IEEE publishes new 1609.3-2016 WAVE standard supporting connected vehicle deployment
BMW boosts battery capacity of MY2017 i3 to 33 kWh with higher energy density Li-ion cells; up to 114 miles combined cycle range

Roland Berger study outlines integrated vehicle and fuels roadmap for further abating transport GHG emissions 2030+ at lowest societal cost

A new study by consultancy Roland Berger defines an integrated roadmap for European road transport decarbonization to 2030 and beyond; the current regulatory framework for vehicle emissions, carbon intensity of fuels and use of renewable fuels covers only up to 2020/2021.

The study was commissioned by a coalition of fuel suppliers and automotive companies with a view to identifying a roadmap to 2030+ to identify GHG abatement options at the lowest cost to society. The coalition comprises BMW, Daimler, Honda, NEOT/St1, Neste, OMV, Shell, Toyota and Volkswagen. Among the key findings of the study were:

  • Maintaining the existing vehicle efficiency and fuels regulations to 2030 will lower tank-to-wheel GHG emissions from road transport to 647 Mt representing a 29% reduction compared to 2005 levels, achieving almost aspired level for 2030.

    Transport will also deliver tank-to-wheel emissions savings of 191 Mt CO2e between 2015 and 2030 to reduce the total well-to-wheel GHG emission in 2030 to 862 Mt CO2e. The well-to wheel-emission savings represent a 23% reduction in tank-to-wheel emissions and a 22% reduction in well-to-tank emissions.

    Optimized internal combustion engines are the major contributor to the reduction of passenger car GHG emissions with significant improvements until 2020 and the subsequent penetration of more effective alternative technologies into the fleet.

    Despite the expected reduction in cost of alternative technologies, the share of new car sales will remain relatively small; the influence of these technologies on overall emissions currently remains marginal. Even until 2030 many alternative powertrain technologies such as PHEV, BEV and FCV lack relative cost competitiveness—but are important cornerstones in vehicle manufacturers’ CO2 emission compliance strategies.

  • GHG abatement in road transport sector will cost approx. €150-200 (US$172-229) per ton of CO2e avoided. Bringing optimized ICEs as well as alternative fuels and powertrain technologies to market will account for €380-390 billion (US$435-446) of cumulated incremental powertrain costs from 2010 until 2030.

  • To further abate GHG emissions in road transport by 2030, more biofuels and hybrid powertrains for passenger cars as well as more biofuels and new truck concepts for commercial vehicles are a cost effective way of delivering more GHG savings from transport and with supportive polices they can deliver an extra 34 Mt CO2e by 2030.

    From the GHG abatement cost perspective, the study found that the most efficient technologies are full deployment of the E10 grade, to reach the 7% energy cap of conventional biofuels; higher advanced ethanol blends for gasoline such as E20; drop-in advanced biofuels for diesel; and hybridized powertrains, such as mild hybrids and full hybrids.

    These technologies have not yet realized their full GHG reduction potential in terms of deployment under the current regulatory framework and come at costs of 0–100 €/ton-CO2 abated. The additional abatement potential of these technologies is approx. 34 Mton CO2e (WTW).

    —Roland Berger study


  • For the longer-term (beyond 2030), the study indicates that the only fuel and vehicle combinations technically suited to achieving “ultra-low carbon emission mobility” are:

    • Highly-efficient conventional powertrains (Mild- and full-Hybrid) fueled with advanced and waste based biofuels/-gases (for passenger cars (PC) and commercial vehicles (CV))
    • PHEVs fueled with advanced biofuels and low carbon, renewable electricity (for PC)
    • BEVs fueled with low carbon, renewable electricity (for PC)
    • FCVs fueled with low carbon, renewable hydrogen (for PC)

    The latter powertrain technologies also offer the advantage of zero pollutant emissions.

  • Policy makers should adopt an integrated approach in policy design and promote the deployment of cost-efficient GHG abatement technologies post-2020.

  • Market-based mechanisms (MBMs) are an option as complementary policy to vehicle CO2 standards, fuels and infrastructure policies generating funds for member states to support new ultra-low-carbon vehicle and fuel technologies.

    Placing fuels in a market-based system (MBM) will also lead to GHG abatement becoming an economy-wide rather than a sectorial issue based on the lowest cost to society.

    Initially, the MBM should be designed to recycle the revenues from the sale of allowances for fuels to provide the funding needed to bring new low carbon fuels and vehicles to market. Once low-carbon fuels and vehicles can be deployed affordably en masse, then the MBM can be the primary GHG reduction policy and other policies (vehicle efficiency, fuels etc.) can be removed.

Methodology. The study developed a realistic reference case for potential GHG emission reductions under the current regulatory framework with predicted market improvements. The abatement effect of enabling vehicle and fuel technologies was assessed with a comprehensive vehicle fleet and fuel model for EU-28, covering GHG emissions from passenger cars, light commercial vehicle and other commercial vehicles as well as indirect emissions from fuel and electricity production.

For the model, the team derived a likely powertrain mix for different vehicle groups until 2030. These powertrain mix forecasts are based on projected fuel and vehicle costs for conventional internal combustion engines (ICE); mild and full hybrids; and alternative powertrains such as plug-in hybrids (PHEV); battery electric vehicles (BEV); natural gas vehicles (CNG); and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCV).

The reference case predicts, within two different scenarios for oil price development and battery technology progress, an expected market development for each technology under the current regulatory framework.

For the reference case, the model assumed extension of the existing legislation to 2030. After comparing transport sector emissions under the current regulatory framework with the 2030 GHG emissions reduction targets, the study authors identified technologies to achieve additional GHG abatement at the lowest cost to society. In order for these technologies to contribute to the abatement of road transport sector GHG emissions, the recommended policies need to address the current obstacles these technologies face.




We have recently closed a small CANDU (about 600 MW) and the 'safe keeping' of this closed nuclear site will cost about $750,000,000 for the next 25 years.

Cleaning up the site and accumulated radio-active materials-residues is too expensive to envisage.

Safe keeping will probably be expanded for a few hundred years. Radio-active leaks may lead to compulsory clean up by 2100 or so.

Since that site was not properly insured, neighbors cannot claim for current and future runoffs.


$30 million a year just to let something sit?  Harvey, even you should recognize that that number is complete nonsense.



Installed Hydro and average power generation can be very different. You may have close to 50,000 MW installed but use as little as 25,000 MW average due to wide differences between peak and low demands hours and not due to lower production capabilities such as with Wind and/or Solar energy generation.

Our average consumption is about 32,000 MW with a low of under 19,000 MW and a high of over 42,000 MW. on a few very cold January days due to electric home heating.

The current 4,000 MW of Wind power installed could be 100% used (when available) by reducing Hydro generation proportionally and saving water in the large reservoirs.

Something like 100+ large H2 stations with large electrolizers and large storage tanks, working off high demand hours, could help to even the load.

Alternatively, we could 2X or 3X sales to Eastern USA, Ontario and NB, when they are willing to pay the right price.


You quote a completely bogus number, I call you on it, and your reaction is to go off on a completely different topic?

Either you're senile, or you're a troll-bot.


A good part of the $750,000,000 goes for the relocation of the ex-725 employees and families and their financial support for an extended period and for retraining/moving as required. This being the last local CANDU to close, the 725 specialists are no longer required.

Next is the cost to remove the 600 MW electrical station and power lines; secure the site with high semi-permanent walls; install more, better cameras and remote control equipment; hire and pay for many more security and safety personnel;

Closing NPPs is never very cheap unless you want to do like OILCOS and just leave the place to mother nature. Our CANDU was Government/Quebec Hydro own and it was never the intention the run away.

The NPP shut down cost will be spread over 25+ years but the main portion of he cost will be during the first 5 years.

Everybody knows that installed energy production capabilities are very often more than 3X times the low consumption periods and often close to 2X times the average consumption.

That is true for Hydro and it is even much worst for Wind and Solar energy generation. Our Wind farms production vary from 15% to 52% of name plate capacity. Early units were not installed in the best places, were too small and installed too low. The latest Wind farms composed of much larger (higher) units, installed on higher mountains produce 3+X as much.

Larger 5 to 10 MW direct drive units with automatic de-icing equipment, installed on 500 ft towers in the right places, will do even better. Spread out over 1,000,000+ Km2, it could complement Hydro specially when Hydro is used as back-up (storage) for variable RE sources.


You take seriously a figure on the order of $1 million/worker to relocate redundant personnel?


The Bruce Point refurbishments are expected to take on the order of $2 billion/unit (CDN I assume).  That's half the figure quoted for Gentilly.  If Pierre Trudeau gets his refugee program through and dumps enough third-worlders on Quebec to render the PQ forever irrelevant, you'll miss that power.  Good luck, you'll need it.


By the way, closing/covering the failed reactor in Ukraine will cost at least 10X times as much and a lot more collateral damages.

Also, 300+ early intervenants have or are dying from cancer and/or related diseases and many thousand hectares of land are still unusable.

Direct and indirect repair cost is going over $100B in Japan and rising.

Pierre Trudeau died many years ago, did you mean our current PM Justin? No so sure that Pierre Trudeau was responsible for the CANDU, where we have a huge surplus of clean Hydro energy? It never made sense.

Refurbishing that old CANDU to produce unwanted energy would have cost at least 4 to 6 times more than closing it.

By the way, closing/covering the failed reactor in Ukraine will cost at least 10X times as much and a lot more collateral damages.

The fuss over Chernobyl is silly.  They could just pump the building full of concrete and be done with it, but they won't.

300+ early intervenants have or are dying from cancer and/or related diseases and many thousand hectares of land are still unusable.

Liar.  "The risk of leukaemia, one of the most sensitive indicators of radiation exposure, has not been found to be elevated even in the accident recovery operation workers or in children. There is no scientific proof of an increase in other non-malignant disorders related to ionizing radiation.".  Wildlife is doing wonderfully.  The "Chernobyl babushkas" returned to their homes and are happier and healthier than the evacuees.

Direct and indirect repair cost is going over $100B in Japan and rising.

Those are expenditures.  Most of the spending, and 99% of the evacuation cost, is completely unnecessary.  It is not only not doing any good, much of it is actively harmful.  It is driven by paranoia, not by any real evaluation of risk.

Refurbishing that old CANDU to produce unwanted energy would have cost at least 4 to 6 times more than closing it.

Bruce Point refurbishments are budgeted at less than 3x the cost YOU claim just for safekeeping, and they'll produce 30 years of power 24/7 for less capital cost per kWh than wind.  Maybe you can manage with hydro in Quebec, but that only works because your rainfall is good and your pop density is very low.  That's not true for the rest of NA, and it probably won't continue to be true even for QC.


If the reactor + all the accumulated used fuel could blow up and/or burn during the same accident, it may create more short term but less long term damages?

One day, we may learn how to built affordable safe reactors. Are smaller or larger units the solution?

Meanwhile, let's hope that they will not be built too close to potentially unstable areas and that high safety measures are maintained.

The last CANDU refurbished (in NB) cost over $4.5B (in 2000 dollars). It is doubtful if it can be done for $2.0B (in 2020 dollars) unless it is very partially done?

Direct and indirect fatalities associated with the Chernobyl accident are estimated by BBC at 300+ to date but the total will probably never be exactly known for reasons associated with national interests.


About USD2.2 billion per unit.

6 units, about CDN2.0 billion per GW.

If you believe the BBC's made-up numbers even after being given reliable sources which debunk them, you aren't smart enough to have a worthwhile opinion.

The comments to this entry are closed.