Cars and ground-level ozone: how do fuels compare?

IntroductionAn important question for policy-makers is how the main automotive fuels – diesel, gasoline, LPG (and increasingly, electricity) – compare in terms of ground-level ozone formation.MethodsBased on recent, equivalent emissions data, the study compares ozone formation on a per-kilometre basis of the main fuels: gasoline, diesel, liquefied petroleum gas and electricity (the latter in the United Kingdom).ResultsConsidering tailpipe emissions only, gasoline’s and LPG’s per-kilometre ozone impact is 44–88% of diesel’s, while LPG’s is slightly lower than gasoline’s. If fuel production and tailpipe emissions are added together, the liquid fuels generate 48–80% of electricity’s impact, i.e. the electric car’s ozone impact is highest. The liquids’ ozone-impact rankings are the same as for tailpipe only, from most to least: diesel, gasoline, LPG.ConclusionsChanging the fuel/energy type of a passenger car changes its emission inventory, so this could be a useful policy in combating ozone, i.e. governments could encourage some fuels/energies and discourage others. Based on the results shown above, a priority ranking of the main types, from best to worst in the United Kingdom, is: LPG, gasoline, diesel and battery electric. For electric, this ranking will vary in other regions, depending on the emissions of the power-generation grid. For the liquid fuels, the rankings are valid for Europe and North America in general. Impact assessment of ozone is complex, because the chemistry of its formation is complex. This complexity is only partially incorporated in existing impact assessment methods.

[1]  D. Kewley,et al.  Photochemical ozone formation in the Sydney airshed , 1978 .

[2]  Matthias Schulz,et al.  Evolution of disposable baby diapers in Europe: life cycle assessment of environmental impacts and identification of key areas of improvement , 2015 .

[3]  Michael H. Depledge,et al.  Ground-level ozone in the 21st century: future trends, impacts and policy implications , 2008 .

[4]  M Alireza Tehrani Nejad,et al.  A Pareto analysis approach to assess relevant marginal CO2 footprint for petroleum products , 2015 .

[5]  M. Jenkin,et al.  Analysis of the relationship between ambient levels of O3, NO2 and NO as a function of NOx in the UK , 2001 .

[6]  Velma I. Grover,et al.  Ground-Level Ozone , 2012 .

[7]  D Carslaw,et al.  Remote sensing of NO 2 exhaust emissions from road vehicles , 2013 .

[8]  Philipp Preiss Photochemical Ozone Formation , 2015 .

[9]  Gregor Wernet,et al.  The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[10]  E. Helmers,et al.  Electric cars: technical characteristics and environmental impacts , 2012, Environmental Sciences Europe.

[11]  Florent Querini,et al.  Global, regional and local environmental impacts: LCA indicators for energy & mobility , 2011 .

[12]  R. Frischknecht,et al.  Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods. ecoinvent report No. 3, v2.2 , 2010 .

[13]  Markus Amann,et al.  Health risks of ozone from long-range transboundary air pollution. , 2008 .

[14]  Alexis Laurent,et al.  Impacts of NMVOC emissions on human health in European countries for 2000–2010: Use of sector-specific substance profiles , 2014 .

[15]  C Dimitroulopoulou,et al.  Long-term exposure to ambient ozone and mortality: a quantitative systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence from cohort studies , 2016, BMJ Open.

[16]  A. Lewis,et al.  Diesel-related hydrocarbons can dominate gas phase reactive carbon in megacities , 2015 .

[17]  D. Shindell,et al.  Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing , 2014 .