Comparison of life cycle greenhouse gases from natural gas pathways for medium and heavy-duty vehicles.

The low-cost and abundant supply of shale gas in the United States has increased the interest in using natural gas for transportation. We compare the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from different natural gas pathways for medium and heavy-duty vehicles (MHDVs). For Class 8 tractor-trailers and refuse trucks, none of the natural gas pathways provide emissions reductions per unit of freight-distance moved compared to diesel trucks. When compared to the petroleum-based fuels currently used in these vehicles, CNG and centrally produced LNG increase emissions by 0-3% and 2-13%, respectively, for Class 8 trucks. Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) powered with natural gas-produced electricity are the only fuel-technology combination that achieves emission reductions for Class 8 transit buses (31% reduction compared to the petroleum-fueled vehicles). For non-Class 8 trucks (pick-up trucks, parcel delivery trucks, and box trucks), BEVs reduce emissions significantly (31-40%) compared to their diesel or gasoline counterparts. CNG and propane achieve relatively smaller emissions reductions (0-6% and 19%, respectively, compared to the petroleum-based fuels), while other natural gas pathways increase emissions for non-Class 8 MHDVs. While using natural gas to fuel electric vehicles could achieve large emission reductions for medium-duty trucks, the results suggest there are no great opportunities to achieve large emission reductions for Class 8 trucks through natural gas pathways with current technologies. There are strategies to reduce the carbon footprint of using natural gas for MHDVs, ranging from increasing vehicle fuel efficiency, reducing life cycle methane leakage rate, to achieving the same payloads and cargo volumes as conventional diesel trucks.

[1]  Andrew Burnham,et al.  Natural Gas Vehicles: Status, Barriers, and Opportunities , 2010 .

[2]  Robb A. Barnitt,et al.  Model-Based Analysis of Electric Drive Options for Medium-Duty Parcel Delivery Vehicles: Preprint , 2010 .

[3]  Lin Zhu,et al.  Analysis of Class 8 hybrid-electric truck technologies using diesel, LNG, electricity, and hydrogen, as the fuel for various applications , 2013, 2013 World Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition (EVS27).

[4]  W. Bunn,et al.  An evaluation of criteria for selecting vehicles fueled with diesel or compressed natural gas , 2009 .

[5]  E. Kort,et al.  Methane Leaks from North American Natural Gas Systems , 2014, Science.

[6]  Eben D Thoma,et al.  Assessment of methane emissions from oil and gas production pads using mobile measurements. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[7]  April Lee,et al.  Opportunities for Synergy Between Natural Gas and Renewable Energy in the Electric Power and Transportation Sectors , 2012 .

[8]  James Thomas,et al.  Measurements of methane emissions at natural gas production sites in the United States , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  James J Winebrake,et al.  Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  W. Bunn,et al.  A comparison of emissions from vehicles fueled with diesel or compressed natural gas. , 2008, Environmental science & technology.

[11]  David E. Smith,et al.  Fuel Consumption and Cost Savings of Class 8 Heavy-Duty Trucks Powered by Natural Gas , 2013 .

[12]  Zhiming Gao,et al.  Simulated Fuel Economy and Emissions Performance during City and Interstate Driving for a Heavy-Duty Hybrid Truck , 2013 .

[13]  James J Winebrake,et al.  Total Fuel-Cycle Analysis of Heavy-Duty Vehicles Using Biofuels and Natural Gas-Based Alternative Fuels , 2011, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[14]  Soyoung Ahn,et al.  Improving the accuracy of vehicle emissions profiles for urban transportation greenhouse gas and air pollution inventories. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[15]  Jessika E. Trancik,et al.  Climate impacts of energy technologies depend on emissions timing , 2014 .

[16]  Lester B. Lave,et al.  Evaluating automobile fuel/propulsion system technologies , 2003 .

[17]  Hengbing Zhao,et al.  Analysis of Class 8 truck technologies for their fuel savings and economics , 2013 .

[18]  Matthew P Fraser,et al.  Methane emissions from process equipment at natural gas production sites in the United States: pneumatic controllers. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[19]  Scot M. Miller,et al.  Anthropogenic emissions of methane in the United States , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[20]  Phillip Sharer,et al.  Evaluation of fuel consumption potential of medium and heavy duty vehicles through modeling and simulation. , 2010 .

[21]  Winston Harrington,et al.  Improving Fuel Economy in Heavy-Duty Vehicles , 2012 .

[22]  Trevor Pryor,et al.  Life-cycle assessment of diesel, natural gas and hydrogen fuel cell bus transportation systems , 2007 .

[23]  Pamela L. Spath,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment of Hydrogen Production via Natural Gas Steam Reforming , 2000 .

[24]  Haibo Zhai,et al.  Comparing real-world fuel consumption for diesel- and hydrogen-fueled transit buses and implication for emissions , 2007 .

[25]  Anna Lee Deal,et al.  What Set of Conditions Would Make the Business Case to Convert Heavy Trucks to Natural Gas? - a Case Study , 2012 .

[26]  Greg Rideout,et al.  Greenhouse gas emissions from heavy-duty vehicles , 2008 .

[27]  Paulina Jaramillo,et al.  Uncertainty in life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from United States natural gas end-uses and its effects on policy. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[28]  Alissa Kendall,et al.  Time-adjusted global warming potentials for LCA and carbon footprints , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[29]  Harry C. Watson,et al.  Fuel-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from alternative fuels in Australian heavy vehicles , 2002 .

[30]  Margaret K. Mann,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment of a Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Power Generation System , 2000 .

[31]  Dominik Karbowski,et al.  Modeling the Hybridization of a Class 8 Line-Haul Truck , 2010 .

[32]  Arpad Horvath,et al.  Bias of averages in life-cycle footprinting of infrastructure: truck and bus case studies. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[33]  C. Weber,et al.  Life cycle carbon footprint of shale gas: review of evidence and implications. , 2012, Environmental science & technology.

[34]  Randall Guensler,et al.  Load-Based Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculator for Transit Buses: An Atlanta, GA, Case Study , 2013 .

[35]  Christian Solli,et al.  Alternative "global warming" metrics in life cycle assessment: a case study with existing transportation data. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[36]  Nadine Unger,et al.  Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions , 2009, Science.

[37]  J. Fuglestvedt,et al.  Alternatives to the Global Warming Potential for Comparing Climate Impacts of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases , 2005 .

[38]  Anthropogenic Emissions , 1998 .

[39]  Matthew P Fraser,et al.  Methane emissions from process equipment at natural gas production sites in the United States: liquid unloadings. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[40]  Christina Davies,et al.  Assessment of the Greenhouse Gas Emission Benefits of Heavy Duty Natural Gas Vehicles in the United States , 2005 .