1887
Volume 2012, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 2220-2765
  • E-ISSN:

Abstract

Abstract

For reasons of sustainability, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy security, it becomes necessary to properly evaluate all of Australia’s options for powering its transportation fleet. When doing this it is equally important to understand all the costs (economic, social, and environmental) and emissions during the fuel extraction, refining and distribution stages as well as the final combustion stage. All steps in the full pathway contribute to the final economic and environmental profile of any given fuel.

The natural gas (NG) family of fuels has to be seriously considered as providing for large-scale transportation. From a combustion point of view, NG derivatives have a lower carbon-to-hydrogen ratio than oil-based fuels and should therefore be cleaner, but the upstream emissions of the fuels need to be properly understood. The supply pathways of gaseous fuels are more diverse than the oil-based fuels pathways, because the sources of gas are varied and can imply substantially different emissions profiles. It is therefore important to understand these various pathways so that the profiles for each can be documented and policy formulated accordingly.

This preliminary study is conducted based on a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach to evaluate potential sustainability of using gaseous fuels (CNG/LNG) for light commercial and passenger vehicles in Australia taking into account information on the production, distribution and use of gaseous fuel. Data for this study are mostly sourced from published literature. The results of the study reveal a significant opportunity for Australia to increase sustainability of the transport fleet if it takes gaseous fuels on as major source for transport vehicles.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5339/stsp.2012.1
2012-02-13
2019-11-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/stsp/2012/1/stsp.2012.1.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5339/stsp.2012.1&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. ABARE (2009, May). The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Energy in Australia 2009, Report, Retrieved from http:/www.abare.gov.au.
  2. Manzini F. and Martinez M.  Choosing an energy future: the environmental impact of end-use technologies. Energy Policy. 1999; 27::40114.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Wackernagel M. and Yount J.  The ecological footprint: an indicator of progress toward regional sustainability. Environment Monitoring Assess. 1998; 51::51129.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Afgan N.H., Carvalho M.G. and G Hovanov N.V.  Energy system assessment with sustainability indicators. Energy Policy. 2000; 28::603612.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Todd, J.A. and Curran M.A.   (Eds.), Streamlined life cycle assessment, A Final report from the SETAC North America Streamlined LCA Workgroup, SETAC, 1999, June.
  6. Brundtland Commission (1987). World Commission on Environment and Development, Report.
  7. Sikdar S.K.  Sustainable development and sustainability metrics. AIChE Journal. 2003; 49::19281932.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Schlumberger J.C. 2010. The new energy mix, Geo-science Australia, Retrieved from http://www.ga.gov.au/servlet/BigObjFileManager?bigobjid=GA16759.
  9. Malcolm K.  Natural gas hydrates: Energy for the future. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 1994; 29::307311.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. ECJRC (2006). European Commission Joint Research Centre, Well-to-wheel analysis of future automotive fuels and power trains in the European context: Well-to-Tank, Report, Version 2b, May 2006, Retrieved from http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/WTW.
  11. Frischknecht R.  et al.Report. 3rd ed., BEW, Bern, Swisszerland. 1996.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Granovskii M., Dincer I. and Rosen M.A.  Life cycle assessment of hydrogen fuel cell and gasoline vehicles. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 2006; 31::337352.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Yan X. and Crookes R.J.  Life cycle analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for road transportation fuels in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2009; 13::25052514.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. López J.M., Gómez A., Aparicio F. and Sánchez F.J.  Comparison of GHG emissions from diesel, biodiesel and natural gas refuse trucks of the City of Madrid. Applied Energy. 2009; 86::610615.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. NREL (1998, May). National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Life cycle inventory of biodiesel and petroleum diesel for use in an urban bus, US Department of Energy (DoE), Final Report.
  16. Meier P.J.  et al. US electric industry response to carbon constraint: a life-cycle assessment of supply side alternatives. Energy Policy. 2005; 33::10991108.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Pre Consultans (2009). SimaPro 7.1 – The software tool to analyse and develop environmentally sound products, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
  18. Row J. et al. Life-Cycle Value Assessment (LCVA) of Fuel Supply Options for Fuel Cell Vehicles in Canada, Report, Pembina Institute, Canada, 2002, June. Retrieved from http://www.p2pays.org/ref/37/36488.pdf.
  19. Röder A. Integration of life-cycle assessment and energy planning models for the evaluation of car power-trains and fuels, Ph.D. Thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich 2001, Diss. ETH No. 14291, 2001.
  20. Working Group I (2007). The Physical Science, Basis Climate Change 2007, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
  21. Heather L., MacLean H.L. and Lave L.B.  Environmental implications of alternative-fueled automobiles: Air quality and greenhouse gas tradeoffs. Environ. Sci. Technol.. 2000; 34::225231. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es9905290-es9905290AF3
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Eco-friendly Solutions (2011). Retrieved from http://www.ecofriendlysolutions.com.au/pages/fuelcosts.asp.
  23. NG Australia (2011). Retrieved from http://www.natural-gas.com.au/business/fuelcost.htm.
  24. CNG Fuelling (2011). Retrieved from http://www.cngstations.com/cng-fueling-stations.
  25. Zeninskii A.M. and Nurmukhametova I.Z. Methods for determining factors in growth of labour productivity, in Petroleum Refineries [in Russian], BashNII NP, Ufa, 1971.
  26. Wikipedia (2011). Oil Tanker, Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker.
  27. ADITRD (2008). Australian Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Freight rates in Australia from 1964–65 to 2007–08, Information Sheet 28, Nov. 2008, ISSN 1440–9593.
  28. Cornot-Gandolphe S. et al. The challenges of further cost reductions for new supply options (Pipeline, LNG, GTL), 22nd World Gas Conference, 1–5 June 2003, Tokyo, Japan, 2003.
  29. AFDC (2002). Alternative Fuels Data Centre, Natural Gas Training and Safety, US Department of Energy.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5339/stsp.2012.1
Loading
/content/journals/10.5339/stsp.2012.1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
Keyword(s): Gaseous fuel , Life-cycle approach , Sustainability and Transport
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error