Evaluation of fuels - a systems perspective

CC-‐BY Per Olof Arnäs

Ins2tu2onen för Teknikens ekonomi och organisa2onAvdelningen för logis2k och transport

Evalua&on of fuels A systems perspec&ve

Per Olof Arnäs

Ins2tu2onen för Teknikens ekonomi och organisa2onAvdelningen för logis2k och transportCC-‐BY Per Olof Arnäs

Housing (7 m2 per person)

Food (self sufficient)

1900

Posessons2011

Källa, delvis: Naturvårdsverket

Housing (47 m2 per person)

Food (import, exo&c fruits etc.)

Skiing equipment

Surfing equipment

Computer

Camera

TV

Satellite receiver

DVD

Video

Mobile phone

Telephone

Mountainbike

Car

Air travels

Food processor

Electric stove

Microwave oven

Dishwasher

Refridgerator/freezer

Washing machine

Summer house

Video games

Lawn mower


Problem areasEnergy

Environment

Supply


Demands on alterna&ve fuels

Low environmental impact Cost neutral

High energy content

AccessibilitySufficient volumes

Renewable


Which fuel is best?

0

25

50

75

100

Fuel A Fuel B

CO2NOxPar2cles


Systems perspec&veComparing fuels is complex

From a user viewpoint, several different demands need to MEET

A systems perspec&ve is needed


MONEYENVIRONMENTETHICSTECHNOLOGY

MEET-‐model


Monetary factors

Cost per km

Supply op&ons (several fuel suppliers)

Filling infrastructure

Economic life-‐span of vehicle

Second-‐hand value of vehicle

Maintenance cost

Investment cost




Environmental proper&es of fuels

Emissions when combus&ng, manufacturing, transpor&ng and handling the fuelCO2, NOx, Par&cles, Hydro carbons, Sulphur etc.

Toxicity

Displacement effectsThe raw material can be needed elsewhere

Renewability

Degradability on leakages and spills

Local environmental effects in produc&on

hMp://aworldofprogress.com/wp-‐content/uploads/2010/01/environment.jpg


Correct marke&ng

Regional effects

Social effects of produc&on, transport and handling

Displacement effects

Origin of raw material

Ethical factors influencing fuel selec&on



Standardised specifica&on

Aggrega&on state (liquid, solid, gas)

Agression/corrosion/oxida&on

Temperature proper&es

Lubrica&on proper&esEngine technology

Heat value

Technological proper&es of fuels



Prerequisites for es&ma&on

No changes in tax regula&ons

Deprecia&on &me for a heavy duty machine is

10-‐16 years

Deprecia&on &me for a heavy vehicle is 5-‐8 years

Comparison with standard diesel (Mk1)



Money Ethics TechnologyTechnologyInvestment cost Origin Heat value

Maintenance cost Displacement effects ? Engine technology

Second-‐hand value ? ? Social effects Lubrica2on

Economic life-‐span ? Regional effects Temperature

Infrastructure Correct marke2ng ? Corrosiveness

Supply ? Solid/Fluid/Gaseous FCost/km Stand. spec.

BeMer compared to MK 1Worse compared to MK 1EqualNo data?


Example of comparisonEnvironment

CO2

NOx

Par2cles

Degradable

Renewable

Displacement effects

Toxicity

?

?



Renewable fuels

Image: Aspen petroleum

EthanolC₂H₅OH

HydrogenH₂

DMEDimetyl ether

BiogasMethane, CH₄

Synthe&c DieselSynthe&c hydrocarbons (FT-‐diesel)

Vegetabilic oilFAME, for example RME

MethanolCH₃OH

GASESFLUIDS


Short term, 5-‐10 years

RME/FAME (< 10%)

Synthe&c diesel

Electric hybridsAddi&on enginePower source for equipment

Pine oil


Long term, 10-‐20 years

MDEMethane Diesel Engine

Biogas

MethanolDMEDimetyl ether

Hydrogen?


Four strategies to reduce the environmental footprint of transporta&on

Use less fuelEduca&onFeedback/follow-‐up system

U&lise vehicles more efficientlyPlanning systems

Informa&on sharing throughout the chain

Use alterna&ve sources of energyLimited availabilityWarran&es from engine manufacturers

Reduce distances in &meResolve conges&on

Use low-‐intensity periodsRedirect traffic dynamically

Image: Aspen Petroleum


Filling sta&on of the future

TRB 1994



Thank youPer Olof Arnäs

about.me/perolofarnas

Evaluation of fuels - a systems perspective

Technology

Transcript of Evaluation of fuels - a systems perspective