Elektromobilität und Klimaschutz in Europa

Felix CreutzigTU Berlin

Economics of Climate Change

Total emissions

Carbon intensityCarbon

intensityEnergy

intensityEnergy

intensity DemandDemand= x x

How do total GHG emission change with the advent of the electric bike in Europe?

How does the carbon intensity of fuels change with electric bikes?

How does the fuel efficiency of average mode change with electric bikes?

How does total distance driven/ travel behaviour change with electric bikes?

Creutzig, F., Edenhofer. O. (2010): Mobilität im Wandel - Wie der Klimaschutz den Transportsektor vor neue Herausforderungen stellt. Internationales Verkehrswesen 62(3):1-6.

Creutzig, F., McGlynn, E., Minx, J., Edenhofer, O. (2011): Climate policies for road transport revisited (1): Evaluation of the current framework. Energy Policy. 39(5): 2396-2406

Fuel efficiency standards

Energy intensity standards (in l/km) extrapolated from current volume and GHG fuel efficiency standards.

Data adapted from An et al. (2007) with updated fuel efficiency regulations

Diversification of fuel pathways

Currently measured either in volume/ distance and/or CO2e/distance.

Any propellant can have varying CO2 footprint. Saudi-Arabian Oil vs. tar sands from Alberta Corn ethanol produced in old bio-refineries vs.

sugar cane ethanol in modern bio-refineries Electricity from coal plants vs. electricity from

renewable energies Car manufacturers cannot influence

the specific CO2 footprint of propellants

With increasing share of alternative fuels & vehicles, regulate car manufacturers in terms of energy efficiency (MJ/km) but not CO2e/km.

California: Low Carbon Fuel StandardUS: RFS2EU: Fuel Quality Directive

Two factors matter: efficiency of cars and carbon content of fuels

Carbon footprint of alternative fuels is with production, and varying.

Carbon intensity standards for fuels

Standards

• EU Fuel Quality Directive, Californian LCFS, and US RFS2

• EU Fuel Quality Directive mandates CO2e-reduction of 6%+2%+2% till 2022

• Californian LCFS first instrument that mandates CO2e-reduction across fuels (10% till 2020)

• Some lifecycle GHG emissions measures in the US federal RFS2 (also: proposal for China) Problem: Standards do not

account for marginal effects

Key messages

• CO2-specific fuel efficiency standard are inappropriate for diversifying fuel supply chains, in particular electric cars

• Fuel intensity standards fail to account for marginal effects of integrated energy markets

What determines the climate change mitigation effect of pedelecs?

• Marginal change in mode choice: switch from car to pedelecs, or additional transport demand from seniors?

• Marginal change in activity: Less or additional distance traveled?

• Marginal change in electricity supply in response to demand from pedelecs: Coal, gas or wind? Additional demand or peak shaving?

REGULATE TRANSPORT DEMAND AND REAP CO-BENEFITS

Our time budget for travel is constant.

As we get richer, we travel more.

For longer travel, we choose faster transport.

The larger question then is how to shift from car to (electric) bike, how to slow down and reduce distances to < 40km a day, but speed up bicycles.

Bill. RMB Creutzig, F. and He, D., Climate Change Mitigation and Co-Benefits of Feasible Transport Demand Policies in Beijing Transportation Research D 14, 120 (2009)

Creutzig, F., Thomas, A., Kammen, D. M., and Deakin, E., in Low Carbon Transport in Asia: Capturing Climate and Development Co-benefits, edited by Eric Zusman, Ancha Srinivasan, and Shobhakar Dhakal (Earthscan, London, 2009)

Net accounting of car traffic in Beijing 2005: Costs are at least 7.7% of Beijng‘s GDP

Co-benefits/ integrated perspective

Push policies•Car traffic restrictions•City toll•Reduce available lanes•Parking fees•Speed limits

Pull policies•Better public transport•Safe space for cycling and walking•Prioritisation of bicycles•Bicycle racks

Land use policies• Compact cities• Polycentric cities• Avoid urban sprawl• No greenfield development• Mixed use neighbourhoods

Objectives

- A- B- C- D

Policies

- 1- 2- 3- 4

Source: Mühlhoff & Creutzig, project report for Freiburg

• All policy dimensions contribute

• Providing e-bikes is not enough push needed

• Land-use for the long-run

BottomlinesFuel and carbon intensity issues to be evaluated from an integrated systems perspective; are still then highly uncertain

From bottom-up:– How do electric bikes

impact modal shares?– What are contextual

policies to shift car drivers to pedelecs?

Keep suburbia in check: increase % of commuting

distance < 20 km

Keep suburbia in check: increase % of commuting

distance < 20 km

Make urban environment cyclist friendly and reduce

barriers (e.g. broad streets)

Make urban environment cyclist friendly and reduce

barriers (e.g. broad streets)

Make bicycle riding increasingly popular also for

business (status symbol thing)

Make bicycle riding increasingly popular also for

business (status symbol thing)

Price parkingPrice parking

Looking for PhD student

Task: •Model urban transport policies, co-benefit approach•Compare transport-land-use interaction across cities world-wide•Develop economic framework for slow modes (safety; convenience; health)

Qualification:•Love to understand details and data of urban transport•Experience with data analysis•Modeling experience (e.g., excel; matlab)

Location: Berlin

Contact:

Dr. Felix CreutzigGroup Leader, TU Berlinwww.user.tu-berlin.de/creutzig