IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/energy/v133y2017icp1132-1141.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Life cycle environmental and economic impact assessment of alternative transport fuels and power-train technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Sharma, Ashish
  • Strezov, Vladimir

Abstract

Assessment of the sustainability of alternative transport fuels is essential for directing the development while reducing their impacts. The aim of this paper is to assess the environmental and economic life cycle impacts of alternative transport fuels and compare with conventional fuels. The sustainability assessment was performed for selected fuels, including diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum gas, biodiesel, ethanol, hydrogen, fuel cell and electricity, using SimaPro 8.05 life cycle assessment software and Recipe methodology. The study revealed the highest environmental impacts for ethanol flexi fuel technology, followed by biodiesel at close to 80% to the ethanol impacts, liquefied petroleum gas at 45%, gasoline at 30%, diesel at 25%, electricity at 15%, compressed natural gas at 5%, and the minimum for hydrogen technology with only 3% of environmental impacts comparing to ethanol. The total economic costs (including capital costs and operating costs) on per km basis are the highest for battery electric vehicles (electricity fuel) followed by ethanol based flexi fuel vehicles, biodiesel, diesel, gasoline, compressed natural gas, hydrogen (fuel cell) and the minimum for liquefied petroleum gas. The combined environmental and economic impacts revealed hydrogen fuel cell is the best performing fuel technology with only 3% of the impacts of ethanol.

Suggested Citation

  • Sharma, Ashish & Strezov, Vladimir, 2017. "Life cycle environmental and economic impact assessment of alternative transport fuels and power-train technologies," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 1132-1141.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:133:y:2017:i:c:p:1132-1141
    DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.160
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544217307375
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.160?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:133:y:2017:i:c:p:1132-1141. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/energy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.