A Pareto analysis approach to assess relevant marginal CO2 footprint for petroleum products

Abstract Recently, linear programing (LP) models have been extended to track the marginal CO2 intensity of automotive fuels at the refinery gate. The obtained CO2 data are recommended for policy making because they capture the economic and environmental tensions as well as the processing effects related to oil products. However, they are proven to be extremely sensitive to small perturbations and therefore useless in practice. In this paper, we first investigate the theoretical reasons of this drawback. Then, we develop a multiple objective LP framework to assess relevant marginal CO2 footprints that preserve both defensibility and stability at a satisfactory level of acceptance. A case study illustrates this new methodology.

[1]  Alireza Tehrani Nejad Moghaddam,et al.  Allocating the CO2 emissions of an oil refinery with Aumann-Shapley prices: Comment , 2010 .

[2]  M. AlirezaTehraniNejad,et al.  Allocation of CO2 emissions in petroleum refineries to petroleum joint products: A linear programming model for practical application , 2007 .

[3]  A. T. Nejad.  Allocation of CO2 Emissions in Joint Product Industries via Linear Programming: a Refinery Example , 2007 .

[4]  Dov Samet,et al.  An Application of the Aumann-Shapley Prices for Cost Allocation in Transportation Problems , 1984, Math. Oper. Res..

[5]  Álvaro Gomes,et al.  Operational research models and methods in the energy sector—Introduction to the special issue , 2008 .

[6]  Vincent Mahieu,et al.  Well-to-wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the european context , 2004 .

[7]  A. Messac,et al.  The normalized normal constraint method for generating the Pareto frontier , 2003 .

[8]  A. Pierru.  Economics and the Refinery's CO2 Emissions Allocation Problem , 2007 .

[9]  Richard Tilagone,et al.  A Detailed Well to Wheel Analysis of CNG Compared to Diesel Oil and Gasoline for the French and the European Markets , 2007 .

[10]  Valérie Saint-Antonin,et al.  Factors driving refinery CO2 intensity, with allocation into products: comment , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[11]  Jasbir S. Arora,et al.  Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering , 2004 .

[12]  A. Pierru,et al.  Allocating the CO2 Emissions of an Oil Refinery with Aumann-Shapley Prices , 2007 .

[13]  Glynn J. Sundararaj,et al.  Ability of Objective Functions to Generate Points on Nonconvex Pareto Frontiers , 2000 .

[14]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Lights and shadows in consequential LCA , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[15]  Alireza Tehrani Nejad Moghaddam,et al.  Impact of tightening the sulfur specifications on the automotive fuels' CO2 contribution: A French refinery case study , 2008 .

[16]  J. Dennis,et al.  A closer look at drawbacks of minimizing weighted sums of objectives for Pareto set generation in multicriteria optimization problems , 1997 .

[17]  Larry Bredeson,et al.  Factors driving refinery CO2 intensity, with allocation into products , 2010 .

[18]  Adisa Azapagic,et al.  Linear programming as a tool in life cycle assessment , 1998 .

[19]  A. Messac,et al.  Aggregate Objective Functions and Pareto Frontiers: Required Relationships and Practical Implications , 2000 .