1266366.07 392.66 €
= (28)
3225.08 𝑁𝑂𝑥 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒

We can conclude with an estimate for this abatement technique of:

 40% emission reduction

 392.66 €/tonne

 Water/steam addition

This technology uses an injector composed of two parts, one for spraying water/steam and
one for injecting fuel oil. High-pressure water/steam is injected into the combustion chamber
and the mixture of water and flue gas is completed, resulting in reduced combustion
temperatures and NOx emissions [100] (by reducing the thermal formation of NOx).
The injection of water or steam to reduce NOX can only be carried out up to a certain limit. If
the flow rate of the steam injected into the fuel burner is too high, the effects on the
compressor and other elements are relevant. There is also an adverse affect on CO emissions.
NOX reduction rates of between 20 % and 60 % can be achieved.[98] According to a review and
economic analysis of different Emission Reduction Techniques for Marine Diesel Engines, this
technique has a NOx reduction potential of 60% [100]. Consequently, a reduction rate of 60%
for the Water/steam addition technique has been considered in our methodology.
According to “A Review and Economic Analysis of Different Emission Reduction Techniques for
Marine Diesel Engines”[100], the operating cost of EGR technology in the different EGUs in our
scenario will be as shown in the following table, depending on engine power.

28
Expressed in 2021 EUR.

78
Table 3-25: Operating cost of “Water/Steam addition” technology in the different EGUs

Operating cost of "Water/Steam" technology in the different EGUs installed in the thermal power
plant “Punta Grande” (Lanzarote) on 31th of December 2012
Power NOx Cost per Kw Cost at each reduction
EGU Technology
(Mw) emissions ($ in 2019) EGU of 60%

Diesel-1 7.52 4-stroke diesel 138.26 30.9 232,368.00 82.96

engine

Diesel-2 7.52 4-stroke diesel 206.19 30.9 232,368.00 123.71

engine

Diesel-3 7.52 4-stroke diesel 205.68 30.9 232,368.00 123.41

engine

Diesel-4 15.50 2-stroke diesel 1,618.42 34.5 534,750.00 971.05

engine

Diesel-5 15.50 2-stroke diesel 1,601.20 34.5 534,750.00 960.72

engine

Diesel-6 24.00 2-stroke diesel 2,125.95 34.5 828,000.00 1,275.57

engine

Diesel-7 18.00 4-stroke diesel 1,099.27 25.2 453,600.00 659.56

engine

Diesel-8 18.00 4-stroke diesel 1,321.29 25.2 453,600.00 792.77

engine

Diesel-9 18.00 4-stroke diesel 1,177.45 25.2 453,600.00 706.47

engine

Diesel-10 18.00 4-stroke diesel 1,256.55 25.2 453,600.00 753.93

engine
Total 4,409,004.00 6,450.15

It will now be necessary calculate the current value in 2021 of the total cost. For this we have
used the “inflation calculator” of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis [102].
The total cost of this abatement technique, expressed in $ 2021 is, 4,672,820.04.
This amount must now be expressed in Euros. For this purpose, we have used an official
website of the European Union[103].
The total cost of this abatement technique, expressed in € 2021 is, 3,804,918.20
From this data, we can estimate the price of each tonne reduced with this technique using the
following calculation.

3804918.20 589.90 €
= (29)
6450.15 𝑁𝑂𝑥 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒

We can conclude with an estimate for this abatement technique of:

29
Expressed in 2021 EUR.

79
  50% emission reduction

 589.90 €/tonne

 Selective catalytic reduction (SCR)

This method consists of the selective reduction of nitrogen oxides with ammonia or urea in the
presence of a catalyst. The reducing agent is injected into the flue-gas upstream of the
catalyst. The conversion of the NOX takes place on the surface of the catalyst at a temperature
usually between 300 °C and 450 °C [98].
This technique presents the largest NOx reduction rate. In our methodology a reduction rate of
95% has been considered for the SCR technique [100].
Selective Catalytic Reduction charges include the reactor, the urea tank, the dosing pump,
injectors, control system, a bypass valve, a cleaning probe and an acoustic horn. According to
“A Review and Economic Analysis of Different Emission Reduction Techniques for Marine Diesel
Engines”[100], the operating cost of SCR technology in the different EGUs in our scenario will
be as shown in the following table, depending on engine power.

Table 3-26 : Operating cost of SCR technology in the different EGUs

Operating cost of SCR technology in the different EGUs installed in the thermal power plant
“Punta Grande” (Lanzarote) on 31th of December 2012
Power NOx Cost per Kw Cost at each reduction
EGU Technology
(Mw) emissions ($ in 2019) EGU of 95%
4-stroke diesel
Diesel-1 7.52 138.26 56.7 426,384.00 131.35
engine
4-stroke diesel
Diesel-2 7.52 206.19 56.7 426,384.00 195.88
engine
4-stroke diesel
Diesel-3 7.52 205.68 56.7 426,384.00 195.40
engine
2-stroke diesel
Diesel-4 15.50 1,618.42 63 976,500.00 1,537.50
engine
2-stroke diesel
Diesel-5 15.50 1,601.20 63 976,500.00 1,521.14
engine
2-stroke diesel
Diesel-6 24.00 2,125.95 63 1,512,000.00 2,019.65
engine
4-stroke diesel
Diesel-7 18.00 1,099.27 38.9 700,200.00 1,044.30
engine
4-stroke diesel
Diesel-8 18.00 1,321.29 38.9 700,200.00 1,255.23
engine
4-stroke diesel
Diesel-9 18.00 1,177.45 38.9 700,200.00 1,118.57
engine
4-stroke diesel
Diesel-10 18.00 1,256.55 38.9 700,200.00 1,193.72
engine
Total 7,544,952.00 10,212.74

80
It will now be necessary calculate the current value in 2021 of the total cost. For this we have
used the “inflation calculator” of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis [102].
The total cost of this abatement technique, expressed in $ 2021 is, 7,996,409.82.
This amount must now be expressed in Euros. For this purpose, we have used an official
website of the European Union[103].
The total cost of this abatement technique, expressed in € 2021 is, 6,511,204.15
From this data, we can estimate the price of each tonne reduced with this technique using the
following calculation.

6511204.15 637.56 €
= (30)
10212.74 𝑁𝑂𝑥 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒

We can conclude with an estimate for this abatement technique of:

 95% emission reduction

 637.56 €/tonne

 Conclusions about abatement technologies considered in Diesel engines.

We can summarise the NOx abatement techniques for diesel engines with their cost and
efficiency in the table below.

Table 3-27 : summary of NOx abatement techniques for diesel engines.

Abatement technologies considered in Diesel engines.
Case of the thermal power plant “Punta Grande” (Lanzarote) on
31th of December 2012
Low-NOX reduction of cost of emission
combustion concept emissions (%) reduction (€/tonne)
in diesel engines 30% 1,045.51
reduction of cost of emission
Exhaust-gas emissions (%) reduction (€/tonne)
recirculation (EGR)
40% 392.66

reduction of cost of emission

Water/steam emissions (%) reduction (€/tonne)
addition
50% 589.90

reduction of cost of emission

Selective catalytic emissions (%) reduction (€/tonne)
reduction (SCR)
95% 637.56

30
Expressed in 2021 EUR.

81
It is important clarify that we are considering each technique separately from the others, in
this sense, in the abatement cost curve we start with the cheapest technique, followed by the
next one as long as there is a higher emission reduction rate. For this reason, in terms of
efficiency and cost, the technique “Low-NOx combustion concept in diesel engine” will not be
relevant in our methodology because it has higher cost and lower efficiency compared to the
others.
On the other hand, it is also important to note that the different techniques will be applied
depending on the actual conditions and also when the combination between them present
advantages.
In any case, today the 'Miller concept' is a standard application for big four-stroke diesel
engines, is an inbuilt concept for big engines and has enabled compliance with the current
minimum global emission ruling for international projects[98].
The graphical representation of NOx reduction technologies for diesel engines is shown below

NOx abatement technologies considered in

Diesel engines
cost of emission 700
reduction 637.56
(€/tonne) 600 589.9

500

400 392.66
Euros 2021
300

200

100

0 0
reduction of
0 20 40 60 80 100
emissions (%)

Figure 3-16 : Abatement technologies considered in diesel engines

Considering the middle points in each segment we obtain the frequency polygon, which can be
adjusted to a polynomial function. In this way we obtain the abatement cost curve fit for diesel
engines of Lanzarote power plant in 2012.
This can be seen in the graph below.

82
 NOx abatement technologies considered in
Diesel engines y = 195.81ln(x) - 183.55
R² = 0.9642
cost of emission 700
reduction 637.56
(€/tonne) 600 589.9

500

400 392.66 Euros 2021

300 Tendence
200

100

0 0
reduction of
0 20 40 60 80 100
emissions (%)

Figure 3-17 : abatement cost curve fit for diesel engines of Lanzarote power plant in 2012

We can see how the logarithmic function fit presents an R-squared close to 1.

Abatement technologies considered from the combustion of gas oil in gas turbines:

 Water/steam addition

The basic technical description of this abatement technique will be the same as for diesel
engines. On the other hand, the efficiency and operating cost are not necessarily the same
because they are extremely linked to the system in which they are installed.
The use of this technique can reduce the life expectancy of a gas turbine. Nowadays, new gas
turbines are built with dry low-NOX burners, and most existing plants can be retrofitted with
such combustors, providing a better performance than water/steam injection. However, for
certain small or existing turbines, water/steam injection may be a cost-effective solution[98].
For gas turbines, we have considered a 50% reduction rate in our methodology[98].
The operating cost depends on the size of the gas turbines, the fuel, if the turbines operate in
combined cycle or simple cycle, etc. According to economic data published by the EPA [104],
the operating cost of the water/steam addition technology in the gas turbines in our scenario
will be 984 (USD in 1999) per tonne of NOx removed.

It will now be necessary calculate the current value in 2021 of the cost. For this we have used
the “inflation calculator” of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis [102].
The cost of this abatement technique, expressed in $ 2021 is, 1,600.82 per tonne of NOx
removed.

83
This amount must now be expressed in Euros. For this purpose, we have used an official
website of the European Union[103].
The cost of this abatement technique, expressed in € 2021 is, 1,303.49 € per tonne of NOx
removed.

We can conclude with an estimate for this abatement technique of:

 50% emission reduction

 1,303.49 €/tonne

 Low-NOX burners (LNB)

Low NOx burner is a combustion burner designed to minimize NOx formation. The technique is
based on the principles of reducing peak flame temperatures.
Low-NOX burners (LNBs) modify the means of introducing air and fuel to retard mixing, reduce
oxygen availability and reduce the peak flame temperature.
According to the different principles for reducing NOx formation, low-NOx burners have been
developed as “air-staged burners”, “flue-gas recirculation burners” and “fuel-staged
burners”[98].
Although the 'Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/2326 of 30 November 2021' lists
the low NOx burner (LNB) as BAT for reducing NOx emissions to air from the combustion of
diesel fuel in gas turbines (BAT 37), this BAT is not listed in the reference literature for gas
turbines [105] or in the turbine manufacturers' references [106].
The BAT used by gas turbines is DLN (Dry Low-NOx) burners. DLNs are basically a particular
type of LNB. Consequently, we will develop this section considering DLNs as the BAT to be
applied in this case.
The basic characteristic of dry low-NOx burners is that the mixing of the air and fuel before
combustion, a homogeneous temperature distribution and a lower flame temperature are
achieved, resulting in lower NOx emissions. Hybrid DLN have been operated on gas oil in
premix mode for some years: a considerable NOX reduction has been achieved, but the values
achieved are not as low as for the combustion of natural gas [98]. The development of this
technique have largely replaced water injection and steam injection as the primary
combustion modification to control NOx emissions, however, there is no available data about
the rate emission reduction when the gas turbine has been operated with diesel fuel.
Consequently, we have taken a reduction rate of 35%, in line with available LNB data [98], for
the development of our methodology.
According to economic data published by the EPA [104], the operating cost of the DLN
technology in the gas turbines in our scenario will be 210 (USD in 1999) per tonne of NOx
removed.
It will now be necessary calculate the current value in 2021 of the cost. For this we have used
the “inflation calculator” of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis [102].

84
The cost of this abatement technique, expressed in $ 2021 is, 341.64 per tonne of NOx
removed.
This amount must now be expressed in Euros. For this purpose, we have used an official
website of the European Union[103].
The cost of this abatement technique, expressed in € 2021 is, 278.19 € per tonne of NOx
removed.

We can conclude with an estimate for this abatement technique of:

 35% emission reduction

 278.19 €/tonne

 Selective catalytic reduction (SCR)

The operation of this technology has been described with diesel engines. The technological
principle will be the same, as it is an afterburner technology, but the operationing cost is not
necessarily the same, as it is also depends on the exhaust gas temperature, NOx concentration,
turbine size etc.
For gas turbines, we have considered a 90% reduction rate in our methodology [98]. According
to economic data published by the EPA [104], the operating cost of the SCR technology in the
gas turbines in our scenario will be 3,541 (USD in 1999) per tonne of NOx removed.
It will now be necessary calculate the current value in 2021 of the cost. For this we have used
the “inflation calculator” of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis [102].
The cost of this abatement technique, expressed in $ 2021 is, 5,760.66 per tonne of NOx
removed.
This amount must now be expressed in Euros. For this purpose, we have used an official
website of the European Union[103].
The cost of this abatement technique, expressed in € 2021 is, 4,690.71 € per tonne of NOx
removed.

We can conclude with an estimate for this abatement technique of:

 90% emission reduction

 4,690.71 €/tonne

 Conclusions about abatement technologies considered in in gas turbines:

We can summarise the NOx abatement techniques for gas turbines with their cost and
efficiency in the table below.

85
Table 3-28 : Summary of NOx abatement techniques for gas turbines.
Abatement technologies considered from the combustion of gas oil
in gas turbines.
Case of the thermal power plant “Punta Grande” (Lanzarote) on 31th
of December 2012
reduction of cost of emission
Low-NOX burners emissions (%) reduction (€/tonne)
(LNB)
35% 278.19

reduction of cost of emission

emissions (%) reduction (€/tonne)
Water/steam addition
50% 1,303.49

reduction of cost of emission

Selective catalytic emissions (%) reduction (€/tonne)
reduction (SCR)
90% 4,690.71

The graphical representation of NOx reduction technologies for diesel engines is shown below.

Abatement technologies for NOx considered in Gas

cost of emission
reduction(€/tonne)
Turbines
5000
4,690.71
4500

4000

3500

3000
Euros 2021
2500

2000

1500
1,303.49
1000

500
278.19
0 0 reduction of
0 20 40 60 80 100 emissions (%)

Figure 3-18 : Abatement technologies considered in gas turbines.

Considering the middle points in each segment we obtain the frequency polygon, which can be
adjusted to a polynomial function. In this way we obtain the abatement cost curve fit for gas
turbines of Lanzarote power plant in 2012.
This can be seen in the graph below.

86
 Abatement technologies for NOx considered in Gas
cost of emission
reduction(€/tonne)
Turbines
6000
y = 116.54e 0.0537x
R² = 0.9934
5000
4,690.71

4000

Euros 2021
3000 tendence

2000

1,303.49
1000

278.19
0 0 reduction of
0 20 40 60 80 100 emissions (%)

Figure 3-19 : abatement cost curve fit for gas turbines of Lanzarote power plant in 2012

We can see how the exponential function fit presents an R-squared extremely close to 1.

As we can see in the sub-section on energy generation, thermal energy on the island of
Lanzarote has been produced by diesel engine and gas turbine technologies. Both technologies
have not had the same specific weight in terms of production. Consequently, it would be
logical to calculate the abatement cost curve according to the weighted contribution of the
different technologies.
The following table shows the different abatement technologies with their cost and
percentage of reduction but also with the percentage of reduction over the total emission.

Table 3-29 : NOx abatement technologies considering the reduction over total emissions.
Abatement technologies considering weighted average of the different technologies
reduction of % Reduction over the total
Low-NOX
emissions (%) cost of emission reduction (€/tonne) emission
burners (LNB)
35% 278.19 0.92
GAS TURBINES

reduction of % Reduction over the total

Water/steam
emissions (%) cost of emission reduction (€/tonne) emission
addition
50% 1,303.49 1.31
Selective reduction of % Reduction over the total
catalytic emissions (%) cost of emission reduction (€/tonne) emission
reduction (SCR) 90% 4,690.71 2.36
Low-NOX reduction of % Reduction over the total
combustion emissions (%) cost of emission reduction (€/tonne) emission
concept in 30% 1,045.51 29.21
Exhaust-gas reduction of % Reduction over the total
DIESEL ENGINES

recirculation emissions (%) cost of emission reduction (€/tonne) emission

(EGR) 40% 392.66 38.95
reduction of % Reduction over the total
Water/steam
emissions (%) cost of emission reduction (€/tonne) emission
addition
50% 589.90 48.69
Selective reduction of % Reduction over the total
catalytic emissions (%) cost of emission reduction (€/tonne) emission
reduction (SCR) 95% 637.56 92.50

87
The following table shows the different technologies ranked in order of increasing cost and
cumulative percentage reduction.

Table 3-30 : Different NOx abatement technologies ranked in order of increasing cost and showing the cumulative
percentage reduction.
cost of emission
% Reduction over cumulative %
reduction
the total emission reduction
(€/tonne)
Low-NOX
Gas Turbine 278.19 0.92 0.92
burners (LNB)
Exhaust-gas
Diesel Engine recirculation 392.66 38.95 39.87
(EGR)
Water/steam
Diesel Engine 589.90 48.69 49.61
addition
Selective
Diesel Engine catalytic 637.56 92.50 93.42
reduction
Water/steam
Gas Turbine 1,303.49 1.31 93.82
addition
Selective
catalytic
Gas Turbine 4,690.71 2.36 94.87
reduction
(SCR)

The graphical representation of the different abatement technologies in the different

production technologies (diesel engines and gas turbines) will remain as shown below.

NOx abatement technologies considering the weighted

contribution of the different production technologies at the
Lanzarote thermal power plant in 2012
cost of emission
reduction(€/tonne)
5,000.00
4,690.71
4,500.00

4,000.00

3,500.00
Abatement Nox curve
3,000.00
tendence

2,500.00

2,000.00

1,500.00
1,303.49
1,000.00
637.56
589.90 637.56
500.00 392.66

278.19 reduction of
0.00
emissions (%)
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00

Figure 3-20 : NOx abatement technologies considering the weighted contribution of the different production
technologies at the Lanzarote thermal power plant in 2012.

88
In this case it is not possible to obtain a good cost trend function. This situation is due to the
fact that there is a large distortion between diesel engines and gas turbines in terms of the
emission reduction of each and the cost difference.
Gas turbines only account for 2.36% of the potential reduction, but the most expensive
abatement technique is 735.73% more expensive than the most expensive diesel engine
technique.
The most reasonable solution, for economic reasons, would be to define the cost function for
the Lanzarote plant in 2012 as the logarithmic adjustment function of diesel engines, because
diesel emissions accounted for 97.37% of the total NOx emissions from electricity generation.

Accordingly to the cost function (3.2) in section 3, the tax assigned to pollutant NOx (in Euro
2021), will look as follows:

𝑇 = 195.81 ∗ ln(𝛼 ) − 183.55

Where,
𝛼 : Percentage of NOx abatement (expressed as 1 to 100), the cost of which is to be
internalised and using this expression only for NOx emission from diesel engines.

Given that this is a logarithmic expression and that none of the reduction techniques offers a
reduction of less than 35%, it is advisable to use this function for reductions of 20% or more,
otherwise the function will not be representative of reality.

Other possibility would be to define the cost function by assigning different emission reduction
rates to each of the different power generation technologies, according to their emission
abatement cost and the percentage reduction over the total emission shown in table 3-27. In
this case:
According to the cost function (3.2) in section 3, the tax assigned to pollutant NOx (in Euro
2021), will look as follows:

𝑇 = (195.81 ∗ ln(𝛼 ) − 183.55)

∗ . ∗ ∗
𝑇 = (116.54 ∗ 𝑒 )

Where,

𝑇 : The tax assigned to pollutant NOx from diesel engines

𝑇 ∗ : The tax assigned to pollutant NOx from gas turbines
𝛼 : Percentage of NOx abatement (expressed as 1 to 100) in diesel engines technology, the
cost of which is to be internalised.
𝛼 ∗ : Percentage of NOx abatement (expressed as 1 to 100) in turbine gas technology, the cost
of which is to be internalised.

89
As in the previous expression, given that this is an aggregate expression with logarithmic and
exponential functions and that none of the reduction techniques offers a reduction of less than
35%, it is advisable to use this cost function for reductions of 20% or more, otherwise the
function will not be representative of reality.

3.5.2 Estimation of the abatement cost curve for PM

 Abatement technologies considered in Diesel engines:

 Fuel choice

This abatement measure refers to the content of ash or metals in the fuel. This has not been
has been considered in our methodology due to the nature of the fuel used in our scenario.
According to PRTR (Pollutant Release and Transfer Register) data, the fuel used in our scenario
is as shown below.

 Fuel oil: 0.67 (%S); 87.17 (%C)

 Diesel: 0.08 (%S); 86.51 (% C)

Taken into account the type of engines and the fuel used at the Lanzarote plant, we consider
that t is not realistic to consider this abatement measure.

 Electrostatic precipitator (ESP)

Electrostatic precipitators operate such that particles are charged and separated under the
influence of an electrical field. When passing through the flue-gas, the charged ions collide
with, and attach themselves to fly ash particles suspended in the gas. The electrical field forces
the charged particles out of the gas stream towards the grounded plates, where they collect in
a layer [98].

The general performance of an ESP is shown in the table below.

Table 3-31 : General performance of an ESP
Removal efficiency (%) Operating
Technique Configuration
< 1 μm < 2 μm < 5 μm < 10 μm temperature

Electrostatic 80-220 °C Cold ESP

precipitator >96.5 >98.3 >99.95 >99.95
(ESP) 300-450 °C Hot ESP
Source: Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for Large Combustion Plants

90
The UK has established indicative capital costs for ESPs of GBP 25/kWe and indicative
operating costs of GBP 0.0003/kWe (1999 prices) across all capacity ranges [98].
The present value in 2021 of these costs will now have to be calculated. For this purpose we
have used the “inflation calculator” of the Bank of England [107].
The cost of this abatement technique, expressed in GBP 2021 is, 38.67£/KWe as a capital cost
and 0.000464£/KWe as an operating cost.
This amount must now be expressed in Euros. For this purpose, we have used an official
website of the European Union[103].
The cost of this abatement technique, expressed in € 2021 is, 42.82€/KWe as a capital cost and
0.00051€/KWe as an operating cost.
In our scenario we will assume a reduction rate of 95% in all particle size ranges.
The capital and operating cost of Electrostatic Precipitator technology in the different EGUs in
our scenario will be as shown in the following table, depending on engine power.

Table 3-32 : Cost of Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) technology in the different EGUs

Cost of Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) technology in the different EGUs installed in the thermal power plant
“Punta Grande” (Lanzarote) on 31th of December 2012

Operational
Power TSP Capital cost
Capital cost Operationalal cost at each reduction of
EGU (Mw) emissions at each EGU
per Kw cost per Kw EGU 95% emissions
(tonnes) (€ 2021)
(€ 2021)
Diesel-1 7.52 11.38 42.82 0.00051 322,006.40 3.84 10.81
Diesel-2 7.52 18.42 42.82 0.00051 322,006.40 3.84 17.50
Diesel-3 7.52 18.28 42.82 0.00051 322,006.40 3.84 17.37
Diesel-4 15.50 92.85 42.82 0.00051 663,710.00 7.91 88.21
Diesel-5 15.50 92.24 42.82 0.00051 663,710.00 7.91 87.62
Diesel-6 24.00 122.48 42.82 0.00051 1,027,680.00 12.24 116.35
Diesel-7 18.00 103.47 42.82 0.00051 770,760.00 9.18 98.30
Diesel-8 18.00 124.31 42.82 0.00051 770,760.00 9.18 118.10
Diesel-9 18.00 110.80 42.82 0.00051 770,760.00 9.18 105.26
Diesel-10 18.00 118.14 42.82 0.00051 770,760.00 9.18 112.23
Total 6,404,159.20 76.28 771.76
From this data, we can estimate the operational cost of each tonne reduced with this
technique using the following calculation.

76.28 0.099 €
= (31)
771.76 𝑇𝑆𝑃 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒

 Bag filter

Bag filters is a method to remove particles (especially fly ash) from the flue-gas of industrial
combustion plant. A bag filter unit consists of one or more isolated compartments containing
rows of bag filter bags or tubes. Dust-laden gas passes up (usually) along the surface of the bags
then radially through the fabric [98]

31
Expressed in 2021 EUR.

91
The general performance of bag filters is shown in the table below.
Table 3-33 : General performance f bag filters
Removal efficiency (%) Operating
Technique
< 1 μm < 2 μm < 5 μm < 10 μm temperature

150 °C
(polyester)
Bag Filter >99.6 >99.6 >99.9 >99.95
260 °C
(fibreglass)
Source: Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for Large Combustion Plants

The UK has established indicative capital costs for bag filters of GBP 10/kWe and indicative
operating costs of GBP 0.0011/kWe (1999 prices) across all capacity ranges [98].
The present value in 2021 of these costs will now have to be calculated. For this purpose we
have used the “inflation calculator” of the Bank of England [107].
The cost of this abatement technique, expressed in GBP 2021 is, 15.47£/KWe as a capital cost
and 0.001702£/KWe as an operating cost.
This amount must now be expressed in Euros. For this purpose, we have used an official
website of the European Union[103].
The cost of this abatement technique, expressed in € 2021 is, 17.13€/KWe as a capital cost and
0.00188€/KWe as an operating cost.
In our scenario we will assume a reduction rate of 95% in all particle size ranges.
The capital and operating cost of “Bag Filter” technology in the different EGUs in our scenario
will be as shown in the following table, depending on engine power.

Table 3-34 : Cost of “Bag Filter” technology in the different EGUs

Cost of "Bag Filter" technology in the different EGUs installed in the thermal power plant “Punta Grande”
(Lanzarote) on 31th of December 2012
TSP Capital cost Operational cost reduction
Capital cost Operationalal
EGU Power (Mw) emissions at each EGU at each EGU of 95%
per Kw cost per Kw
(tonnes) (€ 2021) (€ 2021) emissions
Diesel-1 7.52 11.38 17.31 0.00188 130,171.20 14.14 10.81
Diesel-2 7.52 18.42 17.31 0.00188 130,171.20 14.14 17.50
Diesel-3 7.52 18.28 17.31 0.00188 130,171.20 14.14 17.37
Diesel-4 15.50 92.85 17.31 0.00188 268,305.00 29.14 88.21
Diesel-5 15.50 92.24 17.31 0.00188 268,305.00 29.14 87.62
Diesel-6 24.00 122.48 17.31 0.00188 415,440.00 45.12 116.35
Diesel-7 18.00 103.47 17.31 0.00188 311,580.00 33.84 98.30
Diesel-8 18.00 124.31 17.31 0.00188 311,580.00 33.84 118.10
Diesel-9 18.00 110.80 17.31 0.00188 311,580.00 33.84 105.26
Diesel-10 18.00 118.14 17.31 0.00188 311,580.00 33.84 112.23
Total 2,588,883.60 281.17 771.76
From this data, we can estimate the operational cost of each tonne reduced with this
technique using the following calculation.

281.17 0.36 €
= (32)
771.76 𝑇𝑆𝑃 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒

92
Although capital costs of bag filters are quite low, maintenance costs are higher than ESP
technology, as the filter material has to be changed every two to five years. The minimum
expense of the filter change is approximately 10 % of the investment cost [98].
On the other hand, the use of this technique is not as extended as ESP for technical reasons.
We have been in contact with MAN B&W engines (the types of diesel engines used in the
Lanzarote plant) and have been told that "MAN B&W engines do not apply bag filters - due to
the variation of back pressure and the risk of fire".
For all these reasons, and considering also the extremely similar efficiency of both techniques
(ESP and bag filter), we can conclude that ESP is the most common and advantageous
technology for TSP abatement.
As we only have two abatement techniques, both with almost identical efficiency, with
different prices and application possibilities, it is obvious that it does not make sense to
develop an abatement cost curve for particles. Consequently, for this pollutant, we will have a
fixed cost per tonne abated.
In this case the price will be defined by the electrostatic precipitator (ESP) technology.

The graphical representation of electrostatic precipitator technology (ESP) for PM abatement

is shown below.

Electrostatic precipitator technology (ESP) for PM

cost of emission
reduction in Diesel Engines
reduction(€/tonne) 0.120

0.100 0.099

0.080

0.060

0.040

0.020

0.000 reduction of
0.000
0 20 40 60 80 100 emissions (%)

Figure 3-21 : Electrostatic precipitator technology (ESP) for PM abatement in Diesel Engines.

In this case, the cost function is constant irrespective to the emission abatement, because only
one technique will be considered. Therefore, the cost function obtained for the PM abatement
is a horizontal line.

Accordingly to the cost function (3.2) in section 3, the tax assigned to pollutant PM (in Euro
2021), will look as follows:

32
Expressed in 2021 EUR.

93
 𝑇 = 0.099 ∗ α

Where,
𝛼 : Percentage of abatement (in this case the percentage shall be expressed in a range from 0
to 1), the cost of which is to be internalised.

3.5.3 Estimated cost for CO2.

With carbon dioxide, the calculation of the cost to be internalised will be different from the
other pollutants.
On the one hand, when calculating co2 from thermal production, there is a stoichiometric
relationship between emissions and fuel consumption. It is obvious that, for efficiency reasons,
abatement techniques are used to minimise fuel consumption and increase efficiency. On the
other hand there is a market for CO2 emissions, the ETS33 (Emissions Trading System). It is the
world's first major carbon market and remains the biggest one [108].
For both reasons, the tax on carbon dioxide emissions is defined by the price of emission
allowances in the ETS.
The graph below shows the evolution of the price of emission allowances over the last ten
years [109].

Figure 3-22 : evolution of the price of emission allowances over the last ten years.

It is not the aim of this research to analyse the ETS, we only focus on the implication of the
current system on the estimation of the emissions cost function. In the graph above we can

33
The EU ETS is a cornerstone of the EU's policy to combat climate change and its key tool for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions cost-effectively. [108].

94
see the increasing value of the allowance in recent years. This situation is due to the current
EU ETS rules, which change depending on the stage of implementation.

The following figure shows, in graphical form, the different stages of the EU ETS and their
periods of implementation. This figure is taken from the “EU ETS handbook” [110].

Figure 3-23 : Different stages of the EU ETS and their periods of implementation.

The system was first introduced in 2005. Since its initiation, the EU ETS has been expanding,
both geographically (number of countries) and in terms of the sectors involved, and has
undergone several changes since then. Power plants and other combustion installations above
20 Mw have been included in the EU ETS since the first phase. The implementation of the
system has been divided into different trading periods over time, known as phases.
In phase 3 of the EU ETS, participants who do not comply with their obligation to surrender
allowances under the EU ETS are fined €100 per tCO2, adjusted with the EU inflation rate from
2013 onwards, for which they do not surrender an allowance. This fine is imposed by the
relevant Member State authority. In addition, non-compliance is added to the compliance
target of the following year. In other words, any non-compliance is not written off, but must
be addressed in addition to the next year’s obligation. The ETS Directive leaves to the Member
States discretion with respect to the detailed design of the rules on enforcement measures
[110].
The penalty included in phase 3 explains the increase in the price of allowances in recent
years shown in Figure 3-22.
The current phase of the EU ETS began in 2021 and will last until 2030. In addition, on 14 July
2021, the European Commission adopted a set of legislative proposals setting out how it
intends to achieve climate neutrality in the EU by, including the intermediate target of an at
least 55% net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 [111].
However, the design of this phase is not yet finalised, and the EU is rushing to reach an
agreement on the EU ETS directive in time for 2023. The European Union has entered phase 4
of its emissions trading system and is rushing to reach agreement on the revised directive so
that the amendments can enter into force in 2023 [112].
Under these conditions, it seems reasonable that the maximum price to be paid by participants
for an allocation is the penalty.
Accordingly, this price will be €100 (in 2013). As all our prices are set at 2021 value, this
amount will need to be updated with EU inflation. The penalty value is €108.45 (in 2021) [113].
Accordingly to the cost function (3.2) in section 3, the tax assigned to pollutant CO2 (in Euro
2021), will look as follows:

𝑇 = 108.45 ∗ α

95
Where,
𝛼 : Percentage of penalty decided to be applied (in this case the percentage shall be expressed
in a range from 0 to 1), the cost of which is to be internalised.

3.5.4 Cost function according to the different scenarios.

According to the calculation developed in the previous subsections, the cost function (3.2)
shown in section 3, in its most general expression and expressed in €2021, will be as follows:

. ∙ ∗ ∗
𝐸 = 108.45 ∙ 𝛼 ∙ 𝐸 + (195.81 ∙ ln(𝛼 ) − 183.55) ∙ 𝐸 + 116.54 ∙ 𝑒 ∙𝐸 + 0.099 ∙
α ∙𝐸 𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (3.3)

Where,
𝛼 : Percentage of penalty decided to be applied (in this case the percentage shall be expressed
in a range from 0 to 1), the cost of which is to be internalised.

𝛼 : Percentage of NOx abatement (expressed as 1 to 100) in diesel engines technology, the

cost of which is to be internalised. If the percentage of NOx reduction in diesel engines is not
considered, the term should be deleted. A zero should never be assigned as a value for this
parameter.

𝛼 ∗ : Percentage of NOx abatement (expressed as 1 to 100) in turbine gas technology, the cost
of which is to be internalised. If the percentage of NOx reduction in gas turbines is not
considered, the term should be deleted. A zero should never be assigned as a value for this
parameter.

𝛼 : Percentage of abatement (in this case the percentage shall be expressed in a range from 0
to 1), the cost of which is to be internalised.

In the case of the parameters 𝛼 and𝛼 ∗ given that these are presented in logarithmic and
exponential functions and that none of the abatement techniques offers a reduction of less
than 35%, it is advisable to use values greater than 20, otherwise the function will not be
representative of reality.
On the other hand,
ECO2: is the CO2 emission in tonnes.
ENOx: is the NOx emission in tonnes, weighted by diesel engine emissions over total emissions in
power generation (97.37% according data from table 3-16).
∗
E : is the NOx emission in tonnes, weighted by gas turbines emissions over total emissions
in power generation (2.63% according data from table 3-16).
EPM: is the particulate emission in tonnes.
which are obtained from the road transport study.

96
It is important to note that the different emissions of the petrol and diesel fleet will result in a
different emission tax for each fuel.

In the case of particulate emissions, only particulates from the exhaust gases shall be
considered, as there are other particulates from brakes, tyres, etc. Therefore, only particulates
generated directly from the combustion process shall be considered.

The different road transport emissions from each fuel are shown in the table below.

Table 3-35 : Road transport emissions from different fuels

PST exhaust emission
CO2 emission (tonnes) NOx emission (tonnes)
(tonnes)
ECO2 ENOx
EPM

Petrol Diesel Petrol Diesel Petrol Diesel

117,949.284 139,594.035 197.496 610.722 1.389 32.845

According to the methodology developed, the emission tax on petrol, in its most general
expression and expressed in €2021, will be as follows

𝐸 = 108.45 ∙ 𝛼 ∙ 117,949.84 + (195.81 ∙ ln(𝛼 ) − 183.55) ∙ 197.496 ∙ 0.9737 + 116.54 ∙

∙ ∗)
𝑒 . ∙ 197.496 ∙ 0.0263 + 0.099 ∙ α ∙ 1.389 𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (3.4)

According to the methodology developed, the emission tax on diesel, in its most general
expression and expressed in €2021, will be as follows

𝐸 = 108.45 ∙ 𝛼 ∙ 139,594.035 + (195.81 ∙ ln(𝛼 ) − 183.55) ∙ 610.722 ∙ 0.9737 + 116.54 ∙

∙ ∗)
𝑒 . ∙ 610.722 ∙ 0.0263 + 0.099 ∙ α ∙ 32.845 𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (3.5)

The different taxes per tonne of pollutant with different values of αi (abatement percentages
for each of the pollutants) is shown below.

Table 3-36 : different taxes per tonne of pollutant with different values of αi
α1 TNOx α3
TCO2 * TPM
(value α 2=α2 (195.81*ln(α2 )-183.55)*0.9737+ (value from
(108.45*α1) *
(0.099*α3)
from 0 to 1) (116.54*e^(0.0537*α2 ))*0.0263 0 to 1)

0.20 21.69 0.20 401.415793 0.20 0.0198

0.40 43.38 0.40 550.860261 0.40 0.0396
0.90 97.605 0.90 1064.149289 0.90 0.0891

97
Using equations 3.4 and 3.5 and the data in table 3-5, we can calculate the emission tax to be
applied to each tonne of petrol and diesel. Emission tax depends on the different αi
(abatement percentages for each of the pollutants).
The results are as follows

Table 3-37 : Emission tax to be applied to each tonne of petrol and diesel (€2021).
*
α1 α 2=α2 α3
Petrol Diesel Petrol Diesel
(value from (value from (value from 0
Etax Etax Etax (CO2) Etax (CO2)
0 to 1) 20 to 100) to 1)
0.20 20.00 0.20 72.26223885 75.82963416 70.09025745 70.14975744
0.20 20.00 0.40 72.26223961 75.82964923 70.09025745 70.14975744
0.20 20.00 0.90 72.26224149 75.8296869 70.09025745 70.14975744
0.20 40.00 0.20 73.07085301 77.94420942 70.09025745 70.14975744
0.20 40.00 0.40 73.07085376 77.94422449 70.09025745 70.14975744
0.20 40.00 0.90 73.07085564 77.94426216 70.09025745 70.14975744
0.20 90.00 0.20 75.84815738 85.20702947 70.09025745 70.14975744
0.20 90.00 0.40 75.84815813 85.20704454 70.09025745 70.14975744
0.20 90.00 0.90 75.84816001 85.2070822 70.09025745 70.14975744
0.40 20.00 0.20 142.3524963 145.9793916 140.1805149 140.2995149
0.40 20.00 0.40 142.3524971 145.9794067 140.1805149 140.2995149
0.40 20.00 0.90 142.3524989 145.9794443 140.1805149 140.2995149
0.40 40.00 0.20 143.1611105 148.0939669 140.1805149 140.2995149
0.40 40.00 0.40 143.1611112 148.0939819 140.1805149 140.2995149
0.40 40.00 0.90 143.1611131 148.0940196 140.1805149 140.2995149
0.40 90.00 0.20 145.9384148 155.3567869 140.1805149 140.2995149
0.40 90.00 0.40 145.9384156 155.356802 140.1805149 140.2995149
0.40 90.00 0.90 145.9384175 155.3568396 140.1805149 140.2995149
0.90 20.00 0.20 317.5781399 321.3537852 315.4061585 315.6739085
0.90 20.00 0.40 317.5781407 321.3538003 315.4061585 315.6739085
0.90 20.00 0.90 317.5781426 321.3538379 315.4061585 315.6739085
0.90 40.00 0.20 318.3867541 323.4683605 315.4061585 315.6739085
0.90 40.00 0.40 318.3867548 323.4683755 315.4061585 315.6739085
0.90 40.00 0.90 318.3867567 323.4684132 315.4061585 315.6739085
0.90 90.00 0.20 321.1640585 330.7311805 315.4061585 315.6739085
0.90 90.00 0.40 321.1640592 330.7311956 315.4061585 315.6739085
0.90 90.00 0.90 321.1640611 330.7312332 315.4061585 315.6739085
The CO2 tax has been shown separately, just to show the very high specific weight of this
pollutant in the total.
The aim of this research is to calculate an emission tax that does not cause perverse affects
between the different pollutants. In this sense, it is interesting to know the relationship
obtained between the taxation of each fuel. The tax to be applied must be contextualised in a
political context (according to purchasing power and other variables) but according to the
calculated ratio.
Considering a 90% abatement for all pollutants considered, and according to the fuel density
given in table 3-8, the following table shows the taxes per 1000 litres of each fuel and the ratio
“diesel emission tax/petrol emission tax”.

98
Table 3-38 : ratio “diesel emission tax/petrol emission tax”
α1 =α2=α2*=α3=0.9

Petrol Diesel
Ratio
Etax Etax
Diesel Etax/Petrol Etax
€/1000 L €/1000 L

Considering
240.07 275.33 1.1469
CO2

Excluding CO2 4.30 12.54 2.9124

At this point it is important to note that the important result is not the calculated Etax,
depending on the country to be applied it will be very high or very low, the important element
will be the ratio obtained between the taxation of each fuel.
Analysing the results, it is interesting to note that the huge emissions of CO2 compared to the
other pollutants (shown in table 3-36) make CO2 decide the final proportion between the taxes
to be applied to each fuel. Even when the estimated prices of other pollutants are higher, as in
the case of NOx (shown in table 3-37).
Due to lower CO2 emissions per km in diesel engines, focusing on CO2 will encourage diesel
engines and consequently emissions of other pollutants.
Consequently, we consider that will be necessary to take out CO2 from the tax emission. As we
can said in section 1 (general introduction), CO2 does not cause any damage to health. This gas
has an important effect in global warming (it’s the principal cause) but not has any implication
in air quality. As we have seen in chapter II, fuel taxes are a very effective instrument of
climate policy and will therefore also have an impact on CO2 emissions. But we believe that air
quality must be a priority.

3.6 environmental costs and taxes currently applied. Comparison with the
methodology proposed.

In this section we will compare our research and results with currently applied taxes and other
calculated costs for the pollutants we have considered in our research.

3.6.1 Taxes currently applied.

The first comparison will be with the current taxes applied on 1,000 litre of petrol and diesel in
different European countries. The data available in the EEA in 2019 [114] is shown bellow. We
have added the ratio "diesel tax/petrol tax" to make the comparison with our results.

99
Table 3-39 : taxes applied to 1000 litre of petrol and diesel in different European countries (2019)
ratio
Country Petrol Diesel
Diesel/Petrol
Austria 482 397 0.824
Belgium 600.16 600.16 1.000
Bulgaria 363.02 330.3 0.910
Croatia 519.31 411.68 0.793
Cyprus 429 400 0.932
Czechia 498.35 425 0.853
Denmark 625.7 425.85 0.681
Estonia 563 493 0.876
Finland 702.5 530.2 0.755
France 682.9 594 0.870
Germany 654.5 470.4 0.719
Greece 700 410 0.586
Hungary 379.75 349.35 0.920
Ireland 587.71 479.02 0.815
Italy 728.4 617.4 0.848
Latvia 476 372 0.782
Lithuania 434.43 347 0.799
Luxembourg 462.09 335 0.725
Malta 549.38 472.4 0.860
Netherlands 787.73 495.69 0.629
Poland 390.97 343.17 0.878
Portugal 642.58 485.68 0.756
Romania 437.43 406.81 0.930
Slovakia 514 368 0.716
Slovenia 546.77 468.99 0.858
Spain 503.92 379 0.752
Sweden 648.6 456.53 0.704
United Kingdom 650.55 650.55 1.000

As mentioned in the previous section, the important element to take into account will be the
diesel/petrol ratio. In any case this ratio is higher than unity, which produces just the opposite
effect to our calculations.
We can conclude that the taxes currently applied favour diesel over petrol, promoting poorer
air quality and harming the health of citizens.

3.6.2 Cost of emissions according the damage

When we talk about damage, we have to take into account the different types of damage. In
this sense, damage has been classified into damage to health, damage to crops and forests,
damage to building materials and damage to the ecosystem. In 2011 and 2014 the European
Environment Agency (EEA) published two reports assessing in monetary terms the cost of

100
damage to health and the environment caused by air pollutant emissions from industrial
facilities officially reported to the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR34).
This reports has been actualised in a report published in 2020, “costs of air pollution from
European facilities 2008-2017”. In this section we summarise this report.
The approach couples reported emission data with existing standard policy tools and methods
to determine the related environmental damage costs and externalities. Scientific modelling
frameworks and economic methods are applied for estimating the impacts and damage costs
of emissions of regulated air pollutants, such as those developed under the European
Commission's Clean Air for Europe programme (CAFE) and partly updated under the HRAPIE
(Health risks of air pollution in Europe) project (WHO35, 2013) [80].
The scheme of the methodology followed is as shown bellow.

Figure 3-24 : impact pathway approach in relation to pollutant emissions. (EEA)

It is important remark that the dispersion phase depends on atmospheric and orographic
conditions.
Two indicators with different results can be chosen for estimating health damage. Both are
explained below:

VSL: the value of a statistical life. VSL is an estimate of damage costs based on how much
people are willing to pay for a reduction in their risk of dying from adverse health conditions.
This method is based in “reveled preferences36”.

34
E-PRTR: European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register. The E-PRTR provides public access to key
environmental data from industrial facilities in EU Member States, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway,
Switzerland, Serbia and the UK. The E-PRTR is updated annually with data reported by some 35 000
industrial facilities covering 65 economic activities. This data includes 91 key pollutants such as heavy
metals, pesticides, greenhouse gases and dioxins [115].
35
WHO: World Health Organization
36
Revealed preference is an economic theory regarding an individual's consumption patterns, which
asserts that the best way to measure consumer preferences is to observe their purchasing behavior.
Revealed preference theory works on the assumption that consumers are rational [116].

101
VOLY: the value of a life year. VOLY is an estimate of damage costs based upon the loss of life
expectancy (expressed as potential years of life lost). This measure takes into account the age
at which deaths occur.

The lower estimate is the one using VOLY, the higher the one using VSL. Damage to crops and
forests and to building materials is also estimated. For the pollutants considered in our
research, damage to health is the most important.
The following figure shows the relative share of damage to health, crops & forests and building
materials in the overall European average damage costs per tonne of pollutant from main air
pollutants (VOLY estimate) (note: Y-axis cut off at 90 %).

Figure 3-25 : Share of damage to health, crops & forests and building materials in the overall European average
damage costs per tonne (VOLY estimate). (EEA).

Note that if the VSL estimate is used, the percentage of health damage will be even higher.
To conclude this section, the following table shows the overall marginal costs of the main air
pollutants, including damage to ecosystems in the different European countries.

102
Table 3-40 : Overall marginal damage costs of main air pollutants (impacts on health, crops & forests, ecosystem
and material damage in €2019). EEA.

103
We can see how there are an enormous variability in the marginal cost under this methods.
On one hand, the pollutant emissions has been taken from “European Pollutant Release and
Transfer Register (E-PRTR)” when there are others sources as transport (road, maritime and
aviation) that not has been taken into account. It is important remark that in the case of
maritime and aviation transport, there are also the international transport. In consequence the
cost of damage has been passed on to a part of the emissions. On the other hand, damage will
depends also to the atmospheric and orographic conditions in combination with emissions.
It is also important to note that the estimation of the VSL depends on the consumer's
willingness to pay, so the country's GDP is another element to take into account.

3.7 Conclusion of Chapter III

Fuel consumption as a calibration element has produced a robust model in road transport in
which fuel consumption has been used as a calibration element. The basis for this statement is
the percentage deviation between the fuel consumption estimated by the programme and the
fuel consumption entered as data (-0.25% for petrol and +3.149 for diesel). The larger
deviation in the case of diesel is justified because the data entered correspond to the sales of
petrol stations and some transport companies (which use diesel) have their own supply points.

The COPERT results show that the "light commercial" category is the most polluting, although
it only represents 22.53% of the fleet. This category is the second highest emitter of CO2
(35.14%), the main emitter of NOx with 44.33% of the total and also the main emitter of PM
(57.28% of PM2.5; 53.10% of PM10 and 66.34% of exhaust PM). It is interesting remark that
CO2 emissions has been in urban mode driving
The "driving mode emissions" indicate in which type of area these emissions occur. Urban
areas have been the most affected in CO2 emissions and very affected in NOx emissions with
37.29% and PM emissions with percentages above 32 to 35 (depending on the type of PM).
This result is in line with the island's economic model, in which the tertiary sector of the
economy stands out (84%).
According to this result, a logistics plan to reduce emissions from the “Light Commercial
Vehicles” category would be necessary, accompanied by measures to promote lower emission
fuels for this vehicle category (gasoline, LPG, hybrid technologies, electrification, etc).
To reduce CO2 emissions, the most effective measure would be to increase public transport. It
is important to be clear that electrification will be a good option to improve air quality, but it
implies a delocalisation of emissions and is therefore not the best option to reduce CO2
emissions.

Based on the "mutatis mutandis" principle, it has been possible to develop a model for the
taxation of road transport fuels based on the abatement cost in the electricity generation
sector. The model obtained provides the correct diesel/petrol tax ratio for the application of
the fuel tax in order to avoid perverse effects. However, this research shows that CO2 should
not be incorporated into the fuel taxation model. Its emissions are huge compared to other
pollutants and would decide the final proportion between the taxes to be applied to each fuel.

104
This situation favours diesel, due to the lower CO2 emissions per km in diesel engines, which
have higher pollutant emissions that are harmful to health.
Consequently, we believe that it will be necessary to take CO2 out of the emissions tax, and use
other policies to reduce it (e.g. promoting public transport, intermodality, etc.).

In the final section we have compared the result of this research with the current situation.
Current fuel taxes are arbitrary and use a diesel/petrol ratio contrary to our recommendation
and the "polluter pays" principle. This situation results in diesel over petrol, which worsens air
quality and harms citizens' health.
We have also made a brief analysis of the emission costs in terms of damages. On the one
hand, the costs are completely different from those in our study, which is reasonable
considering that they are based on air quality and not on emission. On the other hand, we
have seen how these costs are highly dependent on the considerations taken into account in
estimating them (e.g. the difference between VSL and VOLY estimation). They also depend to a
large extent on GDP, atmospheric and orographic conditions, emissions taken into account in
the model, etc.
Therefore, we consider that this type of cost estimation is very useful for other complementary
policies (e.g. design of low emission zones, etc.), but not for calculating an emission tax to be
applied to each type of fuel.

105
Chapter IV. Summary and global conclusion.

In this last chapter we will show the conclusions of the different analyses carried out in this
research, relating the partial conclusions pointed out in the different chapters. We will also
place special emphasis on the different applications of our research.

4. Global Conclusion.

The aim of this research is to develop a methodology for the economic valuation of road
transport emissions, which will be applied as a tool for calculating emission taxes in fuel prices.
According to the polluter pays principle.
In any case, our calculations do not have to be the tax to be applied. We can use our values as
a proportion of the values to be applied. This would avoid distortions or adverse effects as is
the case with taxes not directly related to emissions.
The main problem in developing this research has been the availability and quality of data.
There is certain "opacity" in obtaining the costs of the different BATs and updating these costs
is an added difficulty. For example, the SCR, being a technological element, its updated price
does not necessarily correspond to inflation. On the other hand, its operation will depend on
the costs of urea and other raw materials.
However, it is important to underline that we are developing and demonstrating a new
methodology to internalise the cost of emissions. Consequently, the quality of the data may
improve the results obtained with this methodology, but does not necessarily call it into
question.
Some people might mistakenly think that emissions from road transport are offset by
electrification. Chapter I has shown what the reality is in a globalised world, which means that
in the coming years, internal combustion engines will continue to be used in most of the
world's roads. On the other hand, electrification implies a delocalisation of emissions. In this
sense, taking into account the different electricity generation mixes, it would be interesting to
know the real CO2 emissions of electric cars in different scenarios and contrast them with the
environmental policies applied.
Another reflection of this research would be on the electric car using electricity produced by
nuclear energy and the use of bio-fuel (both sources are considered zero emission). In the case
of nuclear energy, the externality of radioactive waste will have to be assessed. In the case of
bio-fuel, the opportunity cost of land use.
In chapter II we have shown the different environmental policies and how emission taxes are
considered the first best instrument to correct emission externalities. In this respect, in
chapter III, we have developed our methodology on the basis of the abatement cost of
electricity production. The idea is to apply the "mutatis mutandis" principle in environmental
policy in the same way as the "polluter pays" principle was introduced in the 1970s.
We have estimated a cost function that allows us to obtain, depending on the reduction
percentage considered, an emission tax for each type of diesel and, more importantly, a ratio
between the tax on diesel and the tax on petrol. The idea is to use this ratio as a tool to avoid
the perverse effect on the market.

106
It is important remark that according our research we consider CO2 should not be incorporated
into the fuel taxation model. Their emissions are huge compared to other pollutants so will
distorsion the final results.
In this sense, currently taxes are arbitrary and encourage diesel, this situation contributes to
have worse air quality and provokes health problems in urban areas. In this sense we consider
that cover road transport by ETS in 2026 as propose “fit 55 package” is a wrong measure that
will worsen air quality and the health of citizens.
According to our research, the appropriate policy would be to apply an emissions tax according
to a ratio (from 2 until 3) between the diesel tax and the petrol tax and to accompany this
measure with policies to promote public transport, freight transport logistics and intermodality
in long-distance transport. As we have seen in Chapter I, electrification is not necessarily the
best way to reduce CO2 emissions and in some countries, depending on the electricity
generation mix, even more CO2 emissions would be produced.
We therefore see emissions and air quality as two different perspectives on the same issue.
They are complementary and not mutually exclusive. Consequently, the problem should be
addressed with different and coordinated policies depending on the nature of the problem to
be solved.

Our methodology has the innovation of being an objective methodology, based on the
emission and the limit considered for the emission. The values obtained will allow to be the
basis of weighting between the different pollutants.
The application of the mutatis mutandis principle will be useful for estimating the externalities
of shipping emissions. In this case, the comparison would be easier for the present study, as in
some cases the engines in shipping are exactly the same as those used in power generation.
The difference in abatement techniques is cost and space availability.
An application on aviation emissions would also be possible. In this case, the technical
comparison should be between aviation and gas turbines. In fact, General Electric is one of the
leading manufacturers of both similar technologies.

107
References

[1] What is COP26 and why is it important? | Chatham House – International Affairs Think
Tank n.d. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/09/what-cop26-and-why-it-
important?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI1ti7wbyl9QIV8ZBoCR3PqQ4wEAAYAiAAEgJW1fD_BwE
(accessed January 9, 2022).
[2] Automotive industry n.d. https://single-market-
economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/automotive-industry_en (accessed April 21, 2023).
[3] ACEA_Pocket_Guide_2022-2023.pdf n.d.
[4] Press corner | European Commission n.d.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/EL/IP_17_238 (accessed April 22,
2023).
[5] Air Toxics Emissions EPA’s Strategy for Reducing .pdf n.d.
[6] CELEX_32006R0166_EN_TXT.pdf n.d.
[7] File:Greenhouse gas emissions, analysis by source sector, EU-28, 1990 and 2015
(percentage of total) new.png - Statistics Explained n.d.
[8] Emissions of air pollutants from transport — European Environment Agency n.d.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/transport-emissions-of-air-
pollutants-8/transport-emissions-of-air-pollutants-8 (accessed January 3, 2022).
[9] Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) n.d. https://www.nti.org/education-
center/treaties-and-regimes/commonwealth-independent-states-cis/ (accessed May 23,
2023).
[10] 1-02062020-AP-EN.pdf n.d.
[11] Projections by continent - World Projections - Data - Ined - Institut national d’études
démographiques n.d. https://www.ined.fr/en/everything_about_population/data/world-
projections/projections-by-continent/ (accessed August 20, 2023).
[12] Mercator Misconceptions: Clever Map Shows the True Size of Countries n.d.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mercator-map-true-size-of-countries/ (accessed August
20, 2023).
[13] Stern DI. The Environmental Kuznets Curve: n.d.
[14] CO2_emissions_of_all_world_countries_2022_report.pdf n.d.
[15] Glossary | DataBank n.d.
https://databank.worldbank.org/metadataglossary/jobs/series/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.KD
(accessed July 20, 2023).
[16] EU-27: GHG emissions breakdown by sector | Statista n.d.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1325132/ghg-emissions-shares-sector-european-
union-eu/ (accessed July 21, 2023).
[17] Emissions from transport in Europe | ODYSSEE-MURE n.d. https://www.odyssee-
mure.eu/publications/efficiency-by-sector/transport/emissions-from-transport.html
(accessed July 27, 2023).
[18] Electrified rail network in Europe, by country | Statista n.d.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/451522/share-of-the-rail-network-which-is-
electrified-in-europe/ (accessed August 13, 2023).
[19] Energy mix - Wikipedia n.d. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_mix (accessed July 23,
2023).
[20] EU energy in figures: statistical pocketbook 2022. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union; 2022.
[21] Glossary:Country codes - Statistics Explained n.d. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Country_codes (accessed July 23, 2023).

108
[22] How is EU electricity produced and sold? - Consilium n.d.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/how-is-eu-electricity-produced-and-
sold/ (accessed August 14, 2023).
[23] Electricity Mix - Our World in Data n.d. https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix
(accessed August 14, 2023).
[24] European Environment Agency. Energy and environment report 2008. LU: Publications
Office; 2008.
[25] ACEA_progress_report_2021.pdf n.d.
[26] ACEA_Pocket_Guide_2022-2023.pdf n.d.
[27] ACEA-report-vehicles-in-use-europe-2023.pdf n.d.
[28] Delivering the European Green Deal | European Commission n.d.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal/delivering-
european-green-deal_en (accessed August 6, 2021).
[29] 2021-mobility-strategy-and-action-plan.pdf n.d.
[30] Fit for 55 - The EU’s plan for a green transition - Consilium n.d.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/green-deal/fit-for-55-the-eu-plan-for-a-
green-transition/ (accessed August 15, 2023).
[31] Fit for 55 package: Council reaches general approaches relating to emissions reductions
and their social impacts - Consilium n.d.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/06/29/fit-for-55-council-
reaches-general-approaches-relating-to-emissions-reductions-and-removals-and-their-
social-impacts/ (accessed August 15, 2023).
[32] Fit for 55 ‘fails’ to right wrongs of EU’s disastrous biofuels policy | Transport &
Environment n.d. https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/fit-55-
%E2%80%98fails%E2%80%99-right-wrongs-eu%E2%80%99s-disastrous-biofuels-policy
(accessed August 6, 2021).
[33] House or flat: where do you live? - Products Eurostat News - Eurostat n.d.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20210521-1 (accessed
August 17, 2023).
[34] Research-Whitepaper-A-European-EV-Charging-Infrastructure-Masterplan.pdf n.d.
[35] ACEA_Position_Paper-Alternative_Fuels_Infrastructure_Regulation.pdf n.d.
[36] volvo-cars-LCA-report-xc40.pdf n.d.
[37] Norway drops incentives to buy electric cars and sales drop dramatically - The Storiest n.d.
https://thestoriest.com/automobiles/261501.html (accessed August 21, 2023).
[38] Karan P. Japan in the 21st Century: Environment, Economy, and Society. University Press
of Kentucky; 2010.
[39] ELGP1StockD.pdf n.d.
[40] Antrim LN. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. In:
Goodman AE, editor. Dipl. Rec. 1992-1993. 1st ed., Routledge; 2019, p. 189–210.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429310089-10.
[41] Eyskens M, Samaras A, Beregovoy P. TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION n.d.:112.
[42] kpeng.pdf n.d.
[43] CELEX_12002E_TXT_EN_TXT.pdf n.d.
[44] CELEX_32004L0035_EN_TXT.pdf n.d.
[45] CELEX_12012E_TXT_en_TXT.pdf n.d.
[46] Santos G, Behrendt H, Teytelboym A. Part II: Policy instruments for sustainable road
transport. Res Transp Econ 2010;28:46–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2010.03.002.
[47] Tsiakmakis et al. - From NEDC to WLTP effect on the type-approval CO2.pdf n.d.
[48] Mercedes, the greatest deception in Europe’s car fuel economy history - report |
Transport & Environment 2019. https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/mercedes-
greatest-deception-europe%E2%80%99s-car-fuel-economy-history-report (accessed
February 27, 2019).

109
[49] ADAC EcoTest - Fünf Sterne für die Umwelt 2019.
https://www.adac.de/infotestrat/tests/eco-test/default.aspx (accessed February 19,
2019).
[50] Ramírez SÁnchez PP, Ndiaye AB, Martín-Cejas RR. Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVS):
A possible perverse effect generated by Environmental Policies. Int J Transp Dev Integr
2019;3:259–70. https://doi.org/10.2495/TDI-V3-N3-259-270.
[51] Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter (PM) | Particulate Matter (PM)
Pollution | US EPA 2019. https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-
effects-particulate-matter-pm (accessed February 27, 2019).
[52] Santos G, Behrendt H, Maconi L, Shirvani T, Teytelboym A. Part I: Externalities and
economic policies in road transport. Res Transp Econ 2010;28:2–45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2009.11.002.
[53] Sánchez PPR, Ndiaye AB, Martín-Cejas RR. European Environmental Policy for Road
Transport: Analysis of the Perverse Effects Generated and Proposals for a Good Practice
Guide 2020;14:6.
[54] ACEA_Tax_Guide_2020.pdf n.d.
[55] Difference Between Hybrid, Mild Hybrid, BEV and PHEV 2019.
https://www.autotrader.ca/newsfeatures/20180410/types-of-electric-vehicles-explained/
(accessed April 10, 2019).
[56] Global EV Outlook 2017 2017:71.
[57] Government-subsidised plug-in cars may never have been charged - BBC News n.d.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46152853 (accessed February 27, 2019).
[58] Acutt MZ, Dodgson JS. Controlling the environmental impacts of transport: Matching
instruments to objectives. Transp Res Part Transp Environ 1997;2:17–33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(96)00012-0.
[59] Fullerton D, West S. Tax and Subsidy Combinations for the Control of Car Pollution.
National Bureau of Economic Research; 2000. https://doi.org/10.3386/w7774.
[60] Montag J. The simple economics of motor vehicle pollution: A case for fuel tax. Energy
Policy 2015;85:138–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.05.020.
[61] Johnstone N, Karousakis K. Economic incentives to reduce pollution from road transport:
the case for vehicle characteristics taxes. Transp Policy 1999;6:99–108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(99)00011-6.
[62] Rawi YAA, Imlus MH, Yusup Y, Yahya SB. The Optimal Progressive Tax Policy to Reduced
Vehicles Externalities. J Asian Sci Res 2018;8:265–76.
https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.2.2018.88.265.276.
[63] Rendeiro Martín-Cejas R, Pablo Ramírez Sánchez P. Ecological footprint analysis of road
transport related to tourism activity: The case for Lanzarote Island. Tour Manag
2010;31:98–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.01.007.
[64] Pigovian Tax Definition n.d. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pigoviantax.asp
(accessed August 17, 2021).
[65] Cremer H, Gahvari F. Second-best taxation of emissions and polluting goods. vol. 80. 2001.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(00)00086-4.
[66] Verbeek M. Internalisation Measures and Policies for All external Cost of Transport
(IMPACT) n.d.:336.
[67] European Commission - PRESS RELEASES - Press release - Commission warns Germany,
France, Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom of continued air pollution breaches 2019.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-238_en.htm (accessed February 27, 2019).
[68] Knittel y Sandler - 2018 - The Welfare Impact of Second-Best Uniform-Pigouvia.pdf n.d.
[69] Mutatis Mutandis | Definition of Mutatis Mutandis by Merriam-Webster n.d.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mutatis%20mutandis (accessed August 18,
2021).

110
[70] What is shadow price? Definition and meaning - Market Business News n.d.
https://marketbusinessnews.com/financial-glossary/shadow-price-definition-meaning/
(accessed August 18, 2021).
[71] Plan-de-Transporte-y-Movilidad-Sostenible-de-Lanzarote-y-La-Graciosa-
20140429092036154E476d01p00v03-PIMS-Lanzarote.pdf n.d.
[72] IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change n.d. https://www.ipcc.ch/ (accessed
August 22, 2021).
[73] European Environment Agency. EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook
2013: technical guidance to prepare national emission inventories. LU: Publications Office;
2013.
[74] Ntziachristos L, Samaras Z. COPERT III Computer programme to calculate emissions from
road transport n.d.:86.
[75] Overview of Greenhouse Gases | US EPA n.d.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases (accessed February 21,
2022).
[76] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change: handbook. Bonn: UNFCC; 2006.
[77] 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
_V1_1_Ch1_Introduction.pdf n.d.
[78] Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April
2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006Text
with EEA relevance n.d.:36.
[79] 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories_V1_4_Ch4_MethodChoice.pdf n.d.
[80] ETC-ATNI_2020-4_Task-1222_FINAL_v2_17-08-2021.pdf n.d.
[81] EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) | Climate Action n.d.
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en (accessed August 23, 2021).
[82] Basic Information of Air Emissions Factors and Quantification | US EPA n.d.
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/basic-information-air-
emissions-factors-and-quantification (accessed February 9, 2022).
[83] European Environment Agency. - 2019 - EMEPEEA air pollutant emission inventory
guidebook.pdf n.d.
[84] 2012 - Anuario Energético de Canarias 2012.pdf n.d.
[85] Gross electrical output Definition | Law Insider n.d.
https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/gross-electrical-output (accessed February 9,
2022).
[86] AnuarioEnergeticoCanarias-2020.pdf n.d.
[87] 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories_
V2_2_Ch2_Stationary_Combustion.pdf n.d.
[88] Inventario Nacional de Gases de Efecto Invernadero (GEI) n.d.
https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/calidad-y-evaluacion-ambiental/temas/sistema-espanol-
de-inventario-sei-/inventario-gases-efecto-invernadero/ (accessed March 8, 2022).
[89] 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories_V2_1_Ch1_Introduction.pdf n.d.
[90] Nielsen et al. - EMEPEEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook_1-a-1-energy-
industries 2019.pdf n.d.
[91] EMEPEEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook_1-a-3-d-navigation 2019.pdf n.d.
[92] Real-Life Examples of Opportunity Cost | St. Louis Fed n.d.
https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2020/january/real-life-examples-opportunity-cost
(accessed April 7, 2022).
[93] ecm_bref_0706.pdf n.d.

111
[94] Glossary | Climate Policy Info Hub n.d. https://climatepolicyinfohub.eu/glossary/4
(accessed April 20, 2022).
[95] Kesicki F. Marginal abatement cost curves for policy making – expert-based vs. model-
derived curves. UCL Enegy Inst n.d.:19.
[96] Muller NZ, Mendelsohn R, Nordhaus W. Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the
United States Economy. Am Econ Rev 2011;101:1649–75.
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.5.1649.
[97] CELEX_32021D2326_EN_TXT.pdf n.d.
[98] European Commission. Joint Research Centre. Best Available Techniques (BAT) reference
document for large combustion plants: Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU
(integrated pollution prevention and control). LU: Publications Office; 2017.
[99] BOE.es - BOE-A-2021-13870 Resolución de 4 de agosto de 2021, de la Dirección General de
Política Energética y Minas, por la que se fijan los precios del producto e impuestos
especiales aplicables a la hulla, fuel oil, diesel oil, y gasoil del primer semestre de 2021, a
aplicar en la liquidación de dicho periodo de los grupos generadores ubicados en los
territorios no peninsulares. n.d. https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2021-
13870 (accessed August 31, 2022).
[100] Issa M, Ibrahim H, Ilinca A, Hayyani MY. A Review and Economic Analysis of Different
Emission Reduction Techniques for Marine Diesel Engines. Open J Mar Sci 2019;09:148–
71. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojms.2019.93012.
[101] Slow Medium High speed diesel Engines - Pakistan Marine Academy n.d.
https://sites.google.com/site/pakistanmarineacademy/icek-1/slow-medium-high-speed-
diesel-engine (accessed August 16, 2022).
[102] Inflation Calculator | Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis n.d.
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/inflation-calculator (accessed
August 31, 2022).
[103] Exchange rate (InforEuro) | European Commission n.d.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/procedures-guidelines-tenders/information-
contractors-and-beneficiaries/exchange-rate-inforeuro_en (accessed August 31, 2022).
[104] Bill Major. Cost analysis of NOx control alternatives for stationary gas turbines. 1999.
https://doi.org/10.2172/761922.
[105] Boyce MP. Gas turbine engineering handbook. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Gulf Professional
Pub; 2002.
[106] Dry Low NOx (DLN 2.6) Combustion Upgrade | GE Gas Power n.d.
https://www.ge.com/gas-power/services/gas-turbines/upgrades/dry-low-nox-dln-2-6-
combustion-f-class (accessed August 27, 2022).
[107] Inflation calculator | Bank of England n.d.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator
(accessed September 1, 2022).
[108] EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) n.d. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/eu-
emissions-trading-system-eu-ets_en (accessed September 11, 2022).
[109] EU Carbon Permits - 2022 Data - 2005-2021 Historical - 2023 Forecast - Price - Quote
n.d. https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/carbon (accessed September 11, 2022).
[110] ets_handbook_en.pdf n.d.
[111] Revision for phase 4 (2021-2030) n.d. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/eu-
emissions-trading-system-eu-ets/revision-phase-4-2021-2030_en (accessed September 12,
2022).
[112] EU Emissions Trading System - what, when, who n.d.
https://www.siglarcarbon.com/post/eu-emissions-trading-system-what-when-who
(accessed September 12, 2022).

112
[113] EUR Inflation Calculator - Euro (2013-2022) n.d.
https://www.inflationtool.com/euro?amount=100&year1=2013&year2=2021&frequency=
yearly (accessed September 12, 2022).
[114] Road fuel excise duties — European Environment Agency n.d.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/road-fuel-excise-duties-6 (accessed
September 14, 2022).
[115] The European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) n.d.
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/industrial-emissions-and-safety/european-
pollutant-release-and-transfer-register-e-prtr_en (accessed August 30, 2023).
[116] What Is Revealed Preference in Economics, and What Does It Show? n.d.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revealed-preference.asp (accessed August 30,
2023).

113
Annex I: List of scientific publications:

Scientific meetings:

 Conference:
Conference entitled: Present and future of the automobile market in the face of
environmental regulations
Held 24 may 2019. Integrated Centre of Professional School “La Laguna”, Tenerife.

 International Conference:
Urban Transport 2019.
25th International Conference on Urban Transport and the Environment.
Held from 25-27 June 2019, Aveiro, Portugal.
Paper presented: “plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVS) a possible perverse effect
generated by environmental policies”

 International Conference:
Tourism Island International Congress
Held from 25 - 27 November 2019, La Orotava, Spain.
Paper presented: “How to manage carbon footprint for tourism road transport”

 International Conference:
XIV. International Conference on
Air Pollution, Air Quality and Management
Held from 15-16 July 2020, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Paper presented: “European Environmental Policy for Road Transport: Analysis of the
Perverse Effects Generated and Proposals for a Good Practice Guide”

Publications

 2021. Publication in International Journal

Paper: “GIS approach applied to Tourist bus route design on Lanzarote Island”
Journal: “Sustainability”
Sustainability 2021, 13(19), 10671; https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910671
ISSN: 2071-1050

 2020. Publication in International Journal

Paper: “European Environmental Policy for Road Transport: Analysis of the Perverse
Effects Generated and Proposals for a Good Practice Guide”
Journal: “International Journal of Environmental and Ecological Engineering”
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Environmental and Ecological Engineering
Vol:14, No:7, 2020
ISNI:0000000091950263

114
 https://publications.waset.org/10011311/european-environmental-policy-for-road-
transport-analysis-of-the-perverse-effects-generated-and-proposals-for-a-good-
practice-guide

 2019. Publication in International Journal

Paper: “plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVS) a possible perverse effect generated by
environmental policies”
Journal: “International Journal of Transport Development and Integration”
Volume 3 (2019), Issue 3
https://www.witpress.com/elibrary/TDI-volumes/3/3/2475
© 2019 WIT Press, www.witpress.com ISSN: 2058-8305 (paper format), ISSN: 2058-8313
(online), http://www.witpress.com/journals
DOI: 10.2495/TDI-V3-N3-259-270

115
Annex II: COPERT results by source.

116
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

CO
CO 2012
SECTOR HOT [t] COLD [t] A/C LUBE-OIL SCR [t] TOTAL [t]
[t] [t]
1.202,70 296,61 0,00 0,00 0,00 1.499,31

Passenger Cars 695,26 247,12 0,00 0,00 0,00 942,37

Gasoline <0,8 l 1,98 0,74 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,73
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 435,28 163,44 0,00 0,00 0,00 598,73
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 204,06 70, 0,00 0,00 0,00 274,59
53
Gasoline >2,0 l 38,34 10, 0,00 0,00 0,00 49,15
81
Diesel <1,4 l 0,28 0,03 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,31
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 7,33 0,80 0,00 0,00 0,00 8,13
Diesel >2,0 l 7,98 0,75 0,00 0,00 0,00 8,73
Light Commercial Vehicles 275,72 49, 0,00 0,00 0,00 325,21
49
Gasoline <3,5t 131,58 39, 0,00 0,00 0,00 170,79
21
Diesel <3,5 t 144,14 10, 0,00 0,00 0,00 154,42
28
Heavy Duty Trucks 32,53 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 32,53
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,52 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,52
Rigid <=7,5 t 10,16 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 10,16
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 11,76 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 11,76
Rigid 12 - 14 t 3,70 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,70
Rigid 14 - 20 t 4,94 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,94
Rigid 20 - 26 t 0,79 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,79
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,02
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,04 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,04
Rigid >32 t 0,21 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,21
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,31 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,31
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,08 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,08
Buses 11,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 11,02
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 10,28 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 10,28
Coaches Standard <=18 t 0,73 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,73
Mopeds 24,30 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 24,30
2-stroke <50 cm³ 24,30 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 24,30
Motorcycles 163,89 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 163,89
4-stroke <250 cm³ 77,35 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 77,35
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 59,42 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 59,42
4-stroke >750 cm³ 27,11 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 27,11

117
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

POLLUTANT YEAR

CO 2012

118
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

CO

119
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

CH4
CH4 2012
SECTOR HOT [t] COLD [t] A/C LUBE-OIL SCR [t] TOTAL [t]
[t] [t]
8,58 11, 0,00 0,00 0,00 19,59
02

Passenger Cars 4,68 9,89 0,00 0,00 0,00 14,57

Gasoline <0,8 l 0,02 0,08 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,10
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 2,94 5,98 0,00 0,00 0,00 8,92
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 1,36 3,24 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,60
Gasoline >2,0 l 0,22 0,46 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,68
Diesel <1,4 l 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,04 0,06 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,10
Diesel >2,0 l 0,09 0,07 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,17
Light Commercial Vehicles 0,93 1,12 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,05
Gasoline <3,5t 0,42 0,72 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,14
Diesel <3,5 t 0,51 0,40 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,91
Heavy Duty Trucks 0,56 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,56
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,02
Rigid <=7,5 t 0,21 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,21
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 0,17 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,17
Rigid 12 - 14 t 0,05 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,05
Rigid 14 - 20 t 0,09 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,09
Rigid 20 - 26 t 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid >32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Buses 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,13
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 0,12 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,12
Coaches Standard <=18 t 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Mopeds 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,25
2-stroke <50 cm³ 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,25
Motorcycles 2,03 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,03
4-stroke <250 cm³ 0,96 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,96
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 0,75 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,75
4-stroke >750 cm³ 0,32 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,32

120
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

POLLUTANT YEAR

CH4 2012

121
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

CH4

122
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

NOX
NOX 2012
SECTOR HOT [t] COLD [t] A/C LUBE-OIL SCR [t] TOTAL [t]
[t] [t]
790,83 17, 0,00 0,00 0,00 808,22
38

Passenger Cars 245,77 15, 0,00 0,00 0,00 261,70

94
Gasoline <0,8 l 0,21 0,09 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,29
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 92,36 10, 0,00 0,00 0,00 102,78
42
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 48,49 4,89 0,00 0,00 0,00 53,39
Gasoline >2,0 l 11,25 0,46 0,00 0,00 0,00 11,71
Diesel <1,4 l 3,21 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,21
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 57,03 0,05 0,00 0,00 0,00 57,09
Diesel >2,0 l 33,21 0,03 0,00 0,00 0,00 33,24
Light Commercial Vehicles 368,54 1,45 0,00 0,00 0,00 369,99
Gasoline <3,5t 21,08 1,06 0,00 0,00 0,00 22,14
Diesel <3,5 t 347,46 0,39 0,00 0,00 0,00 347,85
Heavy Duty Trucks 131,08 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 131,08
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,76 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,76
Rigid <=7,5 t 37,37 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 37,37
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 50,57 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 50,57
Rigid 12 - 14 t 16,13 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 16,13
Rigid 14 - 20 t 20,41 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 20,41
Rigid 20 - 26 t 3,40 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,40
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,12 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,12
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,10 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,10
Rigid >32 t 0,88 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,88
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,98 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,98
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,37 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,37
Buses 39,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 39,01
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 36,40 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 36,40
Coaches Standard <=18 t 2,62 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,62
Mopeds 1,36 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,36
2-stroke <50 cm³ 1,36 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,36
Motorcycles 5,08 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 5,08
4-stroke <250 cm³ 2,69 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,69
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 1,65 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,65
4-stroke >750 cm³ 0,74 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,74

123
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

POLLUTANT YEAR

NOX 2012

124
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

NOX

125
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

NO
NO 2012
SECTOR HOT [t] COLD [t] A/C LUBE-OIL SCR [t] TOTAL [t]
[t] [t]
632,10 16, 0,00 0,00 0,00 648,73
63

Passenger Cars 206,32 15, 0,00 0,00 0,00 221,66

34
Gasoline <0,8 l 0,20 0,08 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,28
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 88,75 10, 0,00 0,00 0,00 98,79
04
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 46,61 4,72 0,00 0,00 0,00 51,33
Gasoline >2,0 l 10,81 0,44 0,00 0,00 0,00 11,25
Diesel <1,4 l 1,64 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,65
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 34,64 0,03 0,00 0,00 0,00 34,67
Diesel >2,0 l 23,68 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 23,70
Light Commercial Vehicles 270,13 1,29 0,00 0,00 0,00 271,43
Gasoline <3,5t 20,25 1,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 21,27
Diesel <3,5 t 249,88 0,27 0,00 0,00 0,00 250,15
Heavy Duty Trucks 115,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 115,01
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,73 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,73
Rigid <=7,5 t 32,90 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 32,90
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 44,45 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 44,45
Rigid 12 - 14 t 14,08 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 14,08
Rigid 14 - 20 t 17,76 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 17,76
Rigid 20 - 26 t 2,95 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,95
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,10 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,10
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,09 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,09
Rigid >32 t 0,76 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,76
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,87 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,87
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,32 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,32
Buses 34,46 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 34,46
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 32,13 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 32,13
Coaches Standard <=18 t 2,33 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,33
Mopeds 1,30 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,30
2-stroke <50 cm³ 1,30 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,30
Motorcycles 4,87 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,87
4-stroke <250 cm³ 2,58 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,58
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 1,58 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,58
4-stroke >750 cm³ 0,71 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,71

126
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

POLLUTANT YEAR

NO 2012

127
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

NO

128
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

NO2
NO2 2012
SECTOR HOT [t] COLD [t] A/C LUBE-OIL SCR [t] TOTAL [t]
[t] [t]
158,73 0,75 0,00 0,00 0,00 159,49

Passenger Cars 39,44 0,60 0,00 0,00 0,00 40,04

Gasoline <0,8 l 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 3,61 0,38 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,99
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 1,89 0,17 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,06
Gasoline >2,0 l 0,44 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,46
Diesel <1,4 l 1,56 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,57
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 22,40 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 22,42
Diesel >2,0 l 9,53 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 9,54
Light Commercial Vehicles 98,41 0,15 0,00 0,00 0,00 98,56
Gasoline <3,5t 0,83 0,04 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,87
Diesel <3,5 t 97,58 0,12 0,00 0,00 0,00 97,69
Heavy Duty Trucks 16,07 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 16,07
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,03 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,03
Rigid <=7,5 t 4,47 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,47
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 6,12 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 6,12
Rigid 12 - 14 t 2,05 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,05
Rigid 14 - 20 t 2,65 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,65
Rigid 20 - 26 t 0,45 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,45
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,02
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Rigid >32 t 0,12 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,12
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,11 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,11
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,05 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,05
Buses 4,55 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,55
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 4,26 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,26
Coaches Standard <=18 t 0,29 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,29
Mopeds 0,05 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,05
2-stroke <50 cm³ 0,05 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,05
Motorcycles 0,20 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,20
4-stroke <250 cm³ 0,11 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,11
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 0,07 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,07
4-stroke >750 cm³ 0,03 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,03

129
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

POLLUTANT YEAR

NO2 2012

130
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

NO2

131
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

N2O
N2O 2012
SECTOR HOT [t] COLD [t] A/C LUBE-OIL SCR [t] TOTAL [t]
[t] [t]
3,14 2,51 0,00 0,00 0,00 5,66

Passenger Cars 1,33 1,44 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,77

Gasoline <0,8 l 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 0,59 0,64 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,22
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,23 0,32 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,55
Gasoline >2,0 l 0,04 0,04 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,08
Diesel <1,4 l 0,02 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,04
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,32 0,29 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,61
Diesel >2,0 l 0,14 0,11 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,26
Light Commercial Vehicles 1,29 1,07 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,37
Gasoline <3,5t 0,15 0,21 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,36
Diesel <3,5 t 1,15 0,86 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,01
Heavy Duty Trucks 0,42 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,42
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid <=7,5 t 0,16 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,16
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,13
Rigid 12 - 14 t 0,04 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,04
Rigid 14 - 20 t 0,06 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,06
Rigid 20 - 26 t 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid >32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Buses 0,05 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,05
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 0,04 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,04
Coaches Standard <=18 t 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Mopeds 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
2-stroke <50 cm³ 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Motorcycles 0,03 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,03
4-stroke <250 cm³ 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,02
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
4-stroke >750 cm³ 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01

132
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

POLLUTANT YEAR

N2O 2012

133
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

N2O

134
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

NH3
NH3 2012
SECTOR HOT [t] COLD [t] A/C LUBE-OIL SCR [t] TOTAL [t]
[t] [t]
25,92 2,57 0,00 0,00 0,00 28,49

Passenger Cars 23,97 2,34 0,00 0,00 0,00 26,31

Gasoline <0,8 l 0,26 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,27
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 14,45 1,54 0,00 0,00 0,00 15,98
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 8,12 0,68 0,00 0,00 0,00 8,79
Gasoline >2,0 l 1,00 0,08 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,08
Diesel <1,4 l 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,09 0,03 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,12
Diesel >2,0 l 0,04 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,06
Light Commercial Vehicles 1,75 0,23 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,98
Gasoline <3,5t 1,45 0,14 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,60
Diesel <3,5 t 0,30 0,09 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,39
Heavy Duty Trucks 0,14 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,14
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid <=7,5 t 0,05 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,05
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 0,05 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,05
Rigid 12 - 14 t 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Rigid 14 - 20 t 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,02
Rigid 20 - 26 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid >32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Buses 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Coaches Standard <=18 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Mopeds 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
2-stroke <50 cm³ 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Motorcycles 0,03 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,03
4-stroke <250 cm³ 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,02
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
4-stroke >750 cm³ 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01

135
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

POLLUTANT YEAR

NH3 2012

136
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

NH3

137
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

PM
(exhaust
)
PM (exhaust) 2012
SECTOR HOT [t] COLD [t] A/C LUBE-OIL SCR [t] TOTAL [t]
[t] [t]
36,04 - 0,00 0,00 0,00 34,23
1,8
1

Passenger Cars 6,12 - 0,00 0,00 0,00 5,85

0,2
8
Gasoline <0,8 l 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 0,55 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,55
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,27 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,27
Gasoline >2,0 l 0,03 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,03
Diesel <1,4 l 0,10 - 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,09
0,0
1
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 2,58 - 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,45
0,1
3
Diesel >2,0 l 2,59 - 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,44
0,1
4
Light Commercial Vehicles 25,28 - 0,00 0,00 0,00 23,75
1,5
3
Gasoline <3,5t 0,06 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,06
Diesel <3,5 t 25,23 - 0,00 0,00 0,00 23,69
1,5
3
Heavy Duty Trucks 3,14 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,14
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid <=7,5 t 1,20 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,20
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 1,15 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,15
Rigid 12 - 14 t 0,34 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,34
Rigid 14 - 20 t 0,36 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,36
Rigid 20 - 26 t 0,05 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,05
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid >32 t 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Buses 1,03 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,03
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 0,98 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,98
Coaches Standard <=18 t 0,04 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,04
Mopeds 0,26 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,26
2-stroke <50 cm³ 0,26 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,26
Motorcycles 0,21 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,21
4-stroke <250 cm³ 0,10 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,10
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 0,07 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,07
138
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

4-stroke >750 cm³ 0,04 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,04

139
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

POLLUTANT YEAR

PM 2012

140
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

PM
(exhaust)

141
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

OM
OM 2012
SECTOR HOT [t] COLD [t] A/C LUBE-OIL SCR [t] TOTAL [t]
[t] [t]
9,36 - 0,00 0,00 0,00 8,96
0,4
0

Passenger Cars 1,68 - 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,62

0,0
7
Gasoline <0,8 l 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 0,31 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,31
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,15 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,15
Gasoline >2,0 l 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,02
Diesel <1,4 l 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,47 - 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,45
0,0
2
Diesel >2,0 l 0,72 - 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,68
0,0
4
Light Commercial Vehicles 6,01 - 0,00 0,00 0,00 5,67
0,3
4
Gasoline <3,5t 0,03 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,03
Diesel <3,5 t 5,98 - 0,00 0,00 0,00 5,64
0,3
4
Heavy Duty Trucks 0,98 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,98
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid <=7,5 t 0,41 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,41
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 0,36 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,36
Rigid 12 - 14 t 0,10 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,10
Rigid 14 - 20 t 0,09 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,09
Rigid 20 - 26 t 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid >32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Buses 0,31 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,31
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 0,30 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,30
Coaches Standard <=18 t 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Mopeds 0,22 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,22
2-stroke <50 cm³ 0,22 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,22
Motorcycles 0,17 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,17
4-stroke <250 cm³ 0,08 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,08
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 0,06 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,06
4-stroke >750 cm³ 0,03 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,03

142
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

POLLUTANT YEAR

OM 2012

143
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

OM

144
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

EC
EC 2012
SECTOR HOT [t] COLD [t] A/C LUBE-OIL SCR [t] TOTAL [t]
[t] [t]
24,93 - 0,00 0,00 0,00 23,64
1,2
9

Passenger Cars 4,01 - 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,81

0,2
0
Gasoline <0,8 l 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 0,10 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,10
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,05 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,05
Gasoline >2,0 l 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Diesel <1,4 l 0,08 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,08
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 2,01 - 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,92
0,1
0
Diesel >2,0 l 1,75 - 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,66
0,0
9
Light Commercial Vehicles 18,35 - 0,00 0,00 0,00 17,25
1,1
0
Gasoline <3,5t 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Diesel <3,5 t 18,34 - 0,00 0,00 0,00 17,24
1,1
0
Heavy Duty Trucks 1,87 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,87
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid <=7,5 t 0,67 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,67
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 0,68 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,68
Rigid 12 - 14 t 0,21 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,21
Rigid 14 - 20 t 0,24 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,24
Rigid 20 - 26 t 0,04 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,04
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid >32 t 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Buses 0,63 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,63
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 0,60 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,60
Coaches Standard <=18 t 0,03 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,03
Mopeds 0,04 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,04
2-stroke <50 cm³ 0,04 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,04
Motorcycles 0,04 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,04
4-stroke <250 cm³ 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,02
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
4-stroke >750 cm³ 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01

145
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

POLLUTANT YEAR

EC 2012

146
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

EC

147
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

FC
FC 2012
SECTOR HOT [t] COLD [t] A/C LUBE-OIL SCR [t] TOTAL [t]
[t] [t]
73.955,62 3.849,37 1.857 0,00 0,00 79.662,23
,24

Passenger Cars 37.527,51 2.527,38 1.236 0,00 0,00 41.291,05

,16
Gasoline <0,8 l 250,12 20,61 13,78 0,00 0,00 284,51
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 17.112,73 1.233,29 601,4 0,00 0,00 18.947,45
2
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 10.466,18 795,90 340,1 0,00 0,00 11.602,19
1
Gasoline >2,0 l 1.624,68 128,33 38,55 0,00 0,00 1.791,56
Diesel <1,4 l 204,96 7,44 10,78 0,00 0,00 223,18
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 4.679,64 201,82 163,3 0,00 0,00 5.044,82
6
Diesel >2,0 l 3.189,19 140,00 68,16 0,00 0,00 3.397,34
Light Commercial Vehicles 28.916,24 1.321,99 621,0 0,00 0,00 30.859,31
8
Gasoline <3,5t 2.805,53 239,75 64,05 0,00 0,00 3.109,32
Diesel <3,5 t 26.110,72 1.082,24 557,0 0,00 0,00 27.749,99
4
Heavy Duty Trucks 4.944,98 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4.944,98
Gasoline >3,5 t 27,17 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 27,17
Rigid <=7,5 t 1.425,15 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1.425,15
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 1.789,18 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1.789,18
Rigid 12 - 14 t 591,44 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 591,44
Rigid 14 - 20 t 831,87 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 831,87
Rigid 20 - 26 t 150,50 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 150,50
Rigid 26 - 28 t 6,14 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 6,14
Rigid 28 - 32 t 7,78 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 7,78
Rigid >32 t 41,17 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 41,17
Articulated 14 - 20 t 57,69 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 57,69
Articulated 20 - 28 t 16,90 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 16,90
Buses 1.828,73 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1.828,73
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 1.711,32 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1.711,32
Coaches Standard <=18 t 117,41 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 117,41
Mopeds 170,45 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 170,45
2-stroke <50 cm³ 170,45 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 170,45
Motorcycles 567,71 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 567,71
4-stroke <250 cm³ 201,17 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 201,17
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 230,54 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 230,54
4-stroke >750 cm³ 136,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 136,00

148
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

POLLUTANT YEAR

FC 2012

149
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

FC

150
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

CO2
CO2 2012
SECTOR HOT [t] COLD [t] A/C LUBE-OIL SCR [t] TOTAL [t]
[t] [t]
231.726,63 12.031,22 5.804 0,00 0,00 249.562,74
,89

Passenger Cars 117.032,71 7.874,30 3.850 0,00 0,00 128.757,52

,51
Gasoline <0,8 l 776,75 64,01 42,79 0,00 0,00 883,55
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 53.215,41 3.835,48 1.868 0,00 0,00 58.918,94
,05
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 32.540,53 2.474,72 1.056 0,00 0,00 36.071,61
,36
Gasoline >2,0 l 5.056,92 399,48 119,7 0,00 0,00 5.576,14
5
Diesel <1,4 l 645,89 23,44 33,96 0,00 0,00 703,30
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 14.747,06 635,99 514,8 0,00 0,00 15.897,86
1
Diesel >2,0 l 10.050,16 441,18 214,7 0,00 0,00 10.706,11
8
Light Commercial Vehicles 91.018,21 4.156,91 1.954 0,00 0,00 97.129,51
,38
Gasoline <3,5t 8.734,90 746,43 198,9 0,00 0,00 9.680,31
8
Diesel <3,5 t 82.283,30 3.410,49 1.755 0,00 0,00 87.449,19
,40
Heavy Duty Trucks 15.583,35 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 15.583,35
Gasoline >3,5 t 85,74 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 85,74
Rigid <=7,5 t 4.491,09 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4.491,09
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 5.638,27 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 5.638,27
Rigid 12 - 14 t 1.863,83 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1.863,83
Rigid 14 - 20 t 2.621,51 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2.621,51
Rigid 20 - 26 t 474,27 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 474,27
Rigid 26 - 28 t 19,35 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 19,35
Rigid 28 - 32 t 24,51 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 24,51
Rigid >32 t 129,73 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 129,73
Articulated 14 - 20 t 181,80 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 181,80
Articulated 20 - 28 t 53,25 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 53,25
Buses 5.762,91 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 5.762,91
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 5.392,92 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 5.392,92
Coaches Standard <=18 t 369,99 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 369,99
Mopeds 537,89 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 537,89
2-stroke <50 cm³ 537,89 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 537,89
Motorcycles 1.791,55 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1.791,55
4-stroke <250 cm³ 634,85 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 634,85
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 727,51 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 727,51
4-stroke >750 cm³ 429,19 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 429,19

The total CO2 reported here is the total ultimate CO2 calculated based on the fuel consumption calculated. This may include emissions from
biofuelled vehicles as well. This is not consistent with the IPCC guidelines, according to which CO2 should be reported on the basis of fuel
sold. To calculate IPCC-consistent CO2 emissions, the user has to provide a statistical fuel consumption for the different fuels and tick the
'Apply Statistical Fuel Correction' in the 'Fuel Info' form, under the 'Country' menu.

151
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

POLLUTANT YEAR

CO2 2012

152
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

CO2

153
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

SO2
SO2 2012
SECTOR HOT [t] COLD [t] A/C LUBE-OIL SCR [t] TOTAL [t]
[t] [t]
0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

Passenger Cars 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

Gasoline <0,8 l 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Gasoline >2,0 l 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Diesel <1,4 l 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Diesel >2,0 l 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Light Commercial Vehicles 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Gasoline <3,5t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Diesel <3,5 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Heavy Duty Trucks 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid <=7,5 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 12 - 14 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 14 - 20 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 20 - 26 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid >32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Buses 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Coaches Standard <=18 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Mopeds 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
2-stroke <50 cm³ 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Motorcycles 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
4-stroke <250 cm³ 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
4-stroke >750 cm³ 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

154
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

POLLUTANT YEAR

SO2 2012

155
03/11/2020
Emission Results - Source oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:41:59

SO2

156
Annex III: COPERT results by driving mode.

157
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
CO

POLLUTAN YEA SECTOR URBAN [t] RURAL HIGHWAY TOTAL [t]

T R [t] [t]

CO 2012 664,17 224,97 610,17 1.499,31

Passenger Cars 435,07 144,18 363,12 942,37

Gasoline <0,8 l 0,95 0,30 1,48 2,73
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 279,46 91,46 227,81 598,73
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 123,02 41,55 110,02 274,59
Gasoline >2,0 l 21,79 8,06 19,30 49,15
Diesel <1,4 l 0,20 0,05 0,07 0,31
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 4,98 1,30 1,85 8,13
Diesel >2,0 l 4,66 1,47 2,60 8,73
Light Commercial Vehicles 174,95 30,28 119,98 325,21
Gasoline <3,5t 116,17 10,38 44,24 170,79
Diesel <3,5 t 58,78 19,90 75,74 154,42
Heavy Duty Trucks 10,20 6,13 16,20 32,53
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,16 0,10 0,25 0,52
Rigid <=7,5 t 3,11 1,93 5,12 10,16
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 3,71 2,20 5,84 11,76
Rigid 12 - 14 t 1,15 0,69 1,86 3,70
Rigid 14 - 20 t 1,60 0,93 2,41 4,94
Rigid 20 - 26 t 0,25 0,15 0,39 0,79
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,01 0,00 0,01 0,02
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,04
Rigid >32 t 0,07 0,04 0,11 0,21
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,10 0,06 0,15 0,31
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,03 0,02 0,04 0,08
Buses 3,73 2,07 5,22 11,02
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 3,45 1,93 4,91 10,28
Coaches Standard <=18 t 0,28 0,14 0,31 0,73
Mopeds 9,72 14,58 0,00 24,30
2-stroke <50 cm³ 9,72 14,58 0,00 24,30
Motorcycles 30,51 27,73 105,65 163,89
4-stroke <250 cm³ 13,30 13,86 50,20 77,35
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 11,88 9,59 37,96 59,42
4-stroke >750 cm³ 5,33 4,29 17,49 27,11

158
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
CO

POLLUTANT YEAR

CO 2012

159
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
CO

160
POLLUTAN YEA SECTOR URBAN [t] RURAL HIGHWAY TOTAL [t]
T R [t] [t]

VOC 2012 475,57 86,55 100,28 662,40

Passenger Cars 394,59 58,63 73,14 526,36

Gasoline <0,8 l 1,78 0,22 0,26 2,26
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 271,55 39,99 48,87 360,41
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 100,73 14,89 19,08 134,70
Gasoline >2,0 l 18,77 2,93 3,80 25,50
Diesel <1,4 l 0,03 0,01 0,02 0,05
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,69 0,24 0,48 1,40
Diesel >2,0 l 1,03 0,36 0,65 2,04
Light Commercial Vehicles 46,47 8,72 14,39 69,57
Gasoline <3,5t 37,32 4,72 4,99 47,03
Diesel <3,5 t 9,15 4,00 9,40 22,54
Heavy Duty Trucks 3,46 1,78 3,50 8,74
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,18 0,09 0,17 0,44
Rigid <=7,5 t 1,50 0,77 1,45 3,71
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 1,10 0,56 1,13 2,79
Rigid 12 - 14 t 0,30 0,16 0,33 0,79
Rigid 14 - 20 t 0,32 0,17 0,37 0,86
Rigid 20 - 26 t 0,04 0,02 0,04 0,10
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid >32 t 0,01 0,00 0,01 0,02
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,01 0,00 0,01 0,02
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Buses 1,00 0,54 1,43 2,97
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 0,96 0,53 1,40 2,89
Coaches Standard <=18 t 0,04 0,02 0,03 0,09
Mopeds 13,50 13,02 0,00 26,52
2-stroke <50 cm³ 13,50 13,02 0,00 26,52
Motorcycles 16,56 3,86 7,82 28,24
4-stroke <250 cm³ 6,28 1,47 3,19 10,94
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 6,72 1,62 3,04 11,39
4-stroke >750 cm³ 3,55 0,77 1,59 5,91

161
POLLUTANT YEAR

VOC 2012

162
163
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
NMVOC

POLLUTAN YEA SECTOR URBAN [t] RURAL HIGHWAY TOTAL [t]

T R [t] [t]

NMVOC 2012 463,30 84,37 95,15 642,81

Passenger Cars 384,66 57,36 69,77 511,78

Gasoline <0,8 l 1,70 0,22 0,24 2,16
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 265,56 39,19 46,73 351,49
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 97,49 14,53 18,08 130,10
Gasoline >2,0 l 18,31 2,86 3,64 24,81
Diesel <1,4 l 0,02 0,01 0,02 0,05
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,62 0,22 0,45 1,30
Diesel >2,0 l 0,95 0,33 0,60 1,87
Light Commercial Vehicles 45,11 8,43 13,97 67,52
Gasoline <3,5t 36,52 4,58 4,78 45,88
Diesel <3,5 t 8,59 3,85 9,19 21,63
Heavy Duty Trucks 3,15 1,69 3,35 8,18
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,18 0,09 0,16 0,43
Rigid <=7,5 t 1,37 0,74 1,39 3,50
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 1,00 0,54 1,08 2,62
Rigid 12 - 14 t 0,27 0,15 0,32 0,74
Rigid 14 - 20 t 0,28 0,15 0,34 0,77
Rigid 20 - 26 t 0,03 0,02 0,04 0,09
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid >32 t 0,01 0,00 0,01 0,02
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Buses 0,88 0,54 1,42 2,84
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 0,85 0,53 1,40 2,77
Coaches Standard <=18 t 0,03 0,02 0,03 0,07
Mopeds 13,40 12,87 0,00 26,27
2-stroke <50 cm³ 13,40 12,87 0,00 26,27
Motorcycles 16,10 3,47 6,64 26,21
4-stroke <250 cm³ 6,06 1,28 2,64 9,98
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 6,55 1,48 2,61 10,64
4-stroke >750 cm³ 3,49 0,71 1,39 5,60

164
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
NMVOC

POLLUTANT YEAR

NMVOC 2012

165
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
NMVOC

166
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38

POLLUTAN YEA SECTOR URBAN [t] RURAL HIGHWAY TOTAL [t]

T R [t] [t]

CH4 2012 12,28 2,18 5,13 19,59

Passenger Cars 9,93 1,27 3,38 14,57

Gasoline <0,8 l 0,08 0,00 0,02 0,10
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 5,99 0,80 2,13 8,92
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 3,25 0,36 1,00 4,60
Gasoline >2,0 l 0,46 0,07 0,16 0,68
Diesel <1,4 l 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,07 0,01 0,02 0,10
Diesel >2,0 l 0,09 0,03 0,05 0,17
Light Commercial Vehicles 1,35 0,29 0,42 2,05
Gasoline <3,5t 0,80 0,14 0,20 1,14
Diesel <3,5 t 0,55 0,15 0,21 0,91
Heavy Duty Trucks 0,31 0,09 0,16 0,56
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,02
Rigid <=7,5 t 0,12 0,03 0,06 0,21
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 0,10 0,03 0,05 0,17
Rigid 12 - 14 t 0,03 0,01 0,01 0,05
Rigid 14 - 20 t 0,05 0,02 0,03 0,09
Rigid 20 - 26 t 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,01
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid >32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Buses 0,12 0,00 0,01 0,13
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 0,12 0,00 0,00 0,12
Coaches Standard <=18 t 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01
Mopeds 0,10 0,15 0,00 0,25
2-stroke <50 cm³ 0,10 0,15 0,00 0,25
Motorcycles 0,46 0,39 1,18 2,03
4-stroke <250 cm³ 0,22 0,19 0,55 0,96
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 0,18 0,15 0,43 0,75
4-stroke >750 cm³ 0,07 0,06 0,20 0,32

167
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38

POLLUTANT YEAR

CH4 2012

168
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38

169
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
NOX

POLLUTAN YEA SECTOR URBAN [t] RURAL HIGHWAY TOTAL [t]

T R [t] [t]

NOX 2012 255,30 137,81 415,10 808,22

Passenger Cars 70,84 43,72 147,14 261,70

Gasoline <0,8 l 0,17 0,04 0,08 0,29
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 26,17 16,68 59,92 102,78
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 12,92 8,83 31,64 53,39
Gasoline >2,0 l 2,24 1,97 7,49 11,71
Diesel <1,4 l 1,05 0,54 1,62 3,21
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 18,07 9,86 29,16 57,09
Diesel >2,0 l 10,22 5,79 17,23 33,24
Light Commercial Vehicles 137,00 60,33 172,65 369,99
Gasoline <3,5t 6,27 4,03 11,85 22,14
Diesel <3,5 t 130,74 56,30 160,81 347,85
Heavy Duty Trucks 33,59 24,53 72,96 131,08
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,16 0,14 0,47 0,76
Rigid <=7,5 t 8,39 6,63 22,35 37,37
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 12,78 9,47 28,32 50,57
Rigid 12 - 14 t 4,30 3,08 8,74 16,13
Rigid 14 - 20 t 6,06 4,06 10,30 20,41
Rigid 20 - 26 t 1,03 0,67 1,70 3,40
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,03 0,02 0,06 0,12
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,05 0,02 0,03 0,10
Rigid >32 t 0,27 0,17 0,43 0,88
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,40 0,20 0,38 0,98
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,11 0,07 0,19 0,37
Buses 12,75 7,59 18,67 39,01
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 11,69 7,07 17,64 36,40
Coaches Standard <=18 t 1,06 0,52 1,03 2,62
Mopeds 0,54 0,81 0,00 1,36
2-stroke <50 cm³ 0,54 0,81 0,00 1,36
Motorcycles 0,56 0,83 3,69 5,08
4-stroke <250 cm³ 0,35 0,51 1,83 2,69
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 0,16 0,24 1,25 1,65
4-stroke >750 cm³ 0,06 0,08 0,60 0,74

170
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
NOX

POLLUTANT YEAR

NOX 2012

171
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
NOX

172
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38

POLLUTAN YEA SECTOR URBAN [t] RURAL HIGHWAY TOTAL [t]

T R [t] [t]

NO 2012 202,26 110,69 335,78 648,73

Passenger Cars 58,59 36,94 126,13 221,66

Gasoline <0,8 l 0,17 0,04 0,08 0,28
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 25,19 16,03 57,56 98,79
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 12,44 8,49 30,40 51,33
Gasoline >2,0 l 2,16 1,89 7,20 11,25
Diesel <1,4 l 0,54 0,28 0,83 1,65
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 10,88 6,04 17,75 34,67
Diesel >2,0 l 7,22 4,16 12,32 23,70
Light Commercial Vehicles 101,85 43,96 125,62 271,43
Gasoline <3,5t 6,02 3,87 11,38 21,27
Diesel <3,5 t 95,82 40,09 114,24 250,15
Heavy Duty Trucks 29,49 21,52 64,00 115,01
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,15 0,13 0,45 0,73
Rigid <=7,5 t 7,40 5,84 19,67 32,90
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 11,25 8,32 24,89 44,45
Rigid 12 - 14 t 3,76 2,69 7,63 14,08
Rigid 14 - 20 t 5,28 3,53 8,95 17,76
Rigid 20 - 26 t 0,90 0,58 1,47 2,95
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,03 0,02 0,05 0,10
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,05 0,02 0,02 0,09
Rigid >32 t 0,23 0,15 0,37 0,76
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,36 0,18 0,33 0,87
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,09 0,06 0,16 0,32
Buses 11,27 6,70 16,49 34,46
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 10,32 6,24 15,57 32,13
Coaches Standard <=18 t 0,95 0,46 0,92 2,33
Mopeds 0,52 0,78 0,00 1,30
2-stroke <50 cm³ 0,52 0,78 0,00 1,30
Motorcycles 0,54 0,79 3,54 4,87
4-stroke <250 cm³ 0,33 0,49 1,76 2,58
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 0,15 0,23 1,20 1,58
4-stroke >750 cm³ 0,05 0,08 0,58 0,71

173
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38

POLLUTANT YEAR

NO 2012

174
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38

175
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
NO2

POLLUTAN YEA SECTOR URBAN [t] RURAL HIGHWAY TOTAL [t]

T R [t] [t]

NO2 2012 53,04 27,12 79,32 159,49

Passenger Cars 12,25 6,78 21,01 40,04

Gasoline <0,8 l 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,01
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 0,98 0,65 2,36 3,99
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,47 0,34 1,24 2,06
Gasoline >2,0 l 0,09 0,08 0,30 0,46
Diesel <1,4 l 0,51 0,26 0,79 1,57
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 7,19 3,81 11,41 22,42
Diesel >2,0 l 3,00 1,63 4,91 9,54
Light Commercial Vehicles 35,16 16,38 47,03 98,56
Gasoline <3,5t 0,24 0,16 0,47 0,87
Diesel <3,5 t 34,92 16,22 46,56 97,69
Heavy Duty Trucks 4,10 3,01 8,95 16,07
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,03
Rigid <=7,5 t 1,00 0,79 2,68 4,47
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 1,54 1,15 3,43 6,12
Rigid 12 - 14 t 0,55 0,39 1,11 2,05
Rigid 14 - 20 t 0,78 0,53 1,35 2,65
Rigid 20 - 26 t 0,13 0,09 0,23 0,45
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,02
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,01
Rigid >32 t 0,04 0,02 0,06 0,12
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,04 0,02 0,05 0,11
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,02 0,01 0,03 0,05
Buses 1,48 0,89 2,18 4,55
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 1,37 0,83 2,06 4,26
Coaches Standard <=18 t 0,12 0,06 0,12 0,29
Mopeds 0,02 0,03 0,00 0,05
2-stroke <50 cm³ 0,02 0,03 0,00 0,05
Motorcycles 0,02 0,03 0,15 0,20
4-stroke <250 cm³ 0,01 0,02 0,07 0,11
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 0,01 0,01 0,05 0,07
4-stroke >750 cm³ 0,00 0,00 0,02 0,03

176
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
NO2

POLLUTANT YEAR

NO2 2012

177
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
NO2

178
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38

POLLUTAN YEA SECTOR URBAN [t] RURAL HIGHWAY TOTAL [t]

T R [t] [t]

N2O 2012 2,92 0,79 1,95 5,66

Passenger Cars 1,48 0,37 0,92 2,77

Gasoline <0,8 l 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,01
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 0,64 0,17 0,41 1,22
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,33 0,07 0,16 0,55
Gasoline >2,0 l 0,04 0,01 0,02 0,08
Diesel <1,4 l 0,02 0,00 0,01 0,04
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,32 0,08 0,22 0,61
Diesel >2,0 l 0,12 0,04 0,10 0,26
Light Commercial Vehicles 1,30 0,32 0,76 2,37
Gasoline <3,5t 0,24 0,04 0,07 0,36
Diesel <3,5 t 1,05 0,27 0,68 2,01
Heavy Duty Trucks 0,08 0,09 0,25 0,42
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid <=7,5 t 0,03 0,03 0,09 0,16
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 0,03 0,03 0,08 0,13
Rigid 12 - 14 t 0,01 0,01 0,03 0,04
Rigid 14 - 20 t 0,01 0,01 0,03 0,06
Rigid 20 - 26 t 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid >32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Buses 0,04 0,00 0,01 0,05
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 0,04 0,00 0,00 0,04
Coaches Standard <=18 t 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01
Mopeds 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,01
2-stroke <50 cm³ 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,01
Motorcycles 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,03
4-stroke <250 cm³ 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,02
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01
4-stroke >750 cm³ 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01

179
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38

POLLUTANT YEAR

N2O 2012

180
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38

181
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
NH3

POLLUTAN YEA SECTOR URBAN [t] RURAL HIGHWAY TOTAL [t]

T R [t] [t]

NH3 2012 2,78 5,63 20,07 28,49

Passenger Cars 2,38 5,13 18,81 26,31

Gasoline <0,8 l 0,01 0,03 0,23 0,27
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 1,56 3,24 11,19 15,98
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,68 1,62 6,49 8,79
Gasoline >2,0 l 0,08 0,20 0,80 1,08
Diesel <1,4 l 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,03 0,02 0,07 0,12
Diesel >2,0 l 0,01 0,01 0,03 0,06
Light Commercial Vehicles 0,36 0,46 1,16 1,98
Gasoline <3,5t 0,24 0,39 0,96 1,60
Diesel <3,5 t 0,12 0,08 0,19 0,39
Heavy Duty Trucks 0,03 0,03 0,09 0,14
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid <=7,5 t 0,01 0,01 0,03 0,05
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 0,01 0,01 0,03 0,05
Rigid 12 - 14 t 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01
Rigid 14 - 20 t 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,02
Rigid 20 - 26 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid >32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Buses 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,01
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,01
Coaches Standard <=18 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Mopeds 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,01
2-stroke <50 cm³ 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,01
Motorcycles 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,03
4-stroke <250 cm³ 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,02
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01
4-stroke >750 cm³ 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01

182
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
NH3

POLLUTANT YEAR

NH3 2012

183
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
NH3

184
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38

POLLUTANT YEAR SECTOR URBAN [t] RURAL HIGHWAY TOTAL [t]

[t] [t]

PM2.5 2012 12,84 8,34 23,74 44,91

Passenger Cars 3,35 2,30 5,30 10,95

Gasoline <0,8 l 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,05
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 0,94 0,71 1,38 3,03
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,49 0,37 0,71 1,57
Gasoline >2,0 l 0,06 0,05 0,09 0,20
Diesel <1,4 l 0,04 0,03 0,07 0,14
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,93 0,62 1,61 3,16
Diesel >2,0 l 0,87 0,52 1,43 2,81
Light Commercial Vehicles 7,71 4,77 15,85 28,33
Gasoline <3,5t 0,20 0,10 0,16 0,46
Diesel <3,5 t 7,51 4,67 15,69 27,87
Heavy Duty Trucks 1,22 0,79 1,83 3,84
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid <=7,5 t 0,45 0,30 0,70 1,46
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 0,45 0,28 0,66 1,39
Rigid 12 - 14 t 0,13 0,08 0,20 0,42
Rigid 14 - 20 t 0,15 0,09 0,21 0,46
Rigid 20 - 26 t 0,02 0,01 0,03 0,07
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid >32 t 0,01 0,00 0,01 0,02
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,01 0,00 0,01 0,02
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Buses 0,38 0,24 0,61 1,23
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 0,36 0,23 0,58 1,17
Coaches Standard <=18 t 0,02 0,01 0,02 0,05
Mopeds 0,12 0,18 0,00 0,30
2-stroke <50 cm³ 0,12 0,18 0,00 0,30
Motorcycles 0,06 0,05 0,15 0,26
4-stroke <250 cm³ 0,03 0,03 0,07 0,13
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 0,02 0,02 0,05 0,09
4-stroke >750 cm³ 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,04

185
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38

POLLUTANT YEAR

PM2.5 2012

186
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38

187
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
PM10

POLLUTAN YEA SECTOR URBAN [t] RURAL HIGHWAY TOTAL [t]

T R [t] [t]

PM10 2012 16,57 10,58 26,32 53,47

Passenger Cars 4,89 3,36 6,65 14,90

Gasoline <0,8 l 0,03 0,02 0,03 0,08
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 1,66 1,23 2,05 4,94
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,86 0,64 1,07 2,57
Gasoline >2,0 l 0,11 0,08 0,13 0,32
Diesel <1,4 l 0,06 0,04 0,08 0,17
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 1,18 0,76 1,78 3,72
Diesel >2,0 l 1,00 0,59 1,51 3,10
Light Commercial Vehicles 9,53 5,65 16,80 31,98
Gasoline <3,5t 0,36 0,18 0,24 0,78
Diesel <3,5 t 9,17 5,47 16,56 31,20
Heavy Duty Trucks 1,48 1,00 2,04 4,51
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Rigid <=7,5 t 0,55 0,38 0,78 1,71
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 0,54 0,35 0,73 1,62
Rigid 12 - 14 t 0,16 0,11 0,22 0,49
Rigid 14 - 20 t 0,18 0,12 0,24 0,54
Rigid 20 - 26 t 0,03 0,02 0,04 0,08
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid >32 t 0,01 0,00 0,01 0,02
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,03
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Buses 0,45 0,30 0,67 1,42
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 0,43 0,29 0,64 1,36
Coaches Standard <=18 t 0,02 0,01 0,03 0,06
Mopeds 0,14 0,20 0,00 0,34
2-stroke <50 cm³ 0,14 0,20 0,00 0,34
Motorcycles 0,08 0,06 0,17 0,31
4-stroke <250 cm³ 0,04 0,03 0,08 0,15
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 0,03 0,02 0,06 0,11
4-stroke >750 cm³ 0,01 0,01 0,03 0,05

188
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
PM10

POLLUTANT YEAR

PM10 2012

189
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
PM10

190
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38

POLLUTAN YEA SECTOR URBAN [t] RURAL HIGHWAY TOTAL [t]

T R [t] [t]

PM (exhaust) 2012 8,77 5,74 19,72 34,23

Passenger Cars 1,65 1,04 3,16 5,85

Gasoline <0,8 l 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 0,15 0,09 0,31 0,55
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,07 0,04 0,16 0,27
Gasoline >2,0 l 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,03
Diesel <1,4 l 0,03 0,02 0,05 0,09
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,66 0,45 1,34 2,45
Diesel >2,0 l 0,73 0,43 1,29 2,44
Light Commercial Vehicles 5,69 3,72 14,34 23,75
Gasoline <3,5t 0,02 0,01 0,03 0,06
Diesel <3,5 t 5,67 3,71 14,31 23,69
Heavy Duty Trucks 0,98 0,60 1,57 3,14
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid <=7,5 t 0,36 0,23 0,61 1,20
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 0,36 0,22 0,57 1,15
Rigid 12 - 14 t 0,11 0,06 0,17 0,34
Rigid 14 - 20 t 0,12 0,07 0,18 0,36
Rigid 20 - 26 t 0,02 0,01 0,02 0,05
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid >32 t 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Buses 0,31 0,19 0,53 1,03
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 0,29 0,18 0,51 0,98
Coaches Standard <=18 t 0,02 0,01 0,02 0,04
Mopeds 0,10 0,16 0,00 0,26
2-stroke <50 cm³ 0,10 0,16 0,00 0,26
Motorcycles 0,04 0,04 0,13 0,21
4-stroke <250 cm³ 0,02 0,02 0,06 0,10
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 0,01 0,01 0,04 0,07
4-stroke >750 cm³ 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,04

191
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38

POLLUTANT YEAR

PM (exhaust) 2012

192
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38

193
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
EC

POLLUTAN YEA SECTOR URBAN [t] RURAL HIGHWAY TOTAL [t]

T R [t] [t]

EC 2012 6,02 3,78 13,84 23,64

Passenger Cars 1,05 0,69 2,07 3,81

Gasoline <0,8 l 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 0,03 0,02 0,06 0,10
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,01 0,01 0,03 0,05
Gasoline >2,0 l 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Diesel <1,4 l 0,02 0,02 0,04 0,08
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,51 0,35 1,06 1,92
Diesel >2,0 l 0,48 0,29 0,89 1,66
Light Commercial Vehicles 4,18 2,59 10,48 17,25
Gasoline <3,5t 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01
Diesel <3,5 t 4,18 2,59 10,48 17,24
Heavy Duty Trucks 0,58 0,35 0,94 1,87
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid <=7,5 t 0,20 0,13 0,34 0,67
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 0,21 0,13 0,34 0,68
Rigid 12 - 14 t 0,07 0,04 0,11 0,21
Rigid 14 - 20 t 0,08 0,05 0,12 0,24
Rigid 20 - 26 t 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,04
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid >32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Buses 0,18 0,11 0,33 0,63
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 0,17 0,11 0,32 0,60
Coaches Standard <=18 t 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,03
Mopeds 0,02 0,03 0,00 0,04
2-stroke <50 cm³ 0,02 0,03 0,00 0,04
Motorcycles 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,04
4-stroke <250 cm³ 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,02
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01
4-stroke >750 cm³ 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01

194
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38

POLLUTANT EC YEAR

EC 2012

195
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
EC

196
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38

POLLUTAN YEA SECTOR URBAN [t] RURAL HIGHWAY TOTAL [t]

T R [t] [t]

OM 2012 2,35 1,66 4,94 8,96

Passenger Cars 0,48 0,28 0,86 1,62

Gasoline <0,8 l 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 0,08 0,05 0,17 0,31
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,04 0,02 0,08 0,15
Gasoline >2,0 l 0,01 0,00 0,01 0,02
Diesel <1,4 l 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,13 0,08 0,24 0,45
Diesel >2,0 l 0,21 0,12 0,34 0,68
Light Commercial Vehicles 1,35 0,98 3,35 5,67
Gasoline <3,5t 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,03
Diesel <3,5 t 1,34 0,97 3,33 5,64
Heavy Duty Trucks 0,31 0,19 0,49 0,98
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid <=7,5 t 0,13 0,08 0,21 0,41
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 0,12 0,07 0,18 0,36
Rigid 12 - 14 t 0,03 0,02 0,05 0,10
Rigid 14 - 20 t 0,03 0,02 0,04 0,09
Rigid 20 - 26 t 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid >32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Buses 0,10 0,06 0,16 0,31
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 0,09 0,05 0,15 0,30
Coaches Standard <=18 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Mopeds 0,09 0,13 0,00 0,22
2-stroke <50 cm³ 0,09 0,13 0,00 0,22
Motorcycles 0,03 0,03 0,10 0,17
4-stroke <250 cm³ 0,02 0,02 0,05 0,08
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 0,01 0,01 0,03 0,06
4-stroke >750 cm³ 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,03

197
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38

POLLUTANT YEAR

OM 2012

198
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38

199
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
FC

POLLUTAN YEA SECTOR URBAN [t] RURAL HIGHWAY TOTAL [t]

T R [t] [t]

FC 2012 27.189,34 13.503,61 38.969,29 79.662,23

Passenger Cars 13.174,60 7.301,53 20.814,91 41.291,05

Gasoline <0,8 l 85,17 48,10 151,24 284,51
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 5.861,18 3.338,06 9.748,20 18.947,45
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 3.641,48 2.088,06 5.872,65 11.602,19
Gasoline >2,0 l 596,00 321,10 874,46 1.791,56
Diesel <1,4 l 67,26 38,62 117,30 223,18
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 1.742,99 888,13 2.413,70 5.044,82
Diesel >2,0 l 1.180,52 579,46 1.637,36 3.397,34
Light Commercial Vehicles 12.138,21 4.742,48 13.978,62 30.859,31
Gasoline <3,5t 1.493,06 487,20 1.129,06 3.109,32
Diesel <3,5 t 10.645,15 4.255,28 12.849,56 27.749,99
Heavy Duty Trucks 1.220,18 911,45 2.813,35 4.944,98
Gasoline >3,5 t 6,52 5,06 15,59 27,17
Rigid <=7,5 t 315,18 247,78 862,19 1.425,15
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 440,33 331,97 1.016,88 1.789,18
Rigid 12 - 14 t 151,29 111,42 328,74 591,44
Rigid 14 - 20 t 227,26 160,05 444,57 831,87
Rigid 20 - 26 t 42,91 29,51 78,08 150,50
Rigid 26 - 28 t 1,73 1,22 3,19 6,14
Rigid 28 - 32 t 2,14 1,55 4,09 7,78
Rigid >32 t 11,88 8,19 21,10 41,17
Articulated 14 - 20 t 16,10 11,34 30,25 57,69
Articulated 20 - 28 t 4,85 3,37 8,68 16,90
Buses 475,21 345,28 1.008,23 1.828,73
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 438,81 322,09 950,42 1.711,32
Coaches Standard <=18 t 36,40 23,20 57,81 117,41
Mopeds 68,18 102,27 0,00 170,45
2-stroke <50 cm³ 68,18 102,27 0,00 170,45
Motorcycles 112,96 100,59 354,17 567,71
4-stroke <250 cm³ 37,34 37,41 126,43 201,17
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 46,16 39,33 145,05 230,54
4-stroke >750 cm³ 29,46 23,84 82,70 136,00

200
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
FC

POLLUTANT YEAR

FC 2012

201
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
FC

202
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38

POLLUTAN YEA SECTOR URBAN [t] RURAL HIGHWAY TOTAL [t]

T R [t] [t]

CO2 2012 85.200,69 42.294,25 122.067,79 249.562,74

Passenger Cars 41.091,71 22.767,09 64.898,72 128.757,52

Gasoline <0,8 l 264,51 149,38 469,66 883,55
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 18.225,59 10.380,28 30.313,07 58.918,94
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 11.321,77 6.491,75 18.258,10 36.071,61
Gasoline >2,0 l 1.854,98 999,15 2.722,02 5.576,14
Diesel <1,4 l 211,95 121,70 369,65 703,30
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 5.492,73 2.798,78 7.606,35 15.897,86
Diesel >2,0 l 3.720,20 1.826,05 5.159,86 10.706,11
Light Commercial Vehicles 38.194,60 14.926,60 44.008,31 97.129,51
Gasoline <3,5t 4.648,30 1.516,83 3.515,18 9.680,31
Diesel <3,5 t 33.546,31 13.409,76 40.493,13 87.449,19
Heavy Duty Trucks 3.845,22 2.872,31 8.865,83 15.583,35
Gasoline >3,5 t 20,58 15,96 49,19 85,74
Rigid <=7,5 t 993,23 780,83 2.717,04 4.491,09
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 1.387,61 1.046,15 3.204,51 5.638,27
Rigid 12 - 14 t 476,75 351,12 1.035,96 1.863,83
Rigid 14 - 20 t 716,18 504,36 1.400,97 2.621,51
Rigid 20 - 26 t 135,23 93,00 246,04 474,27
Rigid 26 - 28 t 5,44 3,85 10,06 19,35
Rigid 28 - 32 t 6,73 4,87 12,90 24,51
Rigid >32 t 37,43 25,81 66,50 129,73
Articulated 14 - 20 t 50,74 35,73 95,33 181,80
Articulated 20 - 28 t 15,29 10,62 27,34 53,25
Buses 1.497,54 1.088,10 3.177,27 5.762,91
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 1.382,84 1.015,00 2.995,08 5.392,92
Coaches Standard <=18 t 114,70 73,10 182,19 369,99
Mopeds 215,16 322,74 0,00 537,89
2-stroke <50 cm³ 215,16 322,74 0,00 537,89
Motorcycles 356,46 317,42 1.117,67 1.791,55
4-stroke <250 cm³ 117,82 118,06 398,97 634,85
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 145,67 124,12 457,73 727,51
4-stroke >750 cm³ 92,97 75,24 260,98 429,19

The total CO2 reported here is the total ultimate CO2 calculated based on the fuel consumption calculated. This may include emissions
from biofuelled vehicles as well. This is not consistent with the IPCC guidelines, according to which CO2 should be reported on the basis of
fuel sold. To calculate IPCC-consistent CO2 emissions, the user has to provide a statistical fuel consumption for the different fuels and tick
the 'Apply Statistical Fuel Correction' in the 'Fuel Info' form, under the 'Country' menu.

203
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38

POLLUTANT YEAR

CO2 2012

204
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38

205
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
SO2

POLLUTAN YEA SECTOR URBAN [t] RURAL HIGHWAY TOTAL [t]

T R [t] [t]

SO2 2012 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

Passenger Cars 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

Gasoline <0,8 l 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Gasoline 0,8 - 1,4 l 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Gasoline 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Gasoline >2,0 l 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Diesel <1,4 l 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Diesel 1,4 - 2,0 l 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Diesel >2,0 l 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Light Commercial Vehicles 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Gasoline <3,5t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Diesel <3,5 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Heavy Duty Trucks 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Gasoline >3,5 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid <=7,5 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 7,5 - 12 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 12 - 14 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 14 - 20 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 20 - 26 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 26 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid 28 - 32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Rigid >32 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Articulated 14 - 20 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Articulated 20 - 28 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Buses 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Urban Buses Midi <=15 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Coaches Standard <=18 t 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Mopeds 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
2-stroke <50 cm³ 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Motorcycles 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
4-stroke <250 cm³ 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
4-stroke 250 - 750 cm³ 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
4-stroke >750 cm³ 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

206
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
SO2

POLLUTANT YEAR

SO2 2012

207
03/11/2020 Emission Results - Driving Mode oriented COPERT 4 version 11.2
18:46:38
SO2

208
Annex IV: Description of BAT.

This part has been extracted in its entirety from the "COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION
(EU) 2017/1442 of 31 July 2017 establishing best available techniques (BAT) conclusions, under
Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, for large combustion
plants".

Techniques to reduce emissions of NOX and/or CO to air:

 Exhaust-gas recirculation (EGR):

Recirculation of part of the flue-gas to the combustion chamber to replace part of the fresh
combustion air, with the dual effect of cooling the temperature and limiting the O2 content
for nitrogen oxidation, thus limiting the NOX generation. It implies the supply of flue-gas
from the furnace into the flame to reduce the oxygen content and therefore the
temperature of the flame. The use of special burners or other provisions is based on the
internal recirculation of combustion gases which cool the root of the flames and reduce the
oxygen content in the hottest part of the flames.

 Low-NOX combustion concept in diesel engines:

The technique consists of a combination of internal engine modifications, e.g. combustion
and fuel injection optimisation (the very late fuel injection timing in combination with early
inlet air valve closing), turbocharging or Miller cycle.

 Low-NOX burners (LNB):

The technique (including ultra- or advanced low-NOX burners) is based on the principles of
reducing peak flame temperatures; boiler burners are designed to delay but improve the
combustion and increase the heat transfer (increased emissivity of the flame). The air/fuel
mixing reduces the availability of oxygen and reduces the peak flame temperature, thus
retarding the conversion of fuel- bound nitrogen to NOX and the formation of thermal NOX,
while maintaining high combustion efficiency. It may be associated with a modified design
of the furnace combustion chamber. The design of ultra-low-NOX burners (ULNBs) includes
combustion staging (air/fuel) and firebox gases' recirculation (internal flue- gas
recirculation). The performance of the technique may be influenced by the boiler design
when retrofitting old plants.

 Selective catalytic reduction (SCR):

Selective reduction of nitrogen oxides with ammonia or urea in the presence of a catalyst.
The technique is based on the reduction of NOX to nitrogen in a catalytic bed by reaction
with ammonia (in general aqueous solution) at an optimum operating temperature of
around 300–450 °C. Several layers of catalyst may be applied. A higher NOX reduction is
achieved with the use of several catalyst layers. The technique design can be modular, and
special catalysts and/or preheating can be used to cope with low loads or with a wide flue-

209
 gas temperature window. ‘In-duct’ or ‘slip’ SCR is a technique that combines SNCR with
downstream SCR which reduces the ammonia slip from the SNCR unit.

 Water/steam addition:
Water or steam is used as a diluent for reducing the combustion temperature in gas
turbines, engines or boilers and thus the thermal NOX formation. It is either premixed with
the fuel prior to its combustion (fuel emulsion, humidification or saturation) or directly
injected in the combustion chamber (water/steam injection).

Techniques to reduce emissions to air of dust:

 Bag filter:
Bag or fabric filters are constructed from porous woven or felted fabric through which
gases are passed to remove particles. The use of a bag filter requires the selection of a
fabric suitable for the characteristics of the flue-gas and the maximum operating
temperature.

 Electrostatic precipitator (ESP):

Electrostatic precipitators operate such that particles are charged and separated under the
influence of an electrical field. Electrostatic precipitators are capable of operating under a
wide range of conditions. The abatement efficiency typically depends on the number of
fields, the residence time (size), catalyst properties, and upstream particle removal devices.
ESPs generally include between two and five fields. The most modern (high-performance)
ESPs have up to seven fields.

 Fuel choice:
The use of a fuel with a low ash or metals (e.g. mercury) content.

210