4.7 Article

Greenhouse gas implications of using coal for transportation: Life cycle assessment of coal-to-liquids, plug-in hybrids, and hydrogen pathways

期刊

ENERGY POLICY
卷 37, 期 7, 页码 2689-2695

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.03.001

关键词

Coal; Transportation; Greenhouse gases

资金

  1. US National Science Foundation [0628084]
  2. Pennsylvania Infrastructure Technology Alliance
  3. Blue Moon Fund
  4. Steinbrenner Institute for Environmental Education
  5. Teresa Heinz Scholars for Environmental Research Program
  6. National Science Foundation [SES-0345798]
  7. Carnegie Mellon University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using coal to produce transportation fuels could improve the energy security of the United States by replacing some of the demand for imported petroleum. Because of concerns regarding climate change and the high greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with conventional coal use, policies to encourage pathways that utilize coal for transportation should seek to reduce GHGs compared to petroleum fuels. This paper compares the GHG emissions of coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuels to the emissions of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) powered with coal-based electricity, and to the emissions of a fuel cell vehicle (FCV) that uses coal-based hydrogen. A life cycle approach is used to account for fuel cycle and use-phase emissions, as well as vehicle cycle and battery manufacturing emissions. This analysis allows policymakers to better identify benefits or disadvantages of an energy future that includes coal as a transportation fuel. We find that PHEVs could reduce vehicle life cycle GHG emissions by up to about one-half when coal with carbon capture and sequestration is used to generate the electricity used by the vehicles. On the other hand, CTL fuels and coal-based hydrogen would likely lead to significantly increased emissions compared to PHEVs and conventional vehicles using petroleum-based fuels. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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