4.8 Article

Well-to-wheel greenhouse gas implications of mid-level ethanol blend deployment in Canada's light-duty fleet

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110012

关键词

Ethanol; Canada; GHG; LCA; Light-duty fleet; Cellulosic; GHG emission target

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Replacing conventional gasoline with mid-level ethanol blends (15-30% ethanol by volume) can reduce fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions but require vehicle compatibility. This study quantifies the changes in fuel volumes and well-to-wheel (WTW) GHG emissions associated with potential mid-level ethanol blend deployment in Canada's light-duty vehicle fleet from 2018 to 2030. We develop a Canadian fleet model that projects the number of vehicles by vehicle technology and production year from 2015 to 2030, their fuel blend compatibilities, and their annual fuel use, considering the potential effects of ethanol blend level on vehicle fuel consumption and associated GHG emissions. The results show that the deployment of low and mid-level ethanol blends, such as E10, E15 or E25, could reduce petroleum gasoline use by 12% in 2030, while tripling ethanol use, from 2.6 to 7.2 billion liters annually. Incorporating emission factors from the GHGenius model suggests that mid-level blends can reduce fleet WTW GHG emissions in 2030 by 7.2% assuming the use of corn and wheat ethanol, and by up to 13.4% assuming cellulosic ethanol. The octane enhancing effect of ethanol is responsible for up to 30% of the reductions. Achieving the above reductions would require coordination among vehicle manufacturers, refiners and policymakers. Overall, mid-level blends can materially reduce GHG emissions of the Canadian light-duty fleet, but represent less than 1/5 of the reductions required for the light-duty fleet to achieve emissions that are 30% below 2005 levels (Canada's pledge under the Paris Agreement).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据