Clean Techn Environ Policy (2010) 12:255–263 DOI 10.1007/s10098-009-0210-y

ORIGINAL PAPER

Potential fuel savings and emissions reduction from fuel economy standards implementation for motor-vehicles A. B. Aizura Æ T. M. I. Mahlia Æ H. H. Masjuki

Received: 29 November 2008 / Accepted: 18 March 2009 / Published online: 31 March 2009 Ó Springer-Verlag 2009

Abstract Currently, the transportation sector alone consumes more than 40% of the total energy consumption in Malaysia. Developed countries around the world have implemented a fuel economy standard for motor-vehicles. This paper attempts to predict the amount of fuel savings and the subsequent economic and environmental impact in the transportation sector by implementing a minimum fuel economy standard for personal vehicles in Malaysia. The calculations are based on the growth of vehicle ownership data in Malaysia. The ownership of private vehicles in Malaysia has rapidly risen from 2,553,574 in 1995 to 6,941,996 in 2006. By implementing the program in 2010 about 15 Gl of fuel can be saved by the end of the year 2018. This correlates to about RM42 billion (1US$ = RM 3.5) in bill savings and 36 million tones of carbon dioxide reductions. This study finds that implementing fuel economy standard for motor-vehicles in Malaysia will provide significant amount of fuel and emission reductions. Keywords Fuel economy  Fuel saving  Energy efficiency  Emission reductions

This is the extended article of a conference paper presented at the International Conference on Plant Equipment and Reliability— ICPER 2008, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 27-29 March 2008. A. B. Aizura  T. M. I. Mahlia (&)  H. H. Masjuki Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

List of symbols AM Annual mileage (km) ASi Applicable stock of motor-vehicle in year i ASi - 1 Applicable stock of motor-vehicle in year i - 1 AFI Annual fuel economy improvement BFCS Baseline fuel consumption in the year of standards (liters/year) BFCYSC Baseline fuel consumption in the year survey conducted (liters/year) EMn Emission factor n for a specific fuel type for a unit of fuel consumption (kg/liter) ERi Emissions reduction in year i (kg) FCi Fuel consumption in year i (liters) FERi Fuel economy ratio in year i (km/l) FERi - 1 Fuel economy ratio in year i - 1 (km/l) FSi Fuel savings in year i of motor-vehicle (liters) L Lifespan of motor-vehicles (year) NVi Number of vehicles in year i NVi - 1 Number of vehicles in year i - 1 NVi - L Number of vehicles in year i - L gs Percentage of standards improvement SFCS Standards fuel consumption (liters/year) Shi Shipments of motor-vehicles in year i SFi Scaling factor SSFi Shipment survival factor in year i of motorvehicle TIS Total fuel economy improvement (%) UFSS Initial unit fuel savings (liters/year) UFSi Unit fuel savings (liters/year) x Predicted year - starting year y Motor-vehicles predicted data YSC Year survey conducted Yshi Year i of shipment of motor-vehicle Ysei Year of standards enacted of motor vehicle (year) YtcT Year target calculation for motor vehicle (year)

123

256

Introduction Like many countries around the world, the Malaysian transportation sector plays a major role in daily activities and is growing rapidly, boosted by the increasing per capita income as many developing countries. The boosting Malaysian economy which recorded an average gross domestic product growth of 6% over the last 20 years (Asian Development Bank 2007) is one of the factors that aid this increase in motor-vehicle ownership. A study by Dargay and Gately (1999) suggests a positive relationship between income and the demand for transportation, both freight and passenger, with the majority growth in developing countries. This is particularly true in Malaysia, as increasing disposable income has made private motor vehicles more affordable, leading to increased demand (Pucher et al. 2006). The trend toward decentralization has also aided the ever growing motor-vehicle population. The trend toward decentralization accelerated from the 1990s, abetted by Malaysia’s appetite for large-scale infrastructure investment with private-sector involvement, primarily in the construction of numerous expressways (Bunnell et al. 2002). The construction of numerous expressways has also resulted in homes and businesses moving toward rural areas where land is in abundance and also more affordable. This decentralization caused travel times to maintain although with longer distances but with a more reduced congestion. This causes a strong demand for motor-vehicles due to insufficient public transport infrastructure in many rural areas. The final energy consumption in Malaysia has also risen at a fast rate of 5.6% between 2000 and 2005 to reach 38.9 Mtoe in 2005 (APEC 2006). A substantial portion of the energy consumed was from oil (63%) which was mainly utilized in the transport and industrial sectors. The transportation sector of Malaysia is heavily reliant on the road transport sub-sector. In 2002, for example, energy demand for road transport represented 86% of the total transport energy demand. Passenger vehicle ownership has been promoted, as Malaysia considers the auto manufacturing industry as an important driver for economic development. Energy demand in road transport is projected to grow at an annual rate of 3.5%. By fuel type, the trend of growth for gasoline is growing at 2.9% annually (APEC 2006). This increase unfortunately warrants to the burning of limited nonrenewable energy resources and consequently increases the atmospheric greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide and other gasses that have a negative impact on the environment. Malaysia ratified the Kyoto protocol on 4 September 2002 whereby among others, the country has to meet the responsibilities toward limiting the emissions on

123

A. B. Aizura et al.

carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses. Therefore, limitations and guidelines must be set for society in order to preserve this nonrenewable energy resource and consequently limit the effects of these greenhouse gasses on our atmosphere for our future generations. A simple and effective strategy for providing guidance to the society is by implementing a fuel economy standard for motor vehicles. According to Clerides and Zachariadis (2008), fuel economy standards have induced considerable amounts of fuel savings throughout the world. A fuel economy standard is a minimum requirement for the energy performance of a motor-vehicle that manufacturers must meet before it can be legally sold. The main benefit of establishing a minimum fuel economy standard is to ensure that ‘poor performers’ are excluded from entering the market and it sets a bottom line of achievement. Policies or controls to improve vehicle fuel economy are mostly found in countries where there is a vehicle manufacturing base. In the United States, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE´) standard is the primary policy for controlling motor-vehicle fuel consumption. Other countries that opts for mandatory (i.e., governed by law) fuel economy standards are Japan, China and South Korea. Countries such as Australia and Canada have a voluntary (i.e., agreement with manufacturers) fuel economy standards program (An and Sauer 2004). Policymakers in Malaysia should implement the mandatory fuel economy standard program. It is found that from the experience of many other countries the mandatory program is more effective compared to a voluntary program.

Data collection For the analysis the data on fuel consumption and privately owned motor-vehicles are collected and analyzed. The data on fuel consumption of private vehicles in Malaysia were taken from the National Energy Balance (Malaysia Energy Centre 2004). The National Energy Balance is a publication available annually which contains energy supply and demand data for Malaysia. The NEB utilizes the Malaysian Energy Database and Information System (MEDIS) that acts as an information center for economic, demographic and other energy related data. The NEB is a cooperative effort by government agencies, power utilities, independent power producers, private oil companies and other industries. The historical data on privately owned vehicles in Malaysia were collected from the Department of Road Transport (2007). In this study only vehicles using petrol are considered as about 89% of motor-vehicles in Malaysia

Implementation of fuel economy standards for motor-vehicles in terms of fuel savings

run on petrol (Ishak 2001). The motor-vehicle fuel consumption and unit of vehicles are shown in Table 1.

257

not necessarily pass through all the data points. Mathematically, a polynomial of order k in x is an expression in the following form: y ¼ c0 þ c1 x þ c2 x2 þ    þ ck xk

Methodology

ð1Þ

Method of calculating potential fuel savings In this study, the method employed to calculate the impact on fuel savings when implementing the fuel economy standard is adapted from Mahlia et al. (2002). The complete equations are discussed in the following sections. Data prediction The polynomial curve fitting method is used to predict the rest of the data. This technique attempts to illustrate the relationship between variable x as the function of available data and its response y. The polynomial curve fitting method seeks to find a smooth curve that best fits, but does

Baseline fuel consumption For products without any standards, the baseline model is the one that has fuel economy equal to the minimum or the average of the existing models. For this purpose the baseline motor-vehicle fuel consumption shall be equal to the average fuel consumption of motor-vehicles in a particular year. The baseline is equal to the amount of total fuel consumed by all motor-vehicles in liters for that year divided by the corresponding number of vehicles in Malaysia. This is can be calculated by the following equation: BFCYSC ¼

Table 1 Motor-vehicle fuel consumption and unit of vehicles (adapted from Malaysia Energy Centre 2004; Department of Road Transport Malaysia 2007) Year

Motor-vehicle fuel consumption (ktoe)

Number of motor-vehicles

1980

1,296

–

1981

–

–

1982

1,509

–

1983

1,726

–

1984

1,892

–

1985

2,057

–

1986

2,162

–

1987

2,274

1,356,678

1988

2,438

1,427,283

1989

2,573

1,534,166

1990

2,889

1,678,980

1991

3,123

1,824,679

1992

3,314

1,942,016

1993 1994

3,654 –

2,088,300 2,302,547

1995

4,477

2,553,574

1996

5,161

2,886,536

1997

5,574

3,271,304

1998

5,849

3,452,854

1999

6,778

3,787,047

2000

6,378

4,145,982

2001

6,820

4,557,992

2002

6,940

5,001,273

2003

4,477

5,426,026

2004

–

5,898,142

2005

–

6,473,261

2006

–

6,941,996

FCi NVi

ð2Þ

Average annual fuel economy rating One of the most common ways to measure the fuel economy of a motor-vehicle is the distance traveled per unit of fuel used either in kilometers per liters (km/l) or miles per gallon (mpg). For this purpose, the unit km/l will be used. The average annual fuel economy rating is calculated using the following equation: FERi ¼ AM 

NVi FCi

ð3Þ

Annual fuel economy improvement The annual fuel economy improvement is the average percentage of improvement of fuel consumption for motor vehicles. The following equation is used to determine the annual fuel economy improvement:   FERi  FERi1 AFI ¼  100 ð4Þ FERi Future baseline fuel consumption The future baseline fuel consumption is the baseline fuel consumption in the year the standard is intended to be implemented. The prediction of baseline fuel consumption for the year the fuel economy standard is proposed to be put into practice is based on the annual fuel economy improvement. The future baseline fuel consumption of a particular year can be predicted using the following equation: BFCS ¼ BFCYSC  ð1 þ AFIÞðYsei YSC Þ

ð5Þ

123

258

A. B. Aizura et al.

Standards fuel consumption The standards fuel consumption is a percentage of fuel economy improvement from the baseline fuel consumption. The calculation is a function of the baseline fuel consumption. It can be expressed by the following equation: SFCS ¼ BFCS  ð1  gS Þ

ð6Þ

implementation using the scaling factor. This factor accounts for the natural decrease in fuel consumption with or without fuel economy standards over time. The unit fuel savings for motor-vehicles can be calculated by the following equation: UFSi ¼ SFi  UFSS

ð11Þ

Shipment survival factor

Initial unit fuel savings

UFSS ¼ BFCS  SFCS

ð7Þ

Shipment Shipment data for motor-vehicles are the amount of registered vehicles in the predicted year minus the amount of vehicle from the previous year plus the amount of retired vehicles in the current year. The shipment of motor-vehicles can be expressed by the following equation: Shi ¼ ðNVi  NVi1 Þ þ NViL

ð8Þ

Total fuel economy improvement Total fuel economy improvement is the percentage ratio between the initial unit fuel savings and the baseline unit fuel consumption of motor-vehicles during the particular year the standards are enacted. The total fuel economy improvement is calculated by the following equation: TIS ¼

UFSS  100 BFCS

ð9Þ

Scaling factor Due to technological advances making motor-vehicles more fuel efficient, there would be a natural decrease in fuel consumption with or without fuel economy standards over time. Therefore the scaling factor functions to linearly scale down the initial unit fuel savings of motor-vehicles over the effective lifetime of the standards. The scaling factor can be expressed as the following: SFi ¼ 1  ðYshi  Ysei Þ 

AFI TIS

A retirement function is to estimate the survival rate of the motor-vehicle. According to Sanchez et al. (1998), the relation between age/average lifespan with survival factor of a product is illustrated in Fig. 1. This function can be expressed as follows: If age \ [2/3 9 (average life)] then 100% survival of products If age [ [2/3 9 (average life)] and age \ [4/3 9 (average life)] Then [2 - age 9 1.5/(average life)] survive If age [ [4/3 9 (average life)] then 0% survive. Applicable stock The applicable stock is the total number of motor-vehicles actually affected by the standards. It takes into account the shipment of motor-vehicles in particular year plus the number of motor-vehicles affected by standards in the 1

0.75

0.50

0.25

ð10Þ

Unit fuel savings The unit fuel savings is the result of the initial unit fuel savings adjusted downward in the years after the standards

123

The shipment survival factor is a function of the annual retirement rate and the retirement function. It is a factor to determine the actual shipment survival rate of a product. If the standards setting is shorter than two-third of the average lifespan of product, shipment survival factor will be 100%. Or else the shipment survival factor for motorvehicles can be calculated as:    YtcT  YshðiÞ  2=3 l SSFi ¼ 1  ð12Þ ð4=3  2=3Þ  L

Product Survival

Initial unit fuel savings is the total amount of fuel saved determined from the difference between annual unit fuel consumption of a motor-vehicle meeting the fuel economy standards and the annual unit fuel consumption that would have been shipped in the absence of fuel economy standards. The initial unit fuel savings can be expressed as below:

0 0

2/3

1

4/3

Age/Average Lifespan Fig. 1 The relation between age/average lifespan with survival factor of a product

Implementation of fuel economy standards for motor-vehicles in terms of fuel savings

ASi ¼ ðShi  SSFi Þ þ ASi1

ð13Þ

Fuel savings The fuel savings is the amount of fuel saved by implementing the fuel economy standards. It is a function of applicable stock, unit fuel savings and scaling factor that scales down the fuel savings. It can be determined by the following equation: FSi ¼

T X

ASi  UFSi  SFi

ð14Þ

i¼s

8,000 7,000

Fuel Consumption (ktoe)

previous year multiplied by the shipment survival factor. The applicable stock can be calculated using the following equation:

259

6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 2

y = 9.0623x + 78.222x + 1317.2

1,000 0 1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Year

Fig. 2 The data plot for the prediction of fuel consumption for personal vehicles

Potential environmental impact The environmental impact of the fuel economy standards is in the form of potential emissions reduction. The common emissions from motor-vehicles consist of CO2, SO2, NOx and CO. The emissions reduction is a function of fuel savings. The environmental impact can be calculated using the following equation: ERi ¼ FSi  ðEm1 þ Em2 þ Em3 þ    þ Emn Þ

ð15Þ

Number of Personal Vehicles

7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 2

y = 12902.18x + 47743.13x + 1380730.29

1,000,000 0 1980

Results and discussions

1985

1990

1995

2000

Year

Data analysis

Fig. 3 The data plot for the prediction of number of personal vehicles

Based on the data shown in Table 1, using Eq. 1 the data for fuel consumption for personal vehicles can be predicted using the mathematical equation below and the plot is shown in Fig. 2: y ¼ 9:0623x2 þ 78:222x þ 1317:2; R2 ¼ 0:9844 ð16Þ Based on the data shown in Table 1, using Eq. 1 the data for the number of personal vehicles can be predicted using the following mathematical equation and the plot shown in Fig. 3: y ¼ 12902:18x2 þ 47743:13x þ 1380730:29;

R2 ¼ 1:00

ð17Þ The predicted motor-vehicle fuel consumption and unit of motor-vehicles in Malaysia from year 2010 until the year 2020 using the polynomials are shown in Table 2. The type of equivalency in energy data is given by ton oil equivalent (toe). Toe generally refers to energy content to one metric ton of crude oil. The international table standard defines one toe as having a net calorific value of 10 Gcal. There are different definitions in the literature for ton oil equivalent. The one used in this study is the conversion factor 1 toe = 10 Gcal = 41.868 GJ (EIA 2004; IEA 2002; UN 1991).

Table 2 Predicted motor-vehicle fuel consumption and unit of motor-vehicles Year

Motor-vehicle fuel consumption (ktoe)

Motor-vehicle fuel consumption (l)

Number of motor-vehicle

2010

11,820

14,836,376,136

9,304,076

2011

12,451

15,628,435,327

9,958,221

2012 2013

13,100 13,767

16,443,244,516 17,280,803,703

10,638,171 11,343,925

2014

14,453

18,141,112,887

12,075,484

2015

15,156

19,024,172,070

12,832,847

2016

15,878

19,929,981,251

13,616,014

2017

16,618

20,858,540,429

14,424,986

2018

17,376

21,809,849,605

15,259,762

2019

18,152

22,783,908,780

16,120,343

2020

18,946

23,780,717,952

17,006,728

Calculating potential fuel savings The baseline fuel consumption for the year 2006 is calculated using Eq. (2):

123

260

BFC2006 ¼

A. B. Aizura et al.

11; 895; 639; 351 ¼ 1; 925 l/year 6; 178; 376

ð18Þ

The number 11,895,639,351 represents the fuel consumption in the unit liters in the year 2006. This number is obtained from using Eq. 16 for the year 2006. The value is then converted to the unit liters. For the conversion factor the amount of energy represented by one giga joule is equivalent to about 30 l of gasoline as per stated in Alberta Energy (2007). The number 6,178,376 is the number of vehicles using only petrol in the year 2006. As per mentioned in ‘‘Data collection’’, only 89% of motor vehicles in Malaysia run on petrol as per stated by Ishak (2001). The fuel economy ratio and annual fuel economy improvement is calculated using Eqs. 3 and 4, respectively, and tabulated in Table 3. Then using Eq. 5 the average of the annual fuel economy improvement (AFI) is then used to predict the baseline fuel consumption for the year the fuel economy standards will be implemented as shown below: BFCS ¼ 1; 925  ð1 þ 0:012Þð2;0102;006Þ ¼ 2; 019 l/year ð19Þ Some other primary data inputs are needed for the remaining analysis. However, similar to other developing countries it is difficult to attain complete statistical and

Table 3 Fuel economy ratio and annual fuel economy improvement

technical data. Estimates of these data nevertheless are collected from Azman et al. (2004) and Masjuki et al. (2004) and the results are tabulated in Table 4. Table 5 displays the results for the calculation of potential fuel savings due to the implementation of a motor-vehicle fuel economy standard in Malaysia. It must be addressed that the fuel economy standards for motorvehicles in Malaysia are only effective up to a certain point in time. This is due to the AFI expected to constantly improve over time inline with the technological advances of motor-vehicles. It still improves at an average of 1.2% annually even without standards. The improvement is due to technological advances of motor-vehicles that makes it more fuel efficient over the years. For example, the average fuel consumption of a motor-vehicle (or the baseline unit) in the year of implementation is 2,019 l/year (refer Table 4). Without standards implementation, this baseline unit will eventually improve to about 1,833 l/year at a rate of 1.2% per year after 8 years. In the ninth year the baseline unit will be about 1,811 l/unit which exceeds the targeted standard intended to be implemented (which is 1,817 l/year, refer Table 4). So in a scenario where the fuel economy standard is implemented without revising it before the eighth year of implementation, the fuel economy standard will cease to be irrelevant. In Fig. 4, the projected annual savings in the year the fuel economy standards are enacted is significantly high and continues to increase in the following year. However, the annual savings begins to decline thereafter until the end of the analysis period. This is due to the projected technological improvement in the baseline begins to catch up to the set standards. Since the savings calculations are based on the baseline unit of the current year of purchase, the savings would begin to decrease with the technological advances improving the fuel economy of motor-vehicles in the later years. Referring to Fig. 4, the standard is only effective for about 8 years from 2010 to 2018. Figure 5 shows the comparison of fuel consumption with standards and fuel consumption without standard (BAU). It shows that between the years the standards are

Year

FER (km/l)

AFI (%)

1987

7.69

-1.91

1988

7.55

1.82

1989

7.69

-2.60

1990

7.49

0.53

1991

7.53

0.30

1992

7.55

-2.54

1993

7.37

-3.96

1994

7.09

3.62

1995

7.35

-1.98

1996

7.21

4.70

1997 1998

7.57 7.61

0.58 -5.66

1999

7.20

14.05

2000

8.38

2.74

Year standards enacted

2,010

2001

8.61

7.26

Discount rate

7%

2002

9.29

-5.06

Average lifespan

15 years

2003

8.84

2.14

Baseline fuel consumption

2,019 l/year

2004

9.04

3.23

Estimated fuel price in year of implementation RM2.75

2005

9.34

1.16

Standards fuel consumption

1,817 l/year

2006

9.45

-1.91

Annual mileage

19,320 & 20,000 km

Annual fuel economy improvement

1.2%

Average

123

1.20%

Table 4 Input data for potential fuel savings Description

Values

Implementation of fuel economy standards for motor-vehicles in terms of fuel savings Table 5 The calculation results of potential fuel savings

Year

Shipment (0 000)

Applicable stock (0 000)

Scaling factor

Unit fuel savings (l)

Potential fuel Savings (l)

2010

3,862

3,862

1.00

202

780,210,354

2011

4,217

8,079

0.88

178

1,436,131,360

2012

4,596

12,675

0.76

154

1,945,889,975

2013

4,961

17,636

0.64

129

2,279,951,885

2014

5,363

22,999

0.52

105

2,415,835,367

2015

5,849

28,849

0.40

81

2,330,980,545

2016

6,253

35,101

0.28

57

1,985,329,006

2017

6,719

41,820

0.16

32

1,351,634,973

2018

7,207

49,027

0.04

8

3,000,000,000

396,137,672

Table 6 Input data for potential environmental impact (adapted from Emission Factors 2002)

2,500,000,000 2,000,000,000

(litres)

261

1,500,000,000 1,000,000,000

Type of emission

Emission factor

Emission factor

Carbon dioxide (CO2)

73.00 kg/GJ

2.4 kg/l

Carbon oxide (CO)

3490.86 g/GJ

116.4 g/l

Sulfur dioxide (SO2)

2.28 g/GJ

0.076 g/l

Nitrogen oxide (NOX)

1368.76 g/GJ

45.63 g/l

500,000,000

Table 7 The calculation results of potential environmental savings

0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Year

CO2 (Ton)

SO2 (kg)

NOx (kg)

CO (kg)

2010

1,872,505

57,736

34,922,215

89,061,012

2011

3,446,715

106,274

64,281,240

163,934,395

2012

4,670,136

143,996

87,098,035

222,123,341

2013

5,471,885

168,716

102,050,646

260,256,508

2014

5,798,005

178,772

108,132,791

275,767,607

2015

5,594,353

172,493

104,334,689

266,081,429

2016

4,764,790

146,914

88,863,326

226,625,306

18,000,000,000

2017

3,243,924

100,021

60,499,181

154,289,132

16,000,000,000

2018

950,730

29,314

17,731,122

45,219,115

Fig. 4 Projected annual fuel savings by implementing fuel economy standards for motor-vehicles

BAU

STD

24,000,000,000

(litres)

22,000,000,000 20,000,000,000

14,000,000,000 12,000,000,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fig. 5 Motor-vehicle fuel consumption with and without standards

implemented that is between 2010 and 2018 an estimated amount of 14,922,101,137 l or about 15 Gl of fuel can be saved. And that result is only the minimum amount which can be saved for the calculations of this result, and is only based on the minimum standards (km/l) allowed. In actual cases there would be many motor-vehicles sold that exceeds the set standard. Potential environmental impact In order to calculate the potential environmental impact, the emission factor (Emn) for a specific fuel type for a unit

of fuel consumption is needed. The emission factor for carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO) which are collected from the Emission Factors (2002) are shown in Table 6. The values are converted to unit kilogram/liter or gram/liter for the purpose of calculations. These data are added to Table 6. These converted values are then used to calculate the potential reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO) using Eq. 15. Equation 15 is in its general form. For the purpose of calculating emissions reduction in this paper, only one variable, EM1, is used (Table 7). The potential carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO) reductions are presented in Table 6 and Fig. 6. From the table and figure it is shown that the total CO2 reduction will be about

123

262

A. B. Aizura et al.

Fig. 6 Calculation results of potential CO2, NOx, CO and SO2 reduction

8,000,000

300,000,000 NOx (kg) CO (kg)

250,000,000

SO2 (kg)

6,000,000

CO2 (Ton) 5,000,000 4,000,000

200,000,000

150,000,000

3,000,000 100,000,000

CO (kg), NOx (kg)

CO2 (Ton), SO2 (kg)

7,000,000

2,000,000 50,000,000

1,000,000 0

0 2010

2011

35,813,043 tons, while the total SO2 reduction in the same period is about 1,104,235 kg and the total NOx and CO reduction is about 667,913,247 and 1,703,357,845 kg, respectively.

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge for the Ministry of Higher Education of Malaysia and The University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia for the financial support under PJP Grant No: FR08810/2007A.

References Conclusions The fuel economy standard for vehicle has been proven to reduce national energy consumption in many countries around the world. It can be concluded that the implementation of fuel economy standards for motor-vehicles in Malaysia will bring about significant benefits primarily in terms of fuel savings. The reduction of fuel consumption would also result in the reduction of carbon dioxide and other toxic matters into our environment thus helping to create a better world for our future generations. A minimum fuel economy standard set would also create competition among local motor-vehicle manufacturers which will encourage them to produce motor-vehicles that are more fuel economic and internationally marketable. By purchasing a motorvehicle that is fuel economic at a slightly higher cost, the consumers would pay less for fuel price. This would be a solution to the current situation of increasing fuel prices. Once the fuel economy standards are implemented, motorvehicles that do not meet the minimum set standards will be pushed out from the market. If most of the motor-vehicles’ fuel economy rating exceed the standards, it will become irrelevant. For that reason, the standards must be revised from time to time to continue progress in improving fuel consumption of motor-vehicles. Furthermore, implementation of fuel economy standard is the best policy program to conserve energy in a developing country like Malaysia. Finally, this piece of work hopefully can help policymaker to generate unavailable data in the developing countries in order to develop fuel economy standards for motor-vehicle.

123

Alberta Energy (2007) Energy measurements. Retrieved Jan 12, 2007, from (http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/About_Us/1132.asp#Crude_ Oil) An F, Sauer A (2004) Comparison of passenger vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards around the world. Pew Centre on Global Climate Change, Arlington APEC (2006) Energy demand and supply outlook. APEC, Kuala Lumpur Azman ZA, Radin D, Ahmad R, Ramdzani A, Chung I (2004) The estimation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the transport sector in Malaysia (2000–2020). The 9th AIM international workshop, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba Bunnell T, Barter PA, Morshidi S (2002) City profile Kuala Lumpur metropolitan area: a globalising city-region. Cities 19(5):357– 370 Clerides S, Zachariadis T (2008) The effect of standards and fuel prices on automobile fuel economy: an international analysis. Energy Econ 30(5):2657–2672 Dargay J, Gately D (1999) Income’s effect on car and vehicle ownership, worldwide:1960–2015. Transp Res A Policy Pract 33(2):101–138 Department of Road Transport (2007) Transport statistics Malaysia 2007, Putrajaya. Department of Road Transport, Putrajaya Emission Factors (2002) Emission factors for transport. Accessed on May 9, 2007 from http://www2.dmu.dk/1_Viden/2_Miljoetilstand/ 3_luft/4_ADAEI/tables/emf_transport_2002.htm EIA (2004) Energy information administration. Accessed on January 11, 2007 from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/contents.html IEA (2002) Oil information 2002. IEA/OECD, Paris Ishak A (2001) Vehicle inspection and maintenance in Malaysia. Regional workshop: strengthening vehicle inspection & maintenance, 7–9 November, Chongqing Mahlia TMI, Masjuki HH, Choudhury IA (2002) Theory of energy efficiency standards and labels. Energy Convers Manage 43(6):743–761

Implementation of fuel economy standards for motor-vehicles in terms of fuel savings Malaysia Energy Centre (2004) National energy balance. For Ministry of Energy, Communications and Multimedia, Bangi, Malaysia Masjuki HH, Karim MR, Mahlia TMI (2004) Energy use in the transportation sector of Malaysia. Economic planning unit of the Prime Minister’s Department. Consultancy Unit, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur

263

Pucher J, Park H, Kim MH (2006) Public transport reforms in Seoul: innovations motivated by funding crisis. J Public Transp 8(5):41–62 Sanchez MC, Koomey JG, Moezzi MM, Meier AK, Huber W (1998) Miscellaneous electricity use in the U.S. residential sector. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley UN (1991) Energy statistics: a manual for developing countries, Series F, No. 56, United Nations, New York

123