Publication | Open Access
How much difference in type-approval CO2 emissions from passenger cars in Europe can be expected from changing to the new test procedure (NEDC vs. WLTP)?
133
Citations
20
References
2018
Year
EngineeringEconomic AssessmentEnvironmental Impact AssessmentPassenger CarsCarbon AccountingCarbon Emission TradingTransportation EmissionsType-approval Co2 EmissionsEmission ControlExhaust EmissionGreen VehicleSystems EngineeringLight-duty VehiclesAssessmentStatisticsGreenhouse Gas MeasurementGreenhouse Gas Emission ReductionEmission ReductionTest ProceduresEnergy PolicyNew Test ProcedureEnergy EconomicsSimulation Software Co2mpas
After significant efforts from many parties, the World-wide harmonized Light duty Test Procedure (WLTP) has seen its light first as the UNECE Global Technical Regulation and then as the procedure adopted in the type-approval of light-duty vehicles in Europe. The paper focuses its attention on the main procedural differences between the WLTP and the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC), which is the test-procedure currently used in Europe. In general terms the WLTP appears to be a significant improvement compared to the NEDC. The main differences between two test procedures are identified and their impact on CO2 emissions quantified using the in-house built simulation software CO2MPAS. On the basis of each of these differences, the paper assesses the potential total impact on the final reported type-approval CO2 emissions. The biggest impact on CO2 emissions is coming from the changes in the road load determination procedure (∼10% increase). Procedural changes concerning the test in the laboratory will bring another 8% and post-processing and declaration of results will result in difference of approximately 5% (each). Overall, the WLTP is likely to increase the type-approval CO2 emissions by approximately 25%. Therefore, the WLTP will be able to reduce more than half of the gap identified between the type-approval and real-life figures in Europe. This should be seen as a considerable improvement given the ontological limitations of a laboratory-based test procedure.
| Year | Citations | |
|---|---|---|
Page 1
Page 1