4.8 Article

Regional On-Road Vehicle Running Emissions Modeling and Evaluation for Conventional and Alternative Vehicle Technologies

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 43, 期 21, 页码 8449-8455

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es900535s

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. EPA STAR [R831835]
  2. University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
  3. National Science Foundation [0230506, 0756263]
  4. EPA [908999, R831835] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER
  5. Directorate For Engineering
  6. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [0756263] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn
  8. Directorate For Engineering [0230506] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents a methodology for estimating high-resolution, regional on-road vehicle emissions and the associated reductions in air pollutant emissions from vehicles that utilize alternative fuels or propulsion technologies. The fuels considered are gasoline, diesel, ethanol, biodiesel, compressed natural gas, hydrogen, and electricity. The technologies considered are internal combustion or compression engines, hybrids, fuel cell, and electric. Road link-based emission models are developed using modal fuel use and emission rates applied to facility- and speed-specific driving cycles. For an urban case study, passenger cars were found to be the largest sources of HC, CO, and CO2 emissions, whereas trucks contributed the largest share of NO, emissions. When alternative fuel and propulsion technologies were introduced in the fleet at a modest market penetration level of 27%, their emission reductions were found to be 3-14%. Emissions for all pollutants generally decreased with an increase in the market share of alternative vehicle technologies. Turnover of the light duty fleet to newer Tier 2 vehicles reduced emissions of HC, CO, and NO, substantially. However, modest improvements in fuel economy may be offset by VMT growth and reductions in overall average speed.

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