Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emission of Alternative Vehicle Fuels in Thailand Using Well to Wheel Assessment

Abstract:

Energy consumption and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) of major Alternative vehicle fuels (AVFs) in Thailand are estimated and compared with conventional fuels by means of full Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The tool utilized here is the Well-to-Wheels (WtW) module of own model covering the entire lifecycle including: raw materials cultivation (or feedstock collection); fuel production; transportation and distribution; and application in automobile engines (ICE and hybrid engine), compared with conventional petroleum-based gasoline and diesel pathways. The model is based on Thailand’s national conditions with Tsinghua-CA3EM model. Part of this model structure has been adjusted to Thailand specific situations. Therefore, a majority of the parameters have been modified with local Thailand data. Results showed that the all alternative vehicle fuels can reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions compared to conventional fuels. Hybrid ICE engine to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions when compared to the ICE engine. Biofuels-ICE engine, especially bioethanol from molasses, had the highest reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions. LPG- Hybrid ICE engine had the highest reduce energy consumption.

• Periodical: Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 524-527)
• Pages: 2538-2544
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.524-527.2538
• Online since: May 2012
• Authors: Worayut Saibuatrong, Thumrongrut Mungcharoen
• Keywords: Alternative Vehicle Fuels, Energy Consumption (EC), Greenhouse Gas (GHG), Life Cycle Assessment, Thailand, Well to Wheel

References

[1] T.Nguyen, H. Shabbir: Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008), pp.1814-1821

[2] Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency: Thailand energy situation 2008. Ministry of Energy, Bangkok, Thailand (2008)

[3] X.Oua, X.Yan and X. Zhang Liu: Applied energy 90 (2012), pp.218-224

[4] S. Sripetpun: Estimation of the Greenhouse gases emissions in Thailand. Thesis Master of engineering in Environmental Engineering, Suranaree University of Technology, Thailand (2002)

[5] A.Evanthia, J. Christopher: Journal of Cleaner Production (2011), pp.1-6

[6] S. Campanari, G. Manzolini and F.Garcia: Journal of Power Sources 186, (2009) p.464–477

[7] X. Ou, X. Zhang, S. Chang and Q. Guo: Applied Energy 86 (2009), pp.197-208

[8] Ecoinvent: Final report ecoinvent 2000.SimaPro 7.0, Amersfoort

[9] Thailand Environmental Institute: Life Cycle Assessment of Ethanol from Cassava and Sugar Cane. Bangkok, Thailand (2008)

[10] National Metal and Materials Technology Center.: Thailand Life Cycle Inventory Database. Phatumthanee, Thailand.

[11] W. Siemers: Technical, Economic and Environmental Evaluation of Biofuel Production in Thailand. King Mongkut´s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand (2010)

[12] S. Papong, T. Chom-In, S. Noksanga and P. Malakul: Energy Policy 38 (2010), p.226–233

[13] T. Nguyen and H. Gheewala: Journal of Cleaner Production (2008), pp.1-8

[14] V. Karom: Environmental and Energy Performance Comparison of Compressed and Liquefied Natural Gas using Life Cycle Assessment Technique. Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand (2009)

[15] Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Mobile Sources.: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Vol. II, Mobile Sources, Fifth edition, AP-42, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, September (1995).

[16] X. Ou and X. Zhang: Energy Policy 38 (2010), p.406–418

[17] F. Marco, G. Massimo: Energy 35 (2010), pp.4156-4171